An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

APPLICANT : DONEGAL COUNTY COUNCIL

PROPOSED SCHEME : N56 LEITIRMACAWARD TO GLENTIES (KILRAINE) ROAD IMPROVEMENT SCHEME.

INSPECTOR: KEVIN MOORE

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 1 of 95

CONTENTS

Page

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 4

1.1 The Need for the Development 4 1.2 The Scheme 4 1.3 Route Selection 5 1.4 Route Description 5 1.5 Junctions 7 1.6 Drainage 7

2.0 LOCATION OF THE ROUTE 7

3.0 OBJECTIONS 8

3.1 Les Winters 8 3.2 Connell Keys 8 3.3 Michael Duddy 8 3.4 John & Marie Cannon 8 3.5 Helen & Sean Bonner 9 3.6 Kevin McCready 9 3.7 Joe Gallagher 9 3.8 Templecrone Co_Operative Agricultural Society 9 3.9 Patricia Melley 10 3.10 Patricia Watson 10 3.11 Paul Burns 10 3.12 Nan Boyle 10 3.13 Ian & Deirdre Vincent 11 3.14 Neil Quinn/John Quinn 11 3.15 Joe McGrath 11 3.16 Daniel Martin Kennedy 11 3.17 Michael Byrne 12 3.18 Frank & Anne Connaghan 12 3.19 Mary Gallagher 13 3.20 Martina Rodgers 13 3.21 John Rodgers 13 3.22 John Ignatius Boyle 14 3.23 Mary Ward 14 3.24 Kieran Kelly 14 3.25 Patrick & Ann Brown 15 3.26 David & Cornelia Bennett 15

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 2 of 95 3.27 Margaret McDyer 15 3.28 Richard T. Hanlon 15 3.29 Julie McDyer 16

4.0 ASSESSMENT 17

4.1 Introduction 17 4.2 Compulsory Purchase and the Impacts on Property 17 4.3 Need for an EIS and the Issue of Project Splitting 30 4.4 Compliance with Transportation Policy 31 4.5 Need for the Scheme 41 4.6 Compliance with Design Standards for Roads and Cycleways 41 4.7 Alternatives 44 4.8 Impact on Natura 2000 Sites and Overall Ecological Impact Impact 47 4.9 Landscape and Visual Impact 61 4.10 Residential, Business and Community Impacts 65 4.11 Impact on Agriculture 68 4.12 Impact on Cultural Heritage 68 4.13 Land Requirements 69 4.14 Environmental Impact Assessment 69 4.15 Conclusions 79

5.0 RECOMMENDATION 81

APPENDIX 1 – OUTLINE REPORT OF THE ORAL HEARING 83

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 3 of 95 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

1.1 The Need for the Development

The National Secondary Road N56 links the towns of Donegal in south-west Donegal with Letterkenny in the north-east. The existing route between Leitirmacaward and Glenties falls short of the standard expected for a national route. For much of the route the existing road is between 5.5m and 6.0m wide and a lot of the road is characterised by sharp bends, frequently in combination with sharp crests and dips. Much of the road is a bog rampart road and hard strips, shoulders or verges are rarely present. Accesses onto the existing road are frequent and are of a diverse nature and, for many, visibility is well below standard.

1.2 The Scheme

The scheme comprises the upgrading of the N56 between Leitirmacaward and the Kilraine Junction south of Glenties to Type 3 Single Carriageway Standard, consisting of approximately 15.3km of Type 3 Single Carriage (T3SC) for the N56, 1km of realigned side roads, and 15.3km of cycle track. Of the 15.3km, 10.7km will be online widening and 4.6km will be offline. 10.5km of the new cycletrack will be new construction alongside the T3SC road and 4.8km will use either the existing N56 or other local roads.

The new Type 3 Single Carriageway cross-section typically comprises the following:

• 2 x 3.0m carriageway • 2 x 0.5m hard strips • 1 x 2.5m verge • 1 x 5.0m verge incorporating a 2.5m cycleway

The overall width is 14.5m with a pavement width of 8.0m. Where a right turn lane is proposed along the mainline, these lanes shall be included within the overall pavement cross-section width.

In summary the scheme includes:

• 25 no. road junctions (two at-grade priority junctions with ghost island and 23 no. at-grade priority junctions); • 3 new bridges – Maas South, Maas Bridge, and Gortnamucklagh (Sruhangarve); • 2 widening/modification of existing bridges – Gweebarra Burn and Mullinerin; • 3 existing bridges unaffected – Gweebarra, Glenties Main Street, and Kilraine; • 32km of walls/fences; • 2 no. controlled viewing areas at Gweebarra and Maas; • 62.4ha of land acquisition (15.3ha of which is existing roadway).

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 4 of 95 Three derelict properties are proposed to be demolished to accommodate the scheme.

New road drainage is to be provided for the full length of the route. Approximately 45km of new drainage (ditches/swales/pipes) will be provided. 21 culvert crossings will also be provided.

Suitable construction compound locations are to be identified at detailed design stage and will be decided by the contractor.

Due to the scale and nature of the scheme and the expected funding profile, it is likely that the scheme will be constructed on a phased basis. It is anticipated that the scheme would be developed over a period of five years, depending on seasonal restrictions. Normal working hours are expected to apply, namely 07.00-19.00 Monday to Friday and 08.00 to 16.30 on Saturdays. Works outside these hours would be permitted in special circumstances.

1.3 Route Selection

With the focus primarily on online improvements, a formal route selection process was not pursued. The offline alternative options were assessed against a range of criteria and a preferred option was selected on the basis of a comparison matrix.

1.4 Route Description

The scheme starts north of the village of Leitirmacaward at Ch 12,400. The design through the village envisages the T3SC with no separation between the cycletrack and the new road. The existing footpath on the right hand side is to be retained.

After leaving the village at Ch 13,300 there will be some construction within Toome Lough. It is proposed to maintain the cross section used through the village. At the end of this section (Ch 13,900) a fully offline section is proposed up to Ch 14,300 to eliminate a series of three 90 degree bends. Where possible the cycletrack diverts onto the existing N56. At Ch 14,300 the design again follows the existing N56 until Gweebarra Bridge at Ch 14,600. From Ch 13,900 to Gweebarra Bridge a 60kph speed limit will apply.

Gweebarra Bridge is approximately 190m long and cyclists will merge with the main road traffic for the bridge section as provision of a separate cycletrack by widening the bridge was seen as prohibitively expensive.

Immediately south of this bridge at Ch 14,900 is Gweebarra Burn Bridge. The design remains online to avoid impact on qualifying features of the cSAC. After this crossing, from Ch 14,900 to Ch 16,170, the design moves offline to avoid impacting on qualifying features of the cSAC. The road passes through a cutting approximately 9-10m deep. 70 degree side slopes are used through this cutting to avoid excessive excavation and land take. An existing local road junction on the left hand side is proposed to be diverted to Ch ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 5 of 95 15,360 to achieve junction visibility and standard gradients. The existing N56 for this section will serve as a cycleway and provide local access to four residential properties and to a small pier. Vehicular access from the existing N56 will be via a new junction at Ch 15,620.

From Ch 16,170 to Ch 17,000 the cycletrack rejoins the new road and the design remains online through another part of the cSAC. An existing local road leading to the townland of Kilkenny is accommodated at a new junction at Ch 16,350. From Ch 17,000 to Ch 17,800 a short offline section is provided to facilitate overtaking. The design then returns online and remains so between Ch 17,800 and Ch 20,500. At Ch 18,500 a new controlled viewing area is provided on the right hand side giving views over Gweebarra Estuary.

The R261 meets the new N56 at Ch 19,180 where an at grade ghost island priority junction is provided. The existing Maas River requires a short diversion and a new bridge structure at this location to allow for a 127m radius horizontal curve.

Two other local road junctions follow at Ch 19,300 (RHS) leading to Ardara and Ch 19350 (LHS) leading to Kilkenny. The existing Maas River crosses the N56 at this location and a new bridge structure is required to accommodate the crossing. The Maas River requires another short diversion from Ch 20,150 to Ch 20,280 together with a new culvert crossing the new N56.

At Ch 20,500 the new road again moves offline and begins rising at a gradient of up to 6% on embankments towards Letterlilly Hill. The design passes between the existing N56 and the enclosure at the peak of the hill via a 400m long cutting up to 8m deep. After passing the crest the design then begins to descend at a gradient of 4.7% until it meets again with the existing road at Ch 22,200. Two tie-ins to the existing N56 are provided at Ch 20,650 and Ch 21,950.

From Ch 22,200 the new road closely follows the line and level of the existing N56, widening to accommodate the T3SC and the cycletrack until it reaches the speed limits north of Glenties at Ch 25,050. A new bridge structure is provided over the Sruhanagarve River at Ch 24,400. No works are proposed within the village of Glenties.

The new road starts again at the existing speed limits south of Glenties at Ch 26,725 and continues online until the end of the scheme at Ch 29,300. Works from Ch 26,725 to Ch 27,850 include widening to accommodate the T3SC and the cycletrack. A separate cycletrack will be constructed alongside the existing Mullinerin Bridge over the Owenea River to minimise risk to the Freshwater Pearl Mussel. From Ch 27,850 to Ch 28,600 the existing N56 runs alongside the Owenea River. The cycletrack here is diverted to use an existing local road. Improvement works on the main road are limited to some localised verge widening to provide visibility and to provide new drainage measures to intercept and treat road surface water runoff.

It is proposed to close the existing local road at Ch 28,600. ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 6 of 95

The R262 junction is relocated slightly to Ch 29,050 to achieve standard junction visibility. The scheme terminates at the existing Kilraine River Bridge at Ch 29,300. No works are required to the existing bridge structure.

1.5 Junctions

The design provides for the retention of 17 existing junctions and the closure of 2 junctions. It also provides for the provision of 8 new junctions. Private residential entrances and agricultural field accesses are to be retained.

Ghost island junctions are proposed at the R261 and the R262.

1.6 Drainage

In general, an ‘over the edge’ drainage system is being used. This is drainage to open roadside drains and the system is in keeping with the existing drainage network. In environmentally sensitive locations, semi-urban areas, or where land take is constrained a closed drainage system utilizing concrete channel or kerb and gully methods are proposed to be employed. Where road runoff is to discharge to sensitive watercourses further treatment in the form of treatment ponds is proposed. The ponds are sized to store the ‘first flush’ runoff for at least a six hour period.

2.0 LOCATION OF THE ROUTE

The proposed route commences north of the village of Leitirmacaward and continues through the village after which it traverses a section of Toome Lough. A cSAC is then encroached as the route crosses the Gweebarra River estuary via the Gweebarra Bridge and onwards to the Gweebarra bends. The river and estuary lie within the West of Ardara/Maas Road cSAC. The route traverses the boundary of the cSAC as it makes its way to Maas where it crosses the Maas River at three locations. It continues on a southerly direction and passes along the boundary of the same cSAC again at Letterlilly. It then continues into Glenties, crossing the Stracashel River and then the Owenea River when leaving the town, both of which are part of the cSAC. The final stretch continues out of Glenties alongside the Owenea River as far as the junction at Kilraine.

This section of the N56 is poorly aligned and is narrow with frequent junctions and accesses.

I inspected the route corridor on 2 nd , 3 rd and 4 th April, 2012.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 7 of 95 3.0 OBJECTIONS

There were a total of 29 objections originally received by the Board. My assessment notes the withdrawals and outstanding objections and considers each. The matters of concern relating to the original objections submitted to the Board may be synopsized as follows:

3.1 Les Winters

CPO Ref. 189 a, b and c – Madavagh, Leitirmacaward

The Objector resides at Ballinacarrick, Doochary. The objection may be synopsized as follows:

- The improvement to the road at this location can be made by straightening out the bend on the other side. - The land remaining will be unusable. - The need for the road is questioned, as is the need for the cycle route. - Where filling is being sourced is also queried.

3.2 Connell Keys c/o McElhinney Valuers

CPO Ref. 172 a-f – Madavagh, Leitirmacaward

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

- Due to the scheme and land take there are serious concerns for the future use and viability of the shop premises and the Council is asked to consider purchasing the premises.

3.3 Michael Duddy c/o McElhinney Valuers

CPO Ref. 168 a, b – Madavagh, Leitirmacaward

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

- The scheme will have a detrimental effect by the land take in front of their home.

3.4 John & Marie Cannon

CPO Ref. 165 a-d, f-h – Madavagh, Leitirmacaward

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 8 of 95 - A series of questions are posed on how rock is to be removed, on drainage, driveway gradient, boundary treatment, entrance details, public lighting and treatment of fill.

3.5 Helen & Sean Bonner c/o McElhinney Valuers

CPO Ref. 167 a, b – Madavagh, Leitirmacaward

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

- The scheme will have a detrimental effect by the land take in front of their home.

3.6 Kevin McCready

CPO Ref. 390a – Meenagowan, Leitirmacaward

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

- The layout of the scheme will have a catastrophic effect on The Gweebarra Bar and café. The business relies on passing trade. The proposal allows only a cul-de- sac to serve the premises. Passing trade will be lost and this will force the closure of the business. - Discussions have taken place with the Council to allow a slip road and the Council has promised to consider it further. This proposal is acceptable.

3.7 Joe Gallagher

CPO Ref. 390A – Meenagowan, Leitirmacaward

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

- The CPO facilitates a scheme that will have an extreme negative impact on the objector’s grocery shop. - The proposed alignment shifts the route of the N56 a considerable distance away and allows only a cul-de-sac to service the property. The benefit of passing trade will be lost and the business will suffer. - Discussions have taken place with the Council to allow a slip road and the Council has promised to consider it further. This proposal is acceptable.

3.8 Templecrone Co-Operative Agricultural Society Ltd.

CPO Ref. 390a – Meenagowan, Leitirmacaward

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 9 of 95 - The scheme will have a detrimental impact on the objector’s business. The Cope relies heavily on passing trade. The realignment shifts the N56 a considerable distance away and allows only a cul-de-sac to serve the premises. - It is understood that discussions have taken place with the Council and neighbours to allow a slip road and the Council has promised to consider it further. This proposal may be acceptable as it allows customers the opportunity to drive past the business rather than turn down a dead end road.

3.9 Patricia Melley c/o McElhinney Valuers

CPO Ref. 163 a, b – Meenagowan, Leitirmacaward

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

- The land removes the last of the family land and the only opportunity to build a house.

3.10 Patricia Watson c/o McElhinney Valuers

CPO Ref. 153 a-c – Meenagowan, Leitirmacaward

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

- There are serious concerns about the proposed embankment / retaining wall at this location and the property effect.

3.11 Paul Burns c/o McElhinney Valuers

CPO Ref. 152 a-c – Meenagowan, Leitirmacaward

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

- There is a request to keep the encroachment on the site to a minimum or to eliminate it entirely. - There is a need for clarification on the level of the road versus the houses and the gradient of the driveway. - There are concerns about the overall impact on the objector’s home.

3.12 Nan Boyle c/o McElhinney Valuers

CPO Ref. 147 a, b, c, e – Meenagowan, Leitirmacaward

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 10 of 95 - Due to the severe impact on the objector’s house, the Council is asked to confirm the intention to acquire the house in the scheme.

3.13 Ian and Deirdre Vincent

CPO Ref.145 a and b – Kincrum, Gweebarra

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

- Information is sought on responsibility for the bypassed pieces of the N56 in this location, on road drainage, landscaping, use of leftover lands, effects of earth- moving operations on the objectors’ house, and services interruptions.

3.14 Neil Quinn (Deceased) – John Quinn (Legal Rep)

CPO Ref. 146a – Kindrum, Gweebarra

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

- Plans have been drawn up for building a house on the land and the acquisition will leave the site with less than 0.5 acres, leaving insufficient land for a septic tank and percolation area. As a result, planning permission cannot be acquired. - The land abuts Gweebarra Bay and River and there is concern the proposal may lead to pollution and damage to ecology.

3.15 Joe McGrath c/o McElhinney Valuers

CPO Ref. 125 a-f – Gortnasillagh, Glenties

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

- The expectation to get planning permission for a house on lands using the existing road entrance would be maintained. - Appropriate compensation for the loss of some of the best arable land on the farm would result. - Stone gate posts, gates to existing field entrances and road fencing would be replaced. - A cattle crush and loading pen would be replaced.

3.16 Daniel Martin Kennedy

CPO Ref. 112a-f - Maas, Glenties

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 11 of 95 - The elimination of direct access to the N56 will increase travelling distance from the objector’s dwelling and farmyard and will cause considerable inconvenience. - Silage bales are normally stored in a proposed land take area away from watercourses. The only practical alternative will require the construction of a bunded slab/effluent tank. - This field has been used for years as access to the strand/sea for recreational purposes and the scheme will affect this access. - There is concern about unauthorised overnight encampments on the service road and the removal of tree shelter, ditches, hedges, gates and piers. - Further concern is raised about the increased incline to the property and restriction of access for trailers and trucks.

3.17 Michael Byrne c/o McElhinney Valuers

CPO Ref. 416 a-c – Maas, Glenties

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

- Further information on property impacts, namely driveway levels to the service road, is sought. - A replacement agricultural entrance is sought. - The gradient of the driveway is of concern. - No details are provided on how the Council proposes to replace existing hedgerow and an entrance. - Concerns are raised about the width of the service road and the access to the retained lands across the road from the house.

3.18 Frank & Anne Connaghan

CPO Ref. 031a – Meenachallow, Glenties

- The CPO border is adjacent to the objectors’ entrance porch of the builders’ providers / DIY shop and runs through the staff and customer car park. While there is no objection to the road being placed back from the premises, there is concern about ownership of the ground immediately outside the business entrance and the subsequent lack of control over the future of the business should the need for repairs arise or should the Council decide to build, store materials or block access to the entrance. It is essential that access to the shop entrance is undisturbed. - Plot 031a is requested to be left with its current border and the CPO border line continues in a straight line along 031a and 031b rather than stepping back to the business entrance. - There is no objection to Plot 031b.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 12 of 95 - The current CPO map does not display the existing DIY business and the CPO notice incorrectly describes Plot 031a as part of the public road rather than part of the business curtilage.

3.19 Mary Gallagher

CPO Ref. 012 a and b – Derries, Glenties

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

- The amount of garden to be taken would be a huge loss as would trees and shrubs.

3.20 Martina Rodgers

CPO Ref. 447a – Derries, Glenties

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

- There is no objection to the scheme or to the local road being closed out at one end. The objection relates to the junction of the local road with the N56 which will be extremely dangerous as speed will substantially increase. The speed limit should be reduced to facilitate local traffic at the junction. - The road was re-routed in 2005 and re-tarred in 2011 and is of good quality and is adequate for its purpose.

3.21 John Rodgers

CPO Ref. 013a-d, f-k – Derries, Glenties

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

- The land take has huge implications for the objector’s small farm and takes the best land. The EIS notes the scheme will have a major impact on these lands. - Moving livestock will be more dangerous with increased speed. - The existing road has been realigned and was upgraded and is of good quality. There is a family concern about safety impacts arising from speeding. - The scheme will have a negative impact on the scenery and local economy. - The objector’s family will be significantly affected by the scheme. The Council reviewed options for this location with a proposed gateway layout with a design speed of 60kph suggested. This is agreed to as an alternative.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 13 of 95 3.22 John Ignatius Boyle c/o McElhinney Valuers

CPO Ref 014 a-d – Derries, Glenties

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

- The acquisition of land to facilitate a private residential entrance across his land is opposed.

3.23 Mary Ward

CPO Ref. 350 a and b – Derries, Glenties

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

- The objector has planning permission for a house on the plot. Realignment of the road in 2005 resulted in giving road frontage from the site. The road was again upgraded in 2011. On both occasions use of the site was given to facilitate roadworks. - Further road development may impact on the site by way of having to move the house or septic tank back to an area where flooding occurs. - Traffic will substantially increase and will be dangerous as the house and garden will be so near. - The beauty of the area will be lost due to increased vision lines. - The objector’s family will be significantly affected by the scheme. The Council reviewed options for this location with a proposed gateway layout with a design speed of 60kph suggested. This is agreed to as an alternative.

3.24 Kieran Kelly

CPO Ref. 351 a- e (Ref. 013e incorrectly assigned to John Rodgers) – Derries, Glenties

The objector is the owner of two dwellings affected by the CPO process. The objection may be synopsized as follows:

- The easternmost house (the objector’s home) will be drastically impacted on and will be no longer viable as a dwelling. It and its curtilage will have to be acquired. This will result also in the loss of a business as the house is a holiday rental property. - Any new access will create unworkable gradients. - There would be detrimental impacts by way of noise, general disturbance and visual impact. - The scheme will change the status of this scenic area and will increase traffic speeds thus raising safety concerns.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 14 of 95 - Road improvement works and upgrading were carried out in 2005 and 2011 and the existing road has a good surface and is adequate for its design speed of 60 kph. Other roads should be prioritized for works. - The N56 Mill Road Layout Options Report prepared after consultation with the Roads Authority is a viable and acceptable alternative to the objector and his family members in the area (Report attached). The option of a ‘Gateway Layout’ with a design speed of 60 kph would be in keeping with the existing situation and is the optimum option. The outcome of this option with the NRA is unknown.

3.25 Patrick & Ann Brown c/o McElhinney Valuers

CPO Ref. 461a – Derries, Glenties

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

- The speed limit is requested not to be in excess of 60km at this location. - No services or boundaries are to be interfered with.

3.26 David & Cornelia Bennett c/o McElhinney Valuers

CPO Ref. 449 a, b – Kilrean Upper, Glenties

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

- Clarification is sought on measures adopted in relation to snipe. - Clarification is sought that the objectors’ proposal to renovate the two storey house will not be affected.

3.27 Margaret McDyer c/o McElhinney Valuers

CPO Ref. 003 a-d – Kilrean Upper, Glenties

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

It is requested that

- The boundary is checked and the fence is replaced. - All land take will be returned without delay.

3.28 Richard T. Hanlon c/o McElhinney Valuers

CPO Ref. 345 a and b

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 15 of 95 - In relation to Davey Lane, current works have narrowed the entrance and a steep slope has been made that is detrimental. There was no consultation regarding these works. - Clarification is sought on the plans to restore the entrance and the gradients.

3.29 Julie McDyer c/o McElhinney Valuers

CPO Ref. 007 a – c – Kilrean Upper, Glenties

The objection may be synopsized as follows:

- The scheme and land take affects the development potential of the retained lands.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 16 of 95

4.0 ASSESSMENT

4.1 Introduction

It is noted that all of the objections received by the Board relate to the proposed acquisition of lands. There are no objections in principle against the totality of the scheme. Any concerns that could be viewed as being of a more general nature invariably relate to localised issues. While this assessment will firstly address the land acquisition concerns of Objectors, it is proposed then to consider a number of important planning matters that relate to the principle of the development.

4.2 Compulsory Purchase and the Impacts on Property

In relation to the totality of objections to be considered, the Board will note the following:

A total of 29 objections were originally received following the making of the application to the Board.

Templecrone Co-Operative Agricultural Society Ltd. formally withdrew its objection before the commencement of the Oral Hearing.

Mr. Michael McElhinney, Valuer, withdrew the following objections during the making of submissions on behalf of his clients at the Oral Hearing:

David & Cornelia Bennett John Ignatius Boyle Patricia Melley Patrick & Anne Brown Paul Burns Michael Byrne Michael Duddy Helen & Sean Bonner Kevin McCready Patricia Watson Margaret McDyer Joe McGrath

I note that certain understandings and agreements remained unclear in relation to the positions of the Objectors Connell Keys, Nan Boyle, Ian & Deirdre Vincent, Richard T. Hanlon, and Julie McDyer at the Oral Hearing. While the inference was at all times that, subject to these understandings and agreements being met, the objections would be ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 17 of 95 withdrawn, the objections were at no time formally withdrawn. Therefore, to be comprehensive in this assessment, I propose to address the issues raised by these Objectors.

The other objections that remain are from the following:

Les Winters John and Marie Cannon Joe Gallagher John Quinn Daniel Kennedy Frank and Anne Connaghan Martina Rodgers John Rodgers Mary Ward Kieran and Noreen Kelly Mary Gallagher

The objections are considered as follows:

Les Winters

The Objector raised concerns about the way the improvement was being carried out at Madavagh, Leitirmacaward, referring to the straightening of the road at this location being most appropriately carried out on the other side of a bend in the road. He has argued that the land remaining in his holding at this location will be unusable. He further questions the need for the road to dual carriageway status and for the cycleway. Finally, there was a concern raised about where filling was to be sourced and how hauling it from Gweedore will destroy roads. He has noted that previous road improvements were carried out three years ago and land was taken then.

The applicant, in a written response, submitted at the Hearing that the issues raised had been addressed in detailing the need for the scheme and the project appraisal.

In considering the applicant’s concern about the impact on his holding which lies to the east of the existing N56, I note that there is a balanced approach to the land take at this location, with the development affecting both sides of the road. Indeed, the land acquisition to the west of the road is significantly greater. In addition to this, I note the limitations of seeking to re-address the road alignment further west at this location due to the extent of existing rocky outcrop to the west of the existing road that can reasonably be avoided by the proposed alignment chosen. The issue, in my opinion, is one of compensation. The land take is clearly necessary for the development of the proposed scheme as designed. The principle of the design and cycleway option will be addressed later in my assessment. The sourcing of filling from available quarries is not a particular issue of concern as the key issue is one of proximity and haulage and it is my submission ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 18 of 95 that haulage using the established road network will be satisfactory to meet the needs of this development.

John and Marie Cannon

The Objectors from Madavagh, Leitirmacaward posed a series of questions on how rock is to be removed, on drainage, driveway gradient, boundary treatment, entrance details, public lighting and treatment of fill.

The applicant, in a written response, submitted at the Hearing that the Objectors had the proposed boundary line marked out on their property and it was confirmed that only small amounts of rock would be excavated adjacent to their property. It was stated that there will be minimal impact on the level of the lake at this location and new road drainage will be installed such that there will be no surface water runoff from the road to their property. It was further submitted in relation to their driveway that the tie in to the road would be realigned and grading would be provided to provide a safer access and egress. New boundaries are proposed to consist of timber post and rail fencing. It was acknowledged that 3-4 trees are to be felled at the end of the driveway and it was confirmed that there would be no public lighting as part of the scheme. It was noted that rockfill for the embankment within the lake would be left as a rock armour type finish. With the majority of existing trees and the high mound between the house and the road remaining, additional screening was seen as potentially not necessary. However, the applicant has committed to investigating this issue.

The Objectors’ property is particularly sensitive. It is sited adjoining Toome Lough which is proposed to be affected by the works and some curtilage of their property, including road frontage and lakeshore edge, is proposed to be acquired. The development of the scheme will also include the removal of some vegetation, which is clearly an important attribute to the privacy that is achieved on this site at present. There is a distinct methodology to be applied in the development of the scheme at this lakeshore location and there are many mitigation measures proposed to address and to avoid significant adverse impacts on this residential property. I note the content of the Objectors’ written submission to the Board. It is clear from the applicant’s response that the proposed alignment has been marked out on the plot as was requested. I further note that the Objectors’ submission comprises a number of questions and that the principle of the development is not opposed. I am satisfied to conclude that the proposed mitigation measures to minimise the effects on the lake and residential properties will not result in significant adverse impacts arising here and that specific accommodation measures for this property can be agreed with the property owners. I do, however, consider that additional natural screening will be needed to ensure the same degree of privacy is maintained for this property. This undoubtedly will be agreed as the works progress.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 19 of 95 Joe Gallagher

The Objector has a leasehold interest in a shop at Meenagowan, Leitirmacaward. He considers the CPO will facilitate a scheme that will have an extreme negative impact on the objector’s grocery shop. He notes the proposed alignment shifts the route of the N56 a distance away from the shop and allows only a cul-de-sac to service the property. He maintains the benefit of passing trade will be lost and the business will suffer as a consequence. He further notes that discussions have taken place with the Council to allow a slip road and the Council has promised to consider it further. That proposal is considered acceptable.

The applicant, in a written response, submitted at the Hearing that it had met with the Objector on several occasions and had developed a number of options to reduce the impact on the business. An acceptable “In-Out” service road with full access and egress at both junctions was developed and agreed to meet the parties concerns at this location. Details of the arrangement were included in the submission. It was acknowledged that there would be a departure from standards because of the proximity of a local road to the south, resulting in a reduced junction stagger length from 50m to 25m. It was stated that an application was made to the NRA and the departure was approved. The layout was subsequently incorporated into the scheme and the applicant understands this has addressed the concerns raised.

In considering the concerns raised, I note firstly that there were three original Objectors who have interests in commercial properties at this location, namely Joe Gallagher, Kevin McCready, and Templecrone Co-Operative Society. The latter two have withdrawn their objections. It is apparent that the new arrangement proposed in the applicant’s response submission to the Hearing addresses all three Objector’s concerns, albeit that Joe Gallagher has not formally withdrawn his objection. The proposed “In-Out” service road meets each Objector’s needs and has NRA approval. Furthermore, I had it confirmed by the applicant at the Hearing that the new agreed arrangement can be fully accommodated within the proposed land take, in association with the public road at this location, which is in the control of the applicant. Having regard to this, I am satisfied to conclude that the concerns of the Objector are addressed by these proposed revised arrangements.

John Quinn

Mr. Quinn is the legal representative of Neil Quinn (Deceased) who is the property owner of a plot of land at Kindrum, Gweebarra. It is submitted that plans have been drawn up for building a house on the land and the acquisition will leave the site with less than 0.5 acres, leaving insufficient land for a septic tank and percolation area and, as a result, planning permission cannot be acquired. As the land abuts Gweebarra Bay and River, there is a concern the proposal may lead to pollution and damage to ecology.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 20 of 95 The applicant, in a written response, submitted at the Hearing that the lands are necessary for the construction of the project and if rendered unsuitable for planning this will be addressed by compensation. It was noted that an EIS had been prepared and impacts and mitigation measures were examined.

The Objector’s land is in the immediate vicinity of the public parking area lying to the south of Gweebarra Bridge. The land immediately abuts the Gweebarra River. There is no structure on the property and it is apparent from the Objector’s submission that there is no outstanding permission for a dwelling on this plot. In the event of any proposal for a dwelling being pursued on this plot, it is a matter for the planning authority in the first instance to so determine such a proposal. The effects of the proposed scheme on this plot are a matter of compensation and there is no other significant issue arising from the proposed acquisition. The land take will involve the acquisition of necessary lands to pursue the scheme at this location.

Daniel Kennedy

The Objector’s property is at Maas, Glenties. Concerns relate to the increase in travel distance by the elimination of direct access to the N56 causing inconvenience for the dwelling and farmyard at this location, the need for a bunded slab/effluent tank because an area where silage bales are normally stored is to be removed, access to the sea will be affected, unauthorised overnight encampments could occur, removal of trees, ditches, gates and piers will result, and there will be an increased incline to the property with restriction of access for trailers and trucks.

The applicant, in a written response given at the Hearing, noted that the existing entrance is substandard. It was submitted that the design includes for a service road that will pick up three accesses and take them east to a point where full 160m stopping sight distance is available. The provision of the service road is seen as an important safety feature of the project. It was noted that the design will include replacement fencing and hedging, field gates and crossing points, and new drainage. It was stated that the service road is being designed as close as possible to the main road to minimise land take. It was submitted that the service road could be gated and locked to reduce the risk of unauthorised parking. Finally, it was submitted that mature trees will not be affected by the new road at this location and the driveway will be realigned in consultation with the Objector.

In considering the Objector’s issues, I note firstly that there are number of accesses onto the national route at this location and I note the poor alignment of the public road. The development of this scheme, which facilitates a primarily on-line improvement at this location, must address the serious traffic hazard that exists at this location in relation to these established access points. It is my submission that the applicant, in the pursuit of this scheme, can only reasonably pursue the development in the manner proposed. While there may be some inconvenience due to the need for a safe access onto the national road, leading to the need for a service access road, this invariably will result from the need to ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 21 of 95 provide safe access arrangements for all property owners at this location. While this inconvenience caused may be a consideration for compensation, the issue of road safety will be greatly improved by the arrangements being proposed. I accept that the land take has been kept to a minimum at this location with the proposed service road running parallel to the main road. In relation to the other matters raised, much can be addressed by appropriate accommodation works which can be facilitated within the proposed land take. I further note that the extensive mitigation measures include reinstatement or replacing of fencing, engaging in consultation with landowners on construction arrangements, detailed drainage proposals, etc. I am satisfied that the Objector’s concerns can be reasonably addressed in the development of the scheme and that public safety will be greatly improved due to the new access arrangements.

Frank and Anne Connaghan

The Objectors have a builders providers / DIY shop at Meenacallow at the east end of Glenties. The concerns relate to the CPO border being adjacent to the entrance porch and running through the staff and customer car park. There is concern about ownership of the ground immediately outside the business entrance and the subsequent lack of control over the future of the business should the need for repairs arise or should the Council decide to build, store materials or block access to the entrance. Plot 031a is requested to be left with its current border and the CPO border line is requested to continue in a straight line along 031a and 031b rather than stepping back to the business entrance.

The applicant, in a written response, submitted at the Hearing that there will be no change to the shop access and that the frontage area will rather be increased as the road is moving 3m further away from the shop front. It was agreed that the amount of land required can be reduced as requested such that part of Plot 031a is to be removed. A revised map was submitted.

While the Objectors have not formally withdrawn their objection, it is my submission that the principal concerns have now been addressed by the details submitted by the applicant at the Oral Hearing. It is apparent that access arrangements will not be adversely affected and, indeed, that frontage visibility for the commercial premises is likely to be enhanced.

Martina Rodgers, John Rodgers, Mary Ward, and Kieran and Noreen Kelly

These Objectors as a family have focused much of their submissions on land take and on a particular road design option at Derries, Glenties known as the ‘Gateway Layout’.

Martina Rodgers raises concerns in relation to the junction of the local road with the N56 at this location. It is considered it will be extremely dangerous as speed will substantially increase. It is requested that the speed limit be reduced to facilitate local traffic at the

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 22 of 95 junction. It was noted that the road was re-routed in 2005 and re-tarred in 2011 and is of good quality and is adequate for its purpose.

John Rodgers has a farm at Derries, Glenties. There is significant concern that the land take will have grave implications for the farm, with the best land being taken. It is acknowledged that the EIS notes the scheme will have a major impact on these lands. It is submitted that moving livestock will be more dangerous with increased speed. Family concerns about safety impacts were noted. The proposal was also viewed as having a negative impact on scenery. Reference was made to the proposed Gateway Layout at this location and to a design speed of 60kph being applied. It was also noted that the existing road had already been realigned and upgraded and was of good quality.

Mary Ward has planning permission for a house on a plot at Derries. It was noted that realignment of the road in 2005 resulted in giving road frontage from the site and that the road was again upgraded in 2011. It was stated that on both occasions use of the site was given to facilitate road works. It is considered that further road development may impact on the site by way of having to move the house or septic tank back to an area where flooding occurs. It is suggested that traffic will substantially increase and will be dangerous as the house and garden will be so near. Reference was again made to an agreed Gateway Layout with a design speed of 60kph being agreed. Finally, the beauty of the area is seen to be lost due to increased vision lines being sought.

Kieran and Noreen Kelly have two houses at Derries Glenties. It is submitted that the easternmost house (the objector’s home) will be drastically impacted on, will be no longer viable as a dwelling, and that it and its curtilage will have to be acquired. It is noted that this will result also in the loss of a business as the house is a holiday rental property. Any new access is seen to create unworkable gradients. Furthermore, it is stated that there would be detrimental impacts by way of noise, general disturbance and visual impact. Adverse impacts by way of increased traffic speeds resulting from the scheme were alluded to and reference was made to the Gateway Layout proposal agreed with the applicant. Reference was also made to the road improvement works that had been carried out in 2005 and 2011.

The issues raised are considered as follows:

The Gateway Layout

This issue relates to how the scheme is to be designed at Derries close to the end of the road scheme. The Rodgers, Kelly and Ward families living alongside the road and with lands adjoining it seek to have traffic speeds reduced in the interest of public safety. It was submitted by each Objector that an agreement had been reached with the NRDO to provide what was termed as a ‘Gateway Layout’ which would ensure that the speed limit applicable at this location would be 60kph.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 23 of 95 As a background to considering this issue, I note the N56 Mill Road Layout Options Report, dating from 27 th October 2011, which has been submitted to the Board by both Kieran Kelly and John Rodgers. Roughan & O’Donovan Consulting Engineers were appointed by Donegal County Council to undertake a desktop review of the alignment options at Mill Road, with particular focus on the area in the vicinity of the junction of the local road and the N56 at the north-east end of the local road. The aim was to identify potential improvements which could be incorporated as part of the scheme to improve this section of the N56. The Report noted that the NRDO had developed three layout options. It was further noted that the proposed design speed for the overall scheme is 85kph and that the road at this location appears to have a design speed of 60kph. It was acknowledged that the current horizontal layout is a 4 step relaxation for a design speed of 85kph, with existing SSD (Stopping Sight Distance) being 90m rather than the required 160m. It was not deemed appropriate to locally alter the 85kph design speed to 60kph without implementing some traffic management initiatives. The key issue was acknowledged as being visibility to junctions and accesses at this location. Three additional options were submitted by Roughan & O’Donovan for consideration. One included the provision of a bypass to the west of existing dwellings, another comprised a new roundabout junction and the third was termed a ‘Gateway Layout’. It is the latter which all parties understood to be the option most favoured and to be pursued. In considering this option, it was noted in the report that the existing road appears to work efficiently and safely for the speed which it appears to have been designed for, i.e. 60kph. The alternative option proposes the provision of a gateway which would reduce the speed of vehicles to a speed appropriate for a design speed of 60kph by narrowing the road on the approach to the gateway and providing appropriate lines and signs. The location of the gateway on the northern side was illustrated but not on the southern side, which it was submitted required further assessment. Roughan & O’Donovan concluded by submitting it was recommended that further analysis of the three options be undertaken to determine if any were appropriate for inclusion in the scheme.

At the Oral Hearing, the concerns of the Objectors were raised and it was particularly stressed that each understood the NRDO to be committed to the Gateway Layout and to a design speed of 60kph at this location. In response, the applicant explained that the local authority gave an undertaking that it would pursue this proposal and to seek to get it accepted by the NRA. It was noted that this would have reduced the land take at this location and would have left the road in its present condition. It was submitted that the NRA was not satisfied to reduce the design speed to 60kph and, following further applications to it, it agreed to an 80kph advisory speed limit for this location. The applicant further submitted that it was proposed to modify the design at this location and that the NRA had agreed to allowing reduced access visibility at individual house accesses down to 90m and to reducing stopping distance down to 90m through this section of road. It was stated that 160m sight visibility at the local road junction is to be retained. It was confirmed that the mechanism to apply the advisory speed limit of 80kph comprises use of signage and road markings.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 24 of 95 Prior to considering the principle of this option, I note the effect of pursuing the alternative of a Gateway Layout (i.e. that being for an advisory speed limit of 80kph) significantly reduces the land take of properties at this location. The applicant’s written responses to the objections notes that in the case of the Kelly family its existing entrance would be retained and that the land take would be substantially reduced. A very substantial part of Plot 351c would be removed from the CPO, thus retaining most of the curtilage of the house to the west that originally was proposed to be removed. In the case of John Rodgers, I note that the take beyond side slopes that would normally apply has been substantially reduced. Part of Plot 013a is also to be removed from the CPO. In relation to Mary Ward it is proposed to remove Plot 350b from the CPO, leaving only the roadside Plot 350a. These are significant material changes to the physical effects on the Objectors’ properties arising from the proposed scheme.

Looking then to the principle of the provision of alternatives at this location, it is my submission that much has been done to address the Objectors’ concern. The existing road is a National Secondary Road where the maximum speed limit applies. It is a rural location. I acknowledge the design speed for the scheme is 85kph. One enters this location along the N56 and the permissible speed limit on approach, within and exiting this location is 100kph. Measures are being taken to reduce the speed limit applicable here on an advisory basis, which is a significant exception and to which substantial relaxations are to apply. To this end, reduced access visibility is being permitted, as is stopping sight distance. I acknowledge that 160m sight distance is being retained at the local road junction. This is, however, essential in the interest of public safety as this becomes the sole junction serving residential properties on the local road where previously there were two points of access onto the main road. It is my opinion that there have been significant alternations to the scheme at this location and the scheme is indeed being designed to reduced speeds for this rural location. This is not an urban location and, in my opinion, it is not rational to superimpose standards in this rural area that are applicable to built-up settlements and thus reducing the function of the road. Significant effort has been made to reduce the land take at this location, resulting in minimisation of impact on properties. What results from the revisions submitted to the Hearing are lands to be acquired that are necessary to provide a scheme with a suitable design speed for this rural location. This is a scheme that is being developed for the benefit of the general public, to provide road improvements for the road user and which further results in safety improvements for established accesses onto a national route where the maximum speed limit for this route applies. I consider the measures proposed by the applicant to be satisfactory. In my opinion, there is no merit in seeking to impose further relaxations at this location and to pursue an advisory speed limit of 60kph.

Consideration of Martina Rodgers’ Concerns

The Gateway Layout option proposed with signage and road markings will positively impact on road speeds at this rural location. With the closure of the local road junction at the western end and the provision of a single access point onto the N56 at the eastern end,

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 25 of 95 sight visibility standards must be met to accommodate increased vehicular usage at this junction. The proposed design standards are necessary in the interest of public safety.

Consideration of John Rodgers’ Concerns

In relation to land take, I again note that the proposed acquisition has been significantly reduced to minimise the effects on the existing farm. I do not accept that improvements to the road, notably where there are no substantial increases in traffic volumes, will constitute an increased hazard to moving livestock across the road. In terms of impacting on scenery, it is noted again that there would be very limited acquisition either side of the public road and the development would not have any notable adverse effect on the landscape or visual character of the area that exists at present.

Consideration of Mary Ward’s Concerns

I note the Objector has a plot of land for which planning permission for a house has been received. The applicant in response to the land take concerns has now proposed to remove Plot 350b from the CPO and thus reduce the take. I do not consider that the remaining small roadside take will have any material impact on the developability of this plot in terms of having to relocate a house or septic tank to where there is an increased flood risk. The marginal take and development of the scheme will not increase traffic hazard for the occupants of the house in my opinion. It is again noted that the development would not have any notable adverse effect on the landscape or visual character of the area that exists at present.

Consideration of Kieran and Noreen Kellys’ Concerns

I have noted the proposed changes to the CPO above. It is my opinion that these changes will ensure the dwellings remain habitable and the potential adverse impacts on occupants of the two houses have been significantly reduced. The proposed scheme will not terminally affect the viability of the use of one of these houses as a holiday home and, thus, the effects on the established business will not be so detrimental as to result in the loss of the business. In relation to the gradient of accesses on to the main road, it is clear that the upgrading of the road previously has caused serious access difficulties for the owners during times of inclement weather. This has been acknowledged by the applicant and the accommodation works at this location are to provide for appropriate access arrangements to ensure safety is paramount and to ensure previous difficulties are not encountered again. Adverse impacts by way of noise, general disturbance and visual impact have been substantially reduced by the reduction in land to be acquired and the minimal change to the road proposed at this location.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 26 of 95 Mary Gallagher

The Objector’s property is at Derries, Glenties. Her concerns relate to the amount of garden to be taken with the consequential loss of trees and shrubs.

The applicant, in a written response, submitted at the Hearing that it will seek to reduce the land take having regard to the amenity value of the garden. Proposals to reduce the area of Plot 12b were attached.

I note that Plot 12a is part of the public road. I further note that Plot 12b is the northern end of the Objector’s garden. A very substantial part of that plot is now proposed to be omitted from the CPO. This will significantly reduce the adverse impact on the amenity of the Objector’s garden. I consider that the Objector’s concerns have been adequately dealt with. I am of the view that the road edge acquisition remaining is necessary to provide for the proposed design of the scheme.

Connell Keys

The Objector has a shop in Leitirmacaward. The concerns are that the proposed scheme and associated land take will affect the future use and viability of the premises. The Council is asked to consider purchasing the premises. At the Oral Hearing, the Objector’s agent clarified that the issue related to lorry parking after the completion of the scheme.

The applicant, in a written response, submitted at the Hearing that it had met with the Objector and that it was confirmed that it was not intended to purchase the shop. It was further submitted that the issue was a matter of compensation.

In considering this issue, I note firstly the proposed scheme within Leitirmacaward comprises relatively minor overall road improvements within the village. Secondly, and importantly, I note that the proposed land take associated with the frontage of the shop at this location is very small. I do not accept that such land acquisition will result in significantly adverse impacts for the running of the shop due to lorry parking not being accommodated within the shop’s curtilage. The issue is one of compensation.

Nan Boyle

The Objector’s house is located to the north-east of Gweebarra Bridge. Her concerns relate to the serious impact the land take will have on her property, rendering the property uninhabitable and unserviceable. The Council was asked to confirm its intention to acquire the house. At the Oral Hearing, it was noted that the Objector had come to an agreement with the Council that the house would be bought by the Council. It was further noted that the price had yet to be agreed.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 27 of 95 The applicant, in a written response, submitted at the Hearing that it had met with family representatives and stated that the NRDO has not undertaken to purchase the property and proposed that impact be dealt with through compensation. It was further stated that, in the event that compensation cannot be agreed, the NRDO was open to acquisition of the property. Further to this, the applicant in an oral submission to the Hearing stated that there is an intention to negotiate a price to purchase the house and that this remains a matter for consideration between the two parties.

It is my submission to the Board that the proposed land take at this property is very significant. The acquisition will take in much of the curtilage of this house. The effect, unquestionably in my opinion, will result in the house being inadequately serviced as private sewage treatment works become almost impossible to accommodate, as private open space is seriously eroded, services are removed, and the road is brought very close to the structures on the site. While I note that the acquisition of the house does not form part of the proposed CPO, I note that there is now a realisation by the NRDO that this must be a reality for this residential property. The applicant and Objector have yet to agree a price but it is evident from the submissions to the Hearing that there is a commitment to acquiring the property. With this now established, it is reasonable to conclude that the Objector’s concerns will have been addressed, albeit is outside the scope of the CPO process.

Ian & Deirdre Vincent

The Objectors’ property is located a short distance to the south-west of Gweebarra Bridge. Information is sought on responsibility for the bypassed pieces of the N56 in this location, on road drainage, landscaping, use of leftover lands, effects of earth-moving operations on the objectors’ house, and services interruptions.

The applicant, in a written response, submitted at the Hearing that it had met with the Objectors and additional information had been provided in relation to access, security, use and maintenance of bypassed parts of the road, drainage, landscaping, etc. It was submitted that this information had addressed the Objectors’ concerns. The Objectors’ agent acknowledged at the Oral Hearing that the majority of issues were resolved but that it wished the Council to retain existing parking arrangements and that an arrangement to shorten the cycle lane at this location be upheld. The applicant acknowledged that accommodation works were to be agreed.

Overall, it is my submission that the Objectors’ concerns have been addressed. Their agent has acknowledged this at the Oral Hearing. Maintenance of the existing public roadway remaining after the scheme at this location evidently remains the responsibility of the roads authority. Detailed provisions on drainage for the scheme, including specific arrangements for Gweebarra Burn, have been provided and there will be accommodation arrangements for services and access. Like-for-like boundary treatments are to be provided where these are affected by the scheme. Specifically at Gweebarra Bends where ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 28 of 95 there is to be a new road alignment, there is extensive landscape measures proposed to comprise a woodland mix to mitigate the loss of woodland at this location. In addition, there will be planting of road verges and slopes at this location. It is my submission that the Objectors’ particular concerns relating to their property can readily be addressed by accommodation works. The use of the bypassed section of road as a cycleway will not have any significant affect on their property.

Richard T. Hanlon

The Objector’s property is located at Kilraine, Glenties close to the end of the proposed scheme. Concerns relate to the effect on the existing entrance to the property, the narrowness of it and associated steep slope falling away from the road.

The applicant, in a written response, submitted at the Hearing that it had met with the Objector and had discussed the entrance and recent upgrading of the entrance as part of the Kilraine pavement improvement scheme. It was understood concerns had been addressed. It was further submitted at the Hearing that the proposed works to the access are to form part of future negotiations.

The Kilraine road improvement scheme, undertaken in very recent times, resulted in the raising of the road level at this location and changes to the existing entrance to the Objector’s property. The development resulted in a significantly steep approach to the public road at the access point onto the road and the creation of a narrow entrance and relatively steep fall either side of the access driveway close to the road. I acknowledge the Objector’s concerns. However, the applicant also at the Hearing acknowledged the difficulties associated with the existing entrance and is committed to negotiating with the Objector to provide an improved entrance. Such satisfactory improvements can readily be undertaken as part of the accommodation works and can be wholly undertaken within the land take associated with the scheme at this location.

Julie McDyer

The Objector’s property is located at Kilraine Upper, Glenties close to the end of the proposed scheme. It was submitted that the scheme and land take affects the development potential of retained lands.

The NRDO, in a written response to the Hearing, submitted that the loss of development potential of the retained lands is a matter to be addressed by compensation.

The Objector’s property to be acquired comprises frontage of agricultural land and the development will facilitate an upgraded access. The matter of any development potential of this agricultural land with frontage onto the national route is not an issue for consideration by the Board and will be addressed through the normal planning ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 29 of 95 application process. The compensation mechanism will correctly address the issues raised by the Objector.

4.3 Need for an EIS and the Issue of Project Splitting

On 18 th May, 2011, a request for a determination came to the Board from Donegal County Council (Reference 05.HD0022), seeking the Board to issue a direction in accordance with section 50(1)(c) of the Roads Act 1993, as amended, to confirm that an Environmental Impact Statement was required to be prepared for a proposed N56 Dungloe to Glenties (Kilraine) Road Improvement Scheme. This scheme was proposed to involve the improvement of approximately 29.4km of road. It excluded a 3.3km section of route between Cloghbolie to Boyoughter north of Leitirmacaward which was intended by the local authority to be developed under a Part 8 procedure.

Following this submission, the Board issued a letter on 17 th June, 2011 which included a recommendation that no works be undertaken in relation to the entire Dungloe to Glenties road project (i.e. including the Cloghbolie to Boyoughter section) in advance of its direction issuing.

The Board’s decision issued on 10 th October, 2011. The decision may be synopsised as follows:

It was directed that the road authority prepare an environmental impact statement in respect of that part of the road project from Leitirmacaward to Glenties (Kilraine) only and to so do for the following reasons:

(a) the landscape sensitivity of the route; (b) the potential impact on protected views; (c) the environmental sensitivity of the proposed route, notably the potential impacts on the West of Ardara/Maas Road Special Area of Conservation and priority habitats and species; (d) the degree of interaction of the project with rivers that host communities of freshwater pearl mussel, an Annex II species; (e) the proximity of the route to a number of sites in the Record of Monuments and Places and the potential impacts thereon; (f) the guidance set out in Schedule 7 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, and to Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government guidance on sub-threshold development; (g) the submissions made to the Board; and (h) the report and recommendation of the person appointed to make a report and recommendation on the matter.

It was determined the road scheme between Dungloe and Leitirmacaward would not be likely to have significant effects on the environment and therefore the preparation of an ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 30 of 95 EIS was not required. It was determined that this northern section of the route passed through a more robust landscape and environment and that the road upgrade would have less interaction with the adjacent environmental sites with a lower likelihood of environmental impacts.

Having regard to the Board’s examination of the proposed road improvement scheme in its entirety (inclusive of the Cloghbolie to Boyoughter section), to the detailed consideration of potential environmental effects and the need for an EIS, and to the determination that only the Leitirmacaward to Glenties (Kilraine) section required the preparation of an EIS and subsequent Board approval, it can reasonably be determined that the need for an EIS for the scheme now before the Board has been adequately demonstrated and, importantly, that the conclusions drawn and subsequent submission of the EIS for the southern section in its entirety (which is wholly separable from the remainder of the scheme) results in this development proposal not constituting project splitting.

4.4 Compliance with Transportation Policy

I propose to consider some of the relevant national, regional and local policy documentation as follows:

A. National Policy

National Spatial Strategy

The NSS notes that physical networks of infrastructure such as roads are of particular relevance since they have a spatial impact and also influence the location, timing and extent of development. Building upon progress made on infrastructure is promoted. Access is acknowledged as a critical factor in tourism development and it is noted that specific spatial responses are needed to maximize the potential contribution of the tourism sector to balanced regional development, while protecting the assets which make these areas attractive for visitors. In established tourism areas, an effective spatial response is viewed as addressing infrastructural bottlenecks and promoting off-season activity to spread demand.

With due regard to these provisions in the NSS, the principle of a development incorporating road improvements, while protecting the assets that make this location attractive, can be seen to be compatible with the Strategy.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 31 of 95 Implementing the National Spatial Strategy: 2010 Update and Outlook

This document provides a statement of new priorities and objectives arising from a review of the NSS. It acknowledges the core objectives identified in the NSS, which include:

• Accelerating the development potential of rural areas by facilitating the diversification of the rural economy and playing to the competitive and comparative advantages of the rural economy in economic, social and environmental terms. • Promoting the emergence over time of more sustainable travel choices on the back of more compact and sustainable development patterns. • Protecting the integrity and quality of key environmental assets in relation to Ireland’s natural and built heritage and the quality of our water, air, marine environment and landscape.

Future investment priorities highlighted include completing a sustainable transport network, building on sustained investment in recent years.

The principle of a proposed development, whereby it culminates in the upgrading of substandard transport infrastructure while seeking to protect environmentally sensitive areas, would be seen to be compliant with the provisions of this document.

National Development Plan 2007-2013

The principal objectives of the Roads Sub-Programme of the Plan refer to targeted improvements of a number of key national secondary routes. The associated Road and Rail Network Map identifying the range of links forming part of the Plan show the N56 as being a targeted National Secondary Road.

The improvement of the N56 in principle is seen as being in keeping with the NDP.

Infrastructure and Capital Investment 2012-16 Medium Term Exchequer Framework

This report constitutes a review of infrastructure and capital investment policy led by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. The review assesses the existing capacity of the country’s infrastructure and identifies remaining gaps needing to be addressed. Amongst the main priorities for economic infrastructure over the medium term will be ensuring adequate maintenance of the national road network to protect previous investments and targeting the improvement of specific road segments where there is a clear economic justification. It is stated that the NRA will progress a limited number of improvement schemes together with some relatively low-cost targeted improvements on the national secondary network, where road safety is an issue, and in tourist areas. It is

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 32 of 95 submitted that these projects offer significant economic benefits. Funding is also provided for in the Investment Framework for the development of Smarter Travel initiatives including cycle lanes and cycle ways. Under the heading ‘Tourism Investment’, it is stated that priority will be given to relatively low cost projects to enhance or renew existing attractions and provide new ones and that, in particular, there will be a greater focus on activities such as recreational walking and cycling.

The principle of a National Secondary Road improvement scheme in a tourist area can generally be seen to meet with the types of development being pursued under this Investment Programme.

Smarter Travel: A Sustainable Transport Future 2009

This report reviews transport trends and sets out the position on sustainability in transport and actions required to reduce travel demand and a reliance on the car. The report identifies key actions to achieve sustainable transport and groups the actions into four overarching ones, one group of which is actions aimed at ensuring that alternatives to the car are more widely available, mainly through a radically improved public transport service and through investment in cycling and walking. Five key goals which form the basis of the overall policy include the aim to:

• Improve economic competitiveness through maximizing the efficiency of the transport system and alleviating congestion and infrastructural bottlenecks; • Minimise negative impacts of transport on the local and global environment through reducing localised air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions; and • Reduce overall travel demand and commuting distances travelled by the private car.

By 2020 commuting by car seeks to be substantially reduced, with car drivers being accommodated on other modes such as walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing. Promotion of sustainable travel patterns, integration of cycling infrastructure, and delivery of high quality transport infrastructure are seen as vital requirements. In the context of delivering alternative ways of travelling, a key issue to be addressed is seen to be the allocation of road space, giving priority to more sustainable forms of transport. Cycling and walking are noted as having the lowest environmental impact of all travel modes and specific actions are detailed, with emphasis placed on delivering a coherent network, on safety, on serving the main travel areas, and junction priority. The creation of a strong cycling culture to achieve particular aims and to enhance the tourism industry is acknowledged. By 2020, 10% of all trips are proposed to be by bike. The report also states that a National Cycle Policy Framework will be published and implemented to give effect to this vision. Creating a culture of walking is also committed to.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 33 of 95 It is noted that this document focuses greatly on a move away from car dependency, particularly for the commuter. Much emphasis on promotion of improved road space for the cyclist and pedestrian relates to development of necessary infrastructure in urban areas. However, the principle of accommodating the cyclist and walker as part of a proposed road improvement scheme would not conflict with the vision espoused in this Government transport policy document.

National Secondary Roads Needs Study: Network Options Report for the North Region 2011

The NRA, following on from investment on national primary routes, now proposes to focus its attention on addressing deficiencies in the National Secondary Road (NSR) network. To this end, the National Secondary Road Needs Study (NSRNS) was commissioned to identify an optimal future NSR network, develop and prepare an NSR Network Programme and provide an outline delivery programme which offers value for money. It is proposed that the minimum acceptable standard for the NSR network would be defined by the Type 3 Single Carriageway to IAN 01/09.

The NSRNS identifies NSR routes, or sections of a route, suitable for investment to a higher design standard. Routes recommended for investment to the Type 3 design (i.e. low volume design standard) are to form part of the proposed NRA National Secondary Roads Projects. The principal output from the NSRNS is seen to be a prioritized list of routes for investment under the NSR projects.

The detailed baseline assessment of each route within the North Region addresses the National Secondary Roads N51, N52, N53, N54, N55, N56, N59, N62, N63, N80, and N87. The N56 is seen as part of an important link between Killybegs fishing port and the N15 National Primary Road at Donegal town. It is also noted as being within an area of natural beauty and is significant from a tourist perspective, providing access to the Donegal Gaeltacht. It is expected to carry traffic in the order of 5,000 AADT generally. The route is seen generally to be of very poor standard in terms of width, pavement quality and forward sight visibility. The carriageway lane widths are assessed to be < 3m wide for 58% of the route and < 3.5m wide for 77% of the route. There are poor forward visibilities when assessed against design standards over intermittent sections of the route which indicates sections of poor alignment with associated lack of overtaking opportunities. It is stated that the historical accident data for the N56 suggests an ongoing issue relating to road safety along the route. The pavement condition of the route is seen as moderately poor, with 66% having at least 1 non-compliance in respect of assessed pavement condition indicators. The Study notes the planned upgrade from Dungloe to Glenties.

With regard to appraisal, transport intervention is stated to be appraised against five criteria – environment, safety, economy, accessibility and social inclusion, and integration. The need for a transport intervention was assessed for each of the NSR routes. In relation to the options appraisal, a Project Appraisal Balance Sheet (PABS) ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 34 of 95 Appraisal Summary Table for each of the route options for the North Region is presented. The NSRs are broken down into sections, each individually considered as Scheme Options. The N56 is considered over a number of corridors which includes Dungloe to Glenties, and which is subdivided into sections that include Letirmacaward to Glenties. The Appraisal Summary notes the many constraints of this section of the route, including the bendy and hilly form, the difficult cross section between Gweebarra Bridge and Maas, poor alignment between Maas and Glenties, and constrained bridge structures. Potential impacts by realignment on the West of Ardara / Maas Road SAC and the Owenea Freshwater Pearl Mussel catchment are acknowledged.

With regard to the determination of a Network Programme, a Multiple Criteria Analysis was undertaken. The rural scheme options recommended in the Study for the Priority 1 basket of schemes in the National Secondary Road Network investment programme are those where the Multiple Criteria Analysis (MCA) score is greater than 5.2 as these schemes represent value for money to the public sector. The recommended Priority 1 Schemes in the North Region includes the N56 section between Leitirmacaward and Glenties. It is noted also that the Dungloe to Leitirmacaward section is a Priority 1 scheme, while the Glenties to Ardara section is a Priority 2 scheme, i.e. a scheme that does not represent value for money under the analysis undertaken, which assumes an opening year of 2015.

The NSPNS is a particularly relevant and recently produced Study that should be seen to be important in determining priority and delivery of National Secondary Roads schemes into the future. The Needs Study has produced a comprehensive assessment and has determined a Priority 1 Programme, based upon a Multiple Criteria Analysis that produces a schedule of schemes that represent the best value for money. The recommended Priority 1 schemes, importantly, includes the N56 scheme now before the Board. It is clear from the detailed assessment undertaken that the proposed road improvement scheme before the Board forms part of the list of priorities for National Secondary Road improvements.

Having due regard to the above, I am satisfied to conclude that the proposed development is a priority project in national terms and the principle of the proposed scheme is wholly compatible with the Needs Study.

A Strategy for the Development of Irish Cycle Tourism: Report for the North West Region

This report was part of a wider study commissioned by Fáilte Ireland, i.e. A Strategy for the Development of Irish Cycle Tourism 2007 , to determine how best to renew the popularity of cycling in Ireland, how to encourage visitors to come to cycle in Ireland, and how cycle tourism can generate visitor spend in rural areas. The wider study focuses on a number of areas with particularly high potential for holiday cycling, suggests the

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 35 of 95 development of some longer challenge routes and sketches out the framework for a National Cycle Network.

The purpose of the report for the Region was to identify cycling hub towns, greenways and long distance routes within the region. The hub towns are where visitors are expected to base themselves and explore the surrounding countryside using a number of loop routes. The overall proposed network of cycling routes consists of day loops from cycling hubs, together with longer distance routes for the fitter, more experienced touring cyclists. In relation to the long distance routes, the report states that, as far as possible, the routes chosen will be along the minor roads, especially those with lower traffic volumes. It is stated that National Roads are not generally recommended as forming part of a National Cycling Network, where traffic levels are higher, with many carrying significant volumes of HGVs and tour coaches, and where they have a default speed limit of 100kph. The report also states that on busy national roads, where space and budget permits, the provision of wide, well surfaced, hard shoulders should be constructed and that these can provide a safe, wide corridor for cyclists out of the path of faster moving traffic. Appendix 4 shows the mapping of long distance routes for the region. This includes a route much of which is in the vicinity of the N56 corridor. For the stretch of long distance route between Leitirmacaward and Glenties the N56 is avoided in the main. From Meenacarn to the north of Leitirmacaward the route avoids the N56 and uses the local road network to the west. The route then crosses the Gweebarra Bridge and follows the Gweebarra Bends along the N56, before following the local road network running parallel to the N56 at Mulnamin, Kilkenny and Maas. At Maas Bridge it continues in a generally southerly direction on towards Ardara and avoids Glenties and this section of the N56 entirely.

It is apparent that the development of a National Cycle Network by Fáilte Ireland is sought by utilising primarily minor roads and developing routes away from busier main routes carrying higher volumes of motorised traffic. This approach is generally pursued in the Strategy to develop a network between Ardara and Dungloe. In general, the N56 is avoided as part of the long distance cycleway. The proposed cycleway before the Board is evidently not part of the proposed Fáilte Ireland national network. The proposed cycleway scheme, however, under this application could be construed as complementary to Fáilte Ireland’s National Cycle Network. However, it must be acknowledged that developing two long distance routes in such close proximity appears unsustainable. It is notable, however, that the proposed crossing of the Gweebarra River and use of the Gweebarra Bends ties in with the Fáilte Ireland long distance route. It is also reasonable to determine that the provision of a route from Maas on into Glenties would be complementary to the proposed Fáilte Ireland route and would improve cycling infrastructure to this important tourist town. Furthermore, I am aware of the proposed development of the N56 northwards from Leitirmacaward to Dungloe in a manner similar to that now before the Board. Thus, the proposed development would not be isolated in nature, ultimately allowing for the provision of cycling infrastructure between the two important tourist towns of Dungloe and Glenties. While I can see the anomalies resulting from the promotion of two long distance networks in this area, I am, however, of the ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 36 of 95 view that the proposed scheme before the Board is complementary to the Fáilte Ireland scheme, is not in competition with it, generally does not duplicate the development of a long distance route, and ultimately will facilitate the provision of cycleway infrastructure between two important tourist towns.

National Cycle Policy Framework 2009-2020

This document from the Department of Transport follows on from Smarter Travel – A Sustainable Transport Future and seeks to create a strong cycling culture in the country. It considers the planning and infrastructure / communication and education intervention measures necessary to encourage cycling. On the issue of infrastructure, emphasis is placed on transportation infrastructural designs being cycling friendly by producing safe, direct, coherent, attractive and comfortable routes. While many of the measures referred to focus on urban cycling there is support for the provision of dedicated signed rural cycling networks to cater for recreational cyclists and visitors. Indeed, it is a specific objective to provide such dedicated rural cycle networks. The Framework acknowledges the Strategy for the Development of Irish Cycle Tourism and notes that the cycling network identified will mainly use a mix of minor roads and some greenways. In support of the objective to provide designated rural cycle routes the policies to be pursued are:

• To construct the National Cycle Network as identified in the 2007 Strategy. • To carry out further research and surveying work in order to expand the network, with special attention paid to the opportunities of using both the extensive disused rail network and canal / river tow-path networks. • To examine the using of hard shoulders and contiguous space of roads with an arterial character as part of the National Cycle Network. • To ensure that the upgrading of national roads do not impact negatively on the safety and perceived safety of the roads for cyclists.

The proposed scheme before the Board, in expanding the cycleway network within a rural area, is generally complementary to the objective and policies espoused in this framework document. Ultimately, the development of safe cycling routes is a prime consideration in the development of a network such that these facilities can and will be used.

National Cycle Network Scoping Study 2010

This Study follows on from Smarter Travel: A Sustainable Transport Future and the National Cycling Policy Framework and was undertaken by the Department of Transport, the NRA and Smarter Travel. It focuses on the objective from the Policy Framework relating to the development of the National Cycle Network (NCN) to include rural recreational routes around urban areas and connecting with major urban areas. The ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 37 of 95 Scoping Study aims to outline the route corridors proposed for the NCN. The terms of reference for the study included:

• The network should attract as many users as possible by linking into the main urban centres and it should form the basis for linkages to both local rural cycle routes and urban networks. The network should cover all parts of the country and align with tourism and economic development. • The length of the network that is off road or of greenway standard should be maximised with the aim of minimising the interaction with motorized vehicles. • The cycling networks should be integrated with public transport modes. • It should ensure that routes are provided in a manner that will allow cycling to develop as a viable mode for people’s transport and commuter needs, as well as ensuring development of recreational / leisure and tourist cycling.

The criteria used when testing the various route options being considered for inclusion in the proposed National Cycle Network included a criterion that the route network should be located in or connect to the proposed Fáilte Ireland network. The mapped NCN resulting from the Study outlined details of proposed strategic inter-urban corridors which connects cities and urban centres with populations greater than 10,000. The map showing the correlation of the proposed NCN with the Fáilte Ireland NCN clearly shows connectivity with the proposed long distance route in the vicinity of the proposed scheme now before the Board.

Having regard to this Study, it is clear that a distinction must be made between the Department of Transport / NRA National Cycle Network and the National Cycle Network promoted by Fáilte Ireland. They are clearly two separate networks. However, in the case of the N56 and cycle routing in the vicinity of it, there is a clear tie-in at Donegal and Letterkenny between the two NCNs. In terms of overall cycle infrastructure development, the development of the cycleway between Leitirmacaward and Glenties as part of a long distance route is compatible with the Department of Transport / NRA National Cycle Network.

B. Regional Policy

Regional Planning Guidelines for the Border Region 2010-2022

The Guidelines note that, in general, despite some significant infrastructural improvements in recent years, there remain transport infrastructure deficits within the Region that require future investment. It is acknowledged that sufficient funding is unlikely to be available within the life of the Guidelines in order to carry out all of the works necessary to bring the transport infrastructure in the Region up to the standard envisaged in the NSS and NDP. It stated that, in these circumstances, it is essential that transport objectives are focused on areas where the need is greatest, where national ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 38 of 95 policies can be supported and enhanced, and where the returns on investments can be maximised. Major improvements in transportation infrastructure are acknowledged as tending to take place over prolonged periods of time, and in the short/medium term, the Region will rely heavily on its existing infrastructure. Strategies aimed at protecting the integrity of existing infrastructure are, therefore, seen as important. National primary, national secondary and regional roads are acknowledged as being of critical importance for the movement of goods and services within and outside the Region. In relation to tourism, it is stated that the lack of progress in this sector has in the past been linked to poor infrastructure and lack of access to many areas. It is acknowledged that cycling/walking infrastructure within the Region is limited and, in its present form, is unlikely to encourage any significant modal shift. The rural character of the Region is seen to present significant challenges in this regard and it is noted that substantial investment is required. The Border Regional Authority supports the Government’s smarter travel policy and the National Cycling Policy Framework and aims to encourage greater shift to cycling/ walking through the promotion of the strategies outlined in national policy documents.

The proposed road improvement scheme before the Board can be seen to be compatible with the Regional Guidelines, supporting investment aimed at protecting the integrity of existing road infrastructure, supporting and developing tourism infrastructure, and promoting the shift to cycling and walking.

C. Local Policy

County Donegal Development Plan 2012-2018

The following transportation objectives are noted:

T-O-2: To provide for high quality connectivity within the County in line with the Core Strategy.

T-O-3: To deliver optimum accessibility, ease of movement and to facilitate appropriate proposals for modal shift.

T-O-4: To provide good access to the locations of major economic activity.

T-O-5: To safeguard the carrying capacity and safety of National roads and other strategic routes.

T-O-6: To protect the corridors and routes and acquire the lands necessary for transportation improvement projects as identified in Chapter 10.

The following transportation policies are noted:

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 39 of 95 T-P-1 It is a policy of the Council to support and facilitate the appropriate development, extension and improvement of Donegal’s transport network in accordance with the core strategy, subject to environmental, safety and other planning considerations.

T-P-3 It is a policy of the Council not to permit development that would prejudice the implementation of a transport scheme identified in the development plan.

T-P-4 It is a policy of the Council to facilitate the appropriate development of affordable, multimodal transport solutions that offer communities and future generations real transport choices such as park and ride; pedestrian and cycling; bus and taxi services; and ancillary infrastructure.

With regard to the above, it is acknowledged that the N56 forms part of the Strategic Transport Network for the County. It is further noted that the routes and corridors mapped for reservation for transportation improvement projects in accordance with Objective T-O-6 and Policy T-P-3 include the N56 Dungloe-Glenties (Kilraine) route.

In relation to walking and cycling, specific policies include:

T-P-40 It is a policy of the Council to encourage and facilitate joined up long distance walking and cycling routes for recreation and as alternatives to the car, particularly in rural areas, between settlements.

T-P-41 It is a policy of the Council to support and facilitate the maintenance, enhancement and expansion of the National Cycle Network.

With regard to tourism and associated infrastructure, objectives include:

TOU-O-5: To support the development of quality infrastructure, necessary to ease travel within the County including roads, air, rail, port, signage, broadband, transport initiatives and accommodation.

Having regard to the above policies and objectives, it is apparent that the proposed scheme, as part of the Dungloe-Glenties improvement scheme, is supported in the recently published Donegal County Development Plan. The development is, thus, in accordance with the planned development for the N56. Furthermore, the proposed development is compatible with the relevant cycle, walking and tourism infrastructure policies and objectives of the Plan.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 40 of 95 4.5 Need for the Scheme

The existing N56 between Leitirmacaward and Glenties (Kilraine) is deficient throughout. Much of the road is substandard in width, being between 5.5m and 6.0m wide. Sharp bends are often to be found in combination with poor vertical alignment. The Gweebarra Bends is a stretch of route of some 4.4km on the approach to the Gweebarra River from the south and is one of the worst sections on the N56. Stopping sight distances vary throughout. There are extensive numbers of junctions and private accesses throughout this section of road and visibility is frequently well below standard. The road has few hard strips, shoulders or verges. The overtaking value of the road has been calculated at 4% by the applicant. The deficiencies have notable implications for the safety of non-motorised road users, with restricted forward visibility making the route extremely dangerous in sections.

With due regard to the above, the existing road is notably substandard and the principle of the proposed improvements is accepted.

4.6 Compliance with Design Standards for Roads and Cycleways

The Proposed Road

It is intended to upgrade the N56 between Leitirmacaward and Glenties to a Type 3 Single Carriageway, designed in accordance with NRA Interim Advice Note 01/09 “Design of Low Flow Single Carriageway Roads ”.

I note the following from the Advice Note:

The standard applies to major improvement works being carried out on rural National Roads with a design year traffic flow of less than 5,000 AADT. I note from the submitted EIS that the road typically carries less than 4000 AADT and is a low traffic volume road. It is considered by the NRA that the full application of the current NRA DMRB Standards on such low traffic flow roads would result in extensive realignment schemes that could not be justified on environmental or economic grounds. Thus, the Interim Advice Note introduces a new Type 3 Single Carriageway (T3SC) into the menu of road types. The T3SC is defined as follows:

“A 6.0m wide Single Carriageway, with Hard Strips, for use on National Roads with Design Year Traffic Flows below 5,000 AADT.”

For T3SC roads, the desirable Design Speed is 85km/h. A lower design speed may be adopted as a relaxation in environmentally sensitive locations or in difficult terrain.

In relation to sight distance, the proportion of route which is considered to provide overtaking opportunities may include all sections where the visibility available to ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 41 of 95 overtaking vehicles exceeds 250m. Overtaking is not permitted on sections of road with junctions.

Overtaking opportunities are required to be provided on average at 1.5km intervals to allow vehicles to pass slow moving vehicles. Where achievement of this reduced overtaking interval is heavily constrained, consideration may be given to the alternative provision of discrete passing bays.

With regard to vertical alignment, the desirable maximum gradient for design is 6% for T3SC roads. Slightly steeper gradients are permitted as Relaxations. It is noted in the interim advice note that there is a progressive decrease in safety with increasingly steeper gradients. Departures from standards are required for any proposals to adopt gradients steeper than 7% for T3SC roads.

The Cross-Section for a T3SC provides a 3m lane, a 0.5m hard strip, and a 2.0m-3.0m verge in each direction. The verge width is dependent on terrain, safety barriers, accesses and Non-Motorised User (NMU) requirements. If cycleways are provided they are to be for the combined use of pedestrians and cyclists. The normal verge width recommended is 2.0m, 2.5m at safety barriers, and 3.0m at accesses. It varies where there is NMU demand.

Thus, from the above it can be seen that the overall width of the finished T3SC would be up to 13m. It is noted that this is without provisions having been made on both sides of the road at the construction stage to provide for drainage and workspace. It is further noted that relaxations can apply in terms of design speed in environmentally sensitive locations or where there is difficult terrain.

In terms of detailed design and with due regard to adopted relaxations, I note that the proposed scheme meets with the standards set out in the Advice Note.

The Proposed Cycleway

The applicant’s approach in making provision for cyclists and pedestrians within the scheme is versatile in that there is a combination of three options being used as follows:

- A two-way off-road cycleway, 2.5m wide, and segregated from mainline traffic by a 1.0m wide grassed margin and flanked by another 1.5m wide grassed margin outside of that again. - A shared use of disused or lightly trafficked sections of the existing N56 or existing local roads. - An on-road cycleway, 2.5m wide, and segregated from mainline traffic by 0.5m wide yellow hatch marking with a 1.0m wide wide grassed margin outside of that again.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 42 of 95 The scheme provides for 15.3km of cycleway in total. 10.7km would be contiguous, while 4.6km would use bypassed sections of the old N56 or other local roads. Details at local level are as follows:

From north of Leitirmacaward to the village an off-road cycleway would be provided contiguous with the main road alignment on the right hand side and then crosses to the left hand side as it enters the village. Through the village there would be an on-road cycleway on the left hand side. At Toome Lough, the road design has been significantly reduced and a cycleway is incorporated within the road verge on the right hand side. Between Toome Lough and Gweebarra Bridge the bypassed section of the N56 will be used as the cycleway. An off-road cycleway is provided for a short distance before a 70m stretch of on-road cycleway. Cyclists will continue with mainline traffic across Gweebarra Bridge. From Gweebarra Bridge there will then be a new off-line section of road and the bypassed old N56 will be used as the cycleway between Ch14940 and Ch16150. An off-road cycleway contiguous with the new road is then provided as far as Mulnamin Beg. Between Mulnamin and Maas Junction the route is primarily on-line and the scheme provides for an off-road cycleway on the right hand side to accommodate views over Gweebarra Bay. Between Maas and Letterlilly the road is on-line and the off- road cycleway continues mainly on the right hand side. At Letterlilly Hill there is a realignment of the road and the bypassed N56 becomes the cycleway. From Letterlilly to Glenties the road is primarily on-line and an off-road cycleway is provided on the left hand side of the road as far as the Sruhangarve River where it then becomes an on-road cycleway into Glenties. No works are proposed in Glenties. From Glenties to Derries an off-road cycleway is provided on the left hand side, with a new boardwalk provided at Mullinerin Bridge. At Derries the existing local road is used as the cycleway. From Derries to Kilraine an off-road cycleway will be provided on the left hand side of the on- line road scheme.

IAN 03/12 “Provisions for Cyclists and Pedestrians on Type 2 and Type 3 single carriageway National Roads in rural areas ” was published by the NRA in February of this year. These standards derive from national policy which seeks to develop a greater cycling culture nationally and to support the development of a national cycling network. While published after the submission of the application to the Board, the applicant submitted at the Oral Hearing that the design approach in its scheme is largely consistent with the new standards.

It is my submission to the Board that the applicant’s approach the development of a cycleway for this section of the N56 is a practical approach, likely to encourage greatest use of the route, and is the most sensitive in environmental terms. The use of bypassed sections of the N56 and local roads throughout the scheme will provide a high level of attractiveness as there is extensive separation from main road vehicular traffic. On-road sections have been used in areas of significant environmental constraint, within Leitirmacaward, and on the straight approach into Glenties, thus limiting significantly the take for the scheme. Where the off-road facility is provided it is two-way and has been designed to maximize the views of the scenic landscape, thus increasing its attractiveness. ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 43 of 95 This section of road between Leitirmacaward and south of Glenties is not overly challenging as a long distance route due to relatively comfortable gradients for cyclists. Segregation from high speed motorized traffic is primarily achieved, while convenience, attractiveness and safety prevail. Clearly the scheme ties in to the route development north of Leitirmacaward on as far as Dungloe, linking two important tourist settlements in this part of the county.

Overall, it is my submission that the cycleway design minimizes environmental impact and it will prove a welcome addition to the tourism and recreation infrastructure of this area.

4.7 Alternatives

It is my submission to the Board that the applicant’s approach to considering alternatives is satisfactory. It is acknowledged that the design approach to the scheme focuses in the first instance on online improvements. Thus, no formal route selection process for the overall route from Dungloe to Glenties was carried out. The proposed scheme before the Board, comprising the southern end of this overall route, therefore has not considered different route options in totality. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that, in circumstances where online widening is not feasible, due in particular to environmental constraints, alternative localised options were considered and formed part of the EIS. This led to the adoption of a preferred option. I note the locations where this applied were as follows:

Toome Lough

The First Freeze alignment proposed widening of the existing road into Toome Lough. It was noted that Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) were concerned about the potential impact on the lake. Alternatives were explored to determine if impact on the lake could be avoided or reduced. The option comparison process concluded that impact on the lake was unavoidable. However, the cross-section was reduced to a minimum to minimise potential impact. A detailed methodology for construction in the lough and associated mitigation measures were developed and agreed with Inland Fisheries Ireland. The existing culvert under the N56 downstream of the lough and the existing culvert connecting the lough with its sister lake on the east side of the N56 were assessed as unsuitable for fish passage. It is proposed that these culverts be upgraded as further mitigation measures for this impact. In addition, the existing road drainage will be improved with pre-treatment to a settlement pond prior to discharge to the lake.

It is my submission that this option comprises the option with the least environmental impact, resulting in a minor take within the lake and reducing significantly the impact on residents in the vicinity. Importantly, the approach has been advised by Inland Fisheries Ireland.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 44 of 95 Gweebarra Burn

The First Freeze alignment proposed a new structure at this location. The environmental assessment noted the new structure would impact on qualifying features of the cSAC and following detailed habitat mapping and consultation with NPWS it was concluded that impact on qualifying features of the cSAC would not be acceptable. The option comparison concluded that any permanent works must be confined to the footprint of the existing structure. Thus, an online option avoiding any increase in land take in the cSAC was proposed.

This option is again, in my opinion, the option with the least environmental impact where the bridge structure lies within a cSAC and where the footprint of the established structure remains. Impacts will be temporary and suitable methodologies and mitigation measures are to be applied.

Gweebarra Bends

These bends are made up of a series of sharp bends cut into a steeply sloping hillside for a distance of 2km winding approximately 1m above a series of coastal inlets on the Gweebarra Estuary. Radii of the bends are as low as 20m in some cases. The First Freeze alignment closely followed the existing road and envisaged filling of inlets with the cSAC to facilitate realignment. The environmental assessment noted there would be an impact on qualifying features of the cSAC. Following detailed habitat mapping and consultation with NPWS it was concluded these impacts were not acceptable. The option comparison process concluded that a fully offline new section of roadway was a preferable option. I note again that the existing road is to be used as the cycletrack.

It is my opinion that the pursuit of this off-line section of the route results in perhaps one of the most significant impacts arising from the overall scheme before the Board. The new route cuts through woodlands comprising mixes of deciduous trees that are an important landscape feature in this area and unquestionably of ecological value, albeit that they are not qualifying features of the cSAC. Visually, the woodland is an important backdrop to the existing road as it skirts the edge of Gweebarra Bay. The elevated nature of the terrain results in significant cutting to allow for the route development. Further details were provided at my request at the Oral Hearing on the geophysical survey work and a plan and profile for Ch14400-16100 was also submitted. Within this section of the scheme there is also a notable realignment of a junction with a local road.

Overall, it is my submission that a widening of the existing road was not a feasible option as it would have significant direct effects on the cSAC at this location. The only viable option is that being pursued. The utilization of the existing road as a cycleway assists in minimizing the land take here. The design of the route, while allowing for encroachment into the woodland, has made significant efforts to skirt the woodland edges in general terms and thus minimizing greater potential impact. The substantial cutting will be a scar in a sensitive location but in its wider context it will not be highly visible or intrusive. ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 45 of 95 Treatment of its setting by way of important replanting of woodland is critical. With the proposed mitigation being applied, I consider this option the only reasonable alternative to pursue here.

Letterlilly Hill

The First Freeze alignment envisaged a new offline section of road through a cutting in excess of 15m deep through Letterlilly Hill to facilitate standard gradients and junction visibility. It was envisaged that this cutting could also serve as a source of fill material for other sections of the scheme. Due to the impact on a Cashel recorded in the Record of Sites and Monuments and on the cSAC and due to the hardness of granite rock that would have to be cut with any new offline section of road at this location, the option comparison process concluded that the alternative option involving a small shift in the alignment together with steepening of the mainline gradient by 1% was a preferable option. This avoided direct impact with the Cashel, minimized the footprint in the cSAC and reduced the depth of cutting.

Once again, I consider the applicant’s selection a sensible option in a location where the First Freeze option could have had significant consequences for the environment in terms of ecology and archaeology. At the Oral Hearing, I sought and acquired the Route Options Report for Letterlilly Hill and associated options mapping to gain a greater understanding of the choices being addressed. The alignment chosen is better than the First Freeze option as there is a reduction in the amount of excavation, it avoids the existing cashel, has less impact on the cSAC, and is less expensive due to less excavation in granite rock. It is an option that is clearly understood to fall within the established road corridor. I acknowledge that there will be substantial filling through much of this stretch and cutting nearer the hill summit. Furthermore, the route will skirt a linear section of woodland comprising oak, birch and holly. The new road width is again aided in impact by the use of the existing road as a cycleway at this location. I am satisfied to conclude that the route option selected is the most desirable in terms of environmental impact.

Owenea River

The First Freeze alignment proposed an online widening of Mullinerin Bridge. In-stream works at Mullinerin Bridge were seen to be likely to impact on the qualifying features of the cSAC and would be unacceptable. The option comparison process concluded that the existing bridge should be left to cater for vehicular traffic and a new steel and timber cantilevered boardwalk will be constructed supported off the existing masonry arch for non-motorised users.

The option of not pursuing the widening of this bridge, in my opinion, is the most desirable in environmental terms. The approach to provide a cantilevered boardwalk will minimise physical intrusion on the bridge structure and will result in the cycleway being accommodated such that this element of the scheme promotes minimal intervention and readily allows for reversibility of the alterations that result. Most importantly, it results in ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 46 of 95 no in-stream works that can undermine the sensitivity of the Owenea River and the habitat of the Freshwater Pearl Mussel.

Kilraine

The alignment is substantially online at this location with the new cycletrack diverted onto a parallel local road. The option comparison process concluded that a side road junction at Ch 28,600 could be closed as there was an alternative available nearby instead of significantly impacting on two adjacent properties by acquiring part of their gardens.

The option of pursuing the use of a local road as a cycleway and avoiding the widening of the main road at this location has a wide range of benefits. These include minimum intervention on the Owenea River, significantly limiting impacts on residential properties and farmland, and making appropriate use of the local road network to minimise cyclist / motor interface.

Overall, I am satisfied that the alternatives considered by the applicant adequately addresses requirements for environmental impact assessment. Furthermore, I consider the route option chosen minimizes potential significant adverse effects on the environment.

4.8 Impact on Natura 2000 Sites and Overall Ecological Impact

What follows is an overview of the Natura 2000 sites potentially affected by the proposed scheme, habitats and species potentially impacted, and my considerations thereon.

Routing and Natura 2000 Sites

As part of the application to the Board a Natura 2000 Impact Statement was submitted. The Statement identified four Natura 2000 sites that were under consideration as follows:

- Gannivegil Bog cSAC (Site Code IE000142) - Lough Nillan Bog (Carrickatlieve) cSAC (Site Code 000165) - Lough Nillan Bog SPA (Site Code IE004110) - West of Ardara/Maas Road cSAC (Site Code IE000197)

Gannivegil Bog cSAC is located 1.3km north-east of the route and is contained within a different catchment to the scheme. Thus, there is no hydrological link known. No element of the project is considered likely to give rise to impacts on this cSAC. Lough Nillan Bog cSAC and SPA are located 760m south of the proposed route where it crosses the Owenea River in Glenties. No element of the project likely to give rise to impacts on this cSAC and SPA has been identified.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 47 of 95 The development directly encroaches on the West of Ardara/Maas Road cSAC. The proposal passes 50m west of the cSAC at Ch13800. It then impinges on it at both sides of the Gweebarra Bridge, whilst the existing bridge carries the scheme across the Gweebarra River. The scheme then crosses the cSAC at the Gweebarra Burn Bridge. The scheme then skirts and intermittently encroaches into the cSAC at Kincrum between Ch15100- 16400. At Mulnamin, between Ch16400-16700 the whole width of the proposal passes through the cSAC where it includes the existing road. Between Ch16700-17000 and Ch17900-18150 at Kilkenny and Ch18800-19100 at Maas, the land take intermittently encroaches into the cSAC. Further south at Letterlilly between Ch20550-21950, the land take again impinges on the cSAC. At Ch27050, where it passes over the Owenea River at Mullinerin Bridge the land take again encroaches and at Ch28300-28400 the scheme abuts the cSAC. In total, the land areas affected are as follows:

Gweebarra River (north bank) 0.37ha Gweebarra River (south bank) and Gweebarra Burn 0.39ha Kincrum section of Gweebarra River 0.48ha Mulnamin section of Gweebarra River 1.07ha Kilkenny section of Gweebarra River 0.29ha Maas section of Gweebarra River 0.08ha Letterlilly 3.81ha Mullenmerin Bridge over Owenea 0.11ha Meenachallow / Derries 0.16ha ______Total for West of Ardara/Maas Road cSAC 6.76ha ______

The site is of great ecological interest, with at least 23 habitats and 8 species listed on Annexes I and II of the Habitats Directive. The site selection features include Vertigo geyeri , Margaritifera margaritifera , Salmo salar , Estuaries, Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide, Large shallow inlets and bays, Atlantic salt meadows, Lutra lutra , and blanket bogs. The Owenea River system and some of its tributaries, including the Stracashel and Owengarve Rivers are located within the cSAC.

The stated NPWS Conservation Objective for the above sites is “to maintain or restore the favourable conservation condition of the Annex I habitat(s) and/or the Annex II species for which the SAC has been selected”.

Habitats

The proposal passes over mainly thin acidic peat soils, with deeper pockets occurring locally. Between Leitirmacaward and Maas, woodland occurs more frequently where soils are thin and drier, where topography is steeper and where there are granite outcrops. In general, the scheme is located on lowlying land, with the highest point being 90m AOD north of Letterlilly. It crosses the Gweebarra, Maas, Stracashel and Owenea Rivers and encroaches on Toome Lough, while crossing other smaller rivers and streams. From ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 48 of 95 Ch12000 to 21300 watercourses discharge into the Gweebarra River estuary and south of Ch21300 they drain to the Owenea River.

In total 23 habitat types were found by the applicant along the route. 25% of the footprint of the scheme includes the existing road surface. Over 23% comprises acid or wet grassland, 11.5% comprises improved grassland, while lowland blanket bog comprises over 10%. Oak-ash-hazel woodland comprises 7%. It is noted that the lowland blanket bog is in proximity to the existing road and has been subject to alteration from its natural state by degradation of its hydrological condition or disturbance. The Oak-ash-hazel woodland is found along the northern section of the scheme between Leitirmacaward and Maas.

6.76ha of the 62.4ha affected by the scheme occurs within the Natura 2000 network. The broad habitat types crossed by the scheme can in conclusion be classified as follows:

- Woodland 9.95ha - Peatland 8.0ha - Grassland 23.3ha - Scrub 5.7ha - Built surfaces 15.3ha

Species

The applicant’s findings included the following:

Birds

Four species were recorded by the applicant from the overwintering bird survey that are listed under Annex I of the Birds Directive, with Pale-bellied Brent Geese, Dunlin and Greenshank observed at Gweebarra Estuary and Whooper Swan at Toome Lough. These occurred in small numbers.

Bats

Bat activity was found to be highest at Leitirmacaward, the Gweebarra to Maas stretch, and in Glenties, notably where woodland occurs most frequently. Roosts and potential roosts have been identified as part of the applicant’s survey work.

Otter and Badger

No field signs indicating badger or otter activity in the vicinity of the scheme were found north of the Gweebarra crossing. No signs of otter were found at Toome Lough, although the applicant submits that this species is likely to be using the lake. Otter prints were found in the vicinity of Gweebarra at Ch15500. The applicant submits that from

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 49 of 95 Gweebarra to Maas junction there is a lot of potential for badger. No badger setts were recorded within the proposed scheme footprint.

Marsh Fritillary

This species occurs in all six 10km grid squares in which the scheme is located. All locations along the N56 where Devil’s bit scabious was recorded were searched in early October 2010. No larval webs were recorded.

Vertigo geyeri

There were no calcareous flushes encountered along the route. As a consequence, whorl snail is not likely to be present along the route. The road scheme presents no risk to the present status of the species.

Harbour Seal

Haul sites are known from further out in the Gweebarra estuary. No haul sites are known from Gweebarra Bridge to Maas junction stretch where the scheme passes. No seals were observed during surveys.

Atlantic Salmon

The proposed scheme runs alongside or crosses designated areas and important watercourses which include at the Gweebarra Bridge, along the section from Maas to Glenties, and at the Stracashel and Owenea Rivers at Glenties. Atlantic salmon is one of the qualifying interests of the cSAC. Watercourse surveys were undertaken for many rivers and streams that included the Gweebarra, Maas, Stracashel, Owenmarve and Owenea Rivers. With Atlantic salmon present in the Owenmarve, Gweebarra and Owenea Rivers, these features are regarded as being of international importance. Watercourses such as the Maas that supports sea trout are regarded as being of national importance. The extensive Owenea spawning grounds in the vicinity of the scheme have been acknowledged and mapped.

Freshwater Pearl Mussel

The proposed scheme traverses the Owenea Freshwater Pearl Mussel catchment. This is a named feature of the West of Ardara/Maas Road cSAC. The habitat of the Owenea river bed is in poor condition and the population is in unfavourable status. A survey was carried out to assess potential for pearl mussels downstream of the scheme. Of the watercourses traversed by the N56 from Leitirmacaward to Glenties (Kilraine) five were considered to have potential to support the freshwater pearl mussel, namely the Maas River, Owenea tributary at Sruhangarve Bridge, Stracashel River, Owenea River, and Owenea tributary at Kilraine.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 50 of 95 Potential Impacts on West of Ardara/Maas Road cSAC

It is noted that the proposed scheme passes in and out of the cSAC for some 7km between Leitirmacaward and Letterlilly. The cSAC boundary has not been defined against the existing road, thus resulting in the cSAC encroaching on and crossing the existing road. Where habitats are lost to the land take between the Gweebarra and Maas it is predominantly broadleaf woodland. None of these woodland habitats are cSAC selection features, although the applicant notes that the Oak-ash-hazel and Oak-birch- holly woodlands show some loose association to the Annex I habitat ‘91A0 – Old Sessile Oak woodlands with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles’. South east of Maas to Glenties no Annex I habitat for which the site has been selected as cSAC is to be lost. It is noted that no bridge works are proposed over the Stracashel River in Glenties. A cycle track is to be appended to Mullinierin Bridge over the Owenea River at Ch27020, with some wet grassland and mixed broadleaf woodland coming within the land take. At Ch28275-28425 the cSAC boundary impinges on the road verge. No construction works are to occur here affecting the cSAC.

With the exception of the 0.03ha area of sediment shoreline at the Gweebarra Burn where temporary works are proposed, at no other location within the Natura 2000 sites does habitat loss occur where that habitat is a rationale for, or a site selection feature of, cSAC designation. No widening is to occur to the west and no permanent works are to occur in the habitat.

The preliminary estimate of the earthworks cut/fill volumes indicate that the total gross volume of cut material, i.e. material excavated, is approximately 254,000m3. It is estimated that 81,000m3 will be suitable for reuse for embankments, etc. 133,000m3 will not be suitable, comprising mainly peat and peaty soils. The estimate of gross volume of fill material is approximately 370,000m3. Thus, 289,000m3 will have to be imported. Excavated peat arising from the development is to be disposed of in adjacent strips of land contained within the CPO in the Maas river catchment near Letterlilly. No Annex peatland within a Natura 2000 site is to be excavated. Peat is not to be deposited or side- cast within the Owenea River catchment. Surcharging or preloading is to apply here to ensure no risk to the Freshwater Pearl Mussel.

Works in Toome Lough are by infilling clean stone and are to be managed to ensure contaminants do not enter the Gweebarra River downstream. The Gweebarra, Gweebarra Burn and Mullinierin Bridges will not be widened. The Gweebarra Burn Bridge requires remedial works to reinforce the foundations against tidal scour.

With the exception of material to be disposed of off-site or imported to the site, the majority of materials will be transported along haul routes within the construction site. The transport of bulk material is likely to result in approximately 48,000 HGV movements to and from the site over a 60 month period. Primary access to the site for all construction vehicles will be from the N56 to protect the existing road network.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 51 of 95 It is proposed to construct the scheme on a phased basis under a number of separate contracts. It is anticipated that the scheme will begin construction in 2012 with construction lasting for a 5 year period.

Description of Avoidance and/or Mitigation Measures

Avoidance

In the first instance, the proposed scheme focuses on online improvements. Where online improvements were not feasible, alternative options were assessed against relevant criteria and a preferred option was selected on the basis of a basic comparison matrix.

Toome Lough

The option comparison process concluded that impact on the lake was unavoidable. However, the cross-section was reduced to a minimum to minimise potential impact. A detailed methodology for construction in the lough and associated mitigation measures were developed and agreed with Inland Fisheries Ireland. The existing culvert under the N56 downstream of the lough and the existing culvert connecting the lough with its sister lake on the east side of the N56 were assessed as unsuitable for fish passage. It is proposed that these culverts be upgraded as further mitigation measures for this impact. In addition, the existing road drainage will be improved with pre-treatment to a settlement pond prior to discharge to the lake.

Gweebarra Burn

The First Freeze Alignment proposed a new structure at this location. The environmental assessment noted the new structure would impact on qualifying features of the cSAC and following detailed habitat mapping and consultation with NPWS it was concluded that impact on qualifying features of the cSAC would not be acceptable. The option comparison concluded that any permanent works must be confined to the footprint of the existing structure.

Gweebarra Bends

These bends are made up of a series of sharp bends cut into a steeply sloping hillside for a distance of 2km winding approximately 1m above a series of coastal inlets on the Gweebarra Estuary. Radii of the bends are as low as 20m in some cases. The First Freeze Alignment closely followed the existing road and envisaged filling of inlets with the cSAC to facilitate realignment. The environmental assessment noted there would be an impact on qualifying features of the cSAC. Following detailed habitat mapping and consultation with NPWS it was concluded these impacts were not acceptable. The option comparison process concluded that a fully offline new section of roadway was a preferable option. The existing road is to be used as the cycletrack. ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 52 of 95

Letterlilly Hill

Due to the impact on a Cashel recorded in the Record of Sites and Monuments and on the cSAC and due to the hardness of granite rock that would have to be cut with any new offline section of road at this location, the option comparison process concluded that the alternative option involving a small shift in the alignment together with steepening of the mainline gradient by 1% was a preferable option. This avoided direct impact with the Cashel, minimized the footprint in the cSAC and reduced the depth of cutting.

Owenea River

Instream works at Mullinerin Bridge were seen to be likely to impact on the qualifying features of the cSAC and would be unacceptable. The option comparison process concluded that the existing bridge should be left to cater for vehicular traffic and a new steel and timber cantilevered boardwalk will be constructed supported off the existing masonry arch for non-motorised users.

Kilraine

The alignment is substantially online at this location with the new cycletrack diverted onto a parallel local road. The option comparison process concluded that a side road junction at Ch 28,600 could be closed as there was an alternative available nearby instead of significantly impacting on two adjacent properties by acquiring part of their gardens.

Mitigation

The NIS has produced a very comprehensive schedule of construction and operational mitigation measures. These are identified also within the EIS, many of which are designed to reduce risks to water quality and aquatic ecology, terrestrial ecology and fisheries. It is noted for the Board that ongoing consultation with NPWS and IFI is proposed, that detailed Construction Management, Environmental Operating, and C & D Waste Management Plans are to be prepared, and that detailed Method Statements for peat deposition, for surcharging, for Toome Lough and for rehabilitation at Gweebarra Burn have been submitted as appendices to the EIS. Comprehensive proposals on drainage, to include sediment control, runoff containment, containment of potential pollutants, etc., are further supplied. At the operational stage, drainage has been designed to be as simple and low maintenance as possible and to reflect the existing drainage scheme. Watercourses discharging to designated sites were given particular consideration. Sensitive outfalls are further protected from accidental spillage.

With regard to the Freshwater Pearl Mussel within the Owenea main channel, stringent measures are proposed. No widening of the existing bridge structure south of Glenties is to occur and there is to be no in-channel works. Multiple mitigation measures to prevent ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 53 of 95 silt release are to be employed. IFI and NPWS are to be consulted on detailed design, placement and maintenance of measures. An ecologist experienced in the requirements of the Freshwater Pearl Mussel is to be present throughout initial stages of implementation of site mitigation measures. There is to be no side casting of peat within the river’s catchment and, as alluded to above, a method statement on surcharging and preloading of peat has been prepared.

With regard to Salmonids, in-stream works are to be avoided during spawning season, specific surface water management measures are to be employed, proposals for the realignment of the road and construction of the bridge in proximity to the Maas River have been identified, no in-stream works are to be employed at the Sruhangarve River, and key watercourse crossings are to be installed to NRA guidelines.

Applicant’s Assessment

The applicant’s assessment in the NIS on the likely changes to the West of Ardara/Maas Road cSAC may be synopsized as follows:

Reduction of Habitat Area

No habitat identified as rationale for or a site selection feature of the cSAC designation is to be lost.

Disturbance to Key Species

Freshwater Pearl Mussel – From field surveys no pearl mussels were found outside the Owenea main channel. The current overall assessment for this species is unfavourable. Detailed mitigation for the river has ensured that the scheme presents no adverse risks to this population.

Marsh fritillary – It occurs in all six 10km grid squares in which the scheme is located. All locations along the N56 where Devil’s bit scabious was recorded were searched in early October 2010. No larval webs were recorded. The current overall assessment of this species is inadequate. Based on the absence of the species within the scheme footprint, the scheme presents no risk to that status.

Vertigo geyeri – There were no calcareous flushes encountered along the route. As a consequence, whorl snail is not likely to be present along the route. The road scheme presents no risk to the present status of the species.

Harbour seal – Haul sites are known from further out in the Gweebarra estuary. No haul sites are known from Gweebarra Bridge to Maas junction stretch where the scheme passes. No seals were observed during surveys. Notwithstanding this, seals are likely to use the full extent of the Gweebarra River and estuary. Blasting along the south bank of

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 54 of 95 the river is not considered to disturb seals at established haul sites further out in the estuary. The road scheme presents no risk to the present status of the species.

Atlantic salmon – With mitigation, no significant effect on the species is predicted.

Otter – Otter occurs frequently along the scheme. The scheme is designed to allow free passage of mammals along watercourses where it was found. No holt locations were identified. Detailed mitigation ensures the scheme presents no adverse risks to the species or its prey sources.

Habitat or Species Fragmentation

The existing road weaves in and out of the cSAC. It does not alter the existing environment. No additional cSAC lands or habitats upon which key species depend are further fragmented.

Reduction in species density

No significant risk or predicted reduction in density to key species is predicted.

Changes in key indicators of conservation value

No reduction in water quality is predicted within the Natura 2000 sites. The new road drainage network will improve the existing conditions for road runoff. The habitats being lost within the cSAC are not habitats for which the cSAC has been designated. Oak- birch-holly, Oak-ash-hazel and hedgerows are high value habitats. Their combined footprint is 2ha. A minimum of 7ha of Oak-birch-holly and Oak-ash-hazel woodland will be planted. All boundaries with the cSAC will be replanted with species-rich hedgerow, excepting where the scheme abuts open peatland.

Likely Impacts on the European Site

In describing any likely impacts on the cSAC as a whole, it was submitted:

Interference with the key relationships that define the structure of the site

The scheme flanks and impinges on the cSAC along the edge of the estuarine Gweebarra and along the edge of peatlands west of Glenties. Localised loss of woodland will interfere with the overall oakwood strip along the Gweebarra bank but will be replaced and no adverse effect on the site’s conservation objectives will be felt.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 55 of 95 Interference with key relationships that define the function of the site

Localised loss of woodland will interfere with the overall oakwood strip along the Gweebarra bank but will be replaced and no adverse effect on the site’s conservation objectives will be felt.

The Significance as a result of the Identification of Impacts

This is considered under the following:

Reduction of habitat area

The loss is temporary for the cSAC and its residual effect will be minimized by measures to ensure the estuarine habitats of Gweebarra are not adversely affected by pollutants during the works, which will include a cofferdam around the works. The reduction in area for the cSAC is not significant when measured against the site’s conservation objectives.

Disturbance to key species

No significant disturbance will occur.

Habitat or species fragmentation.

No significant habitat or species fragmentation will occur.

Loss

No significant loss of the Natura 2000 network will occur.

Fragmentation

No significant fragmentation of the Natura 2000 network will occur.

Disruption

No significant disruption to key processes, structure or functions of the Natura 2000 network will occur.

Disturbance

No significant disturbance to key habitats or species of the Natura 2000 network will occur.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 56 of 95 Change to key elements of the site (e.g. water quality, hydrological regime)

No significant change to key elements, habitats or species of the Natura 2000 network will occur.

Overall, it is the outcome of the assessment undertaken by the applicant that there is not likely to be significant effects on Natura 2000 sites by the development and operation of the proposed scheme.

Conclusions on Effects on Natura 2000 Sites

With due regard to the above, my conclusions on the above are as follows:

- No element of the proposed scheme is likely to give rise to impacts on Gannivegil Bog cSAC or Lough Nillan Bog cSAC and SPA.

- There will be a permanent habitat loss of the West of Ardara/Maas Road cSAC amounting to 6.77ha (0.1% of the cSAC). No permanent habitat loss occurs where that habitat is the rationale for, or a site selection feature of, the cSAC designation.

- The most notable vulnerability for the proposed scheme is the pollution of the river habitat of the Margaritifera margaritifera (Freshwater Pearl Mussel). Detailed stringent mitigation has been provided to prevent sediment movement through rivers to avoid settlement onto the Owenea river bed. No excavation of peat within the Owenea River catchment will occur. No further deterioration of water quality and population status is predicted to result for this protected species. I draw the attention of the Board to Section 6.5.1.6 of the EIS which sets out the detailed mitigation.

- The impact on other Annex II mammal species will not be significant resulting from the avoidance and detailed mitigation measures to be employed with the scheme.

- Gweebarra Estuary and River is important where overwintering bird species are found. This area is already dominated by an existing national road and few birds are expected to roost and feed directly adjacent to the road due to intermittent noise and visual disturbance caused by passing traffic. It is acknowledged that the route is remaining in place here.

- In relation to fish passage permanent obstruction/inhibition, the application of NRA guidelines is to prevail. Thus, at the Sruhangarve River, for example, the existing streambed will be preserved through installation of a concrete arch

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 57 of 95 structure, while at the Toome Lough stream there will be an upgrading of the culvert to facilitate upstream fish movement.

- The pollution risk has been demonstrated as low for all the outfalls along the proposed scheme. It is essentially an upgrade of an existing road in many places and the drainage design proposed represents an improvement on the existing drainage. The positive impact on downstream water quality is particularly relevant where outfalls discharge to a cSAC catchment. At a number of sensitive watercourses further treatment, over the filter drains and over-the-edge drainage discharging to unlined ditches, will comprise wetland ponds with an outlet control structure to retain runoff for a period of time to remove suspended solids and other pollutants, thus dealing with the ‘First Flush’ volume. This will be particularly beneficial in the Owenea Catchment.

- There will be no direct impact on Gweebarra Estuary.

- Gweebarra Bridge, Gweebarra Burn Bridge and Mullenmerin Bridge are not to be widened.

- The revetment across the coastal inlet at Gweebarra Burn (outlet of Lough Derkmore) requires remedial work. The widening of the causeway across the Burn by constructing a retaining wall inside the existing footprint of the causeway to address scour and the erosion risk of the existing structure poses a threat by elevated suspended solids, bulk liquid cement, hydrocarbon run-off, and habitat damage to the inter-tidal area. The impact will be temporary while the remediation works are carried out. A Method Statement for these works has been developed and significant mitigation to prevent adverse effects is provided.

- The only significant channel realignment is on the Maas River at Maas Bridge (Ch19,100) and Maas River at Ch20,200. Realignment of the road and a new bridge at Maas Bridge will require realignment of approximately 190m of river. Realignment at Ch20,300 on the Upper Maas is where the existing channel has already been modified by the existing N56. The length of realigned channel will be 150m. It is noted that IFI preferred this rather than a long culvert.

- The loss of blanket bog is potentially significant as 6.6ha. will be lost to the proposed scheme. The peat surfaces next to the existing road are, however, largely disturbed, with drains and ditches, or comprising tracts of former cutover bog. Where the loss of blanket bog occurs it does not remove a significant portion of the entire occurrence of that habitat in the immediate environs nor does it result in fragmentation.

- The loss of Oak-ash-hazel woodland is potentially significant, with 4.3ha. to be lost overall in the scheme, mainly where it abuts an existing woodland edge. This occurs in a steep coastal location where the band of woodland is generally narrow. ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 58 of 95 Fragmentation also occurs where it moves offline between Ch15800 and 16000 and cuts through oak-ash-hazel woodland. Its ability to function for wildlife is reduced by fragmentation. While not a qualifying feature for the cSAC, its loss as valuable habitat is acknowledged. Replacement planting is to be provided (some 7ha. of mixed woodland in the most sensitive locations ) throughout this scheme but is not likely to readily naturally replicate that which will be lost.

- Side casting of excavated peat over cut over bog is proposed along sections of the scheme where peat deposits are significant. One specific site is within the Maas River catchment and mitigation measures and a method statement for the works will need to ensure that the river and associated drainage is not impacted. The applicant at the Oral Hearing committed to avoidance of deposition of excavated peat and other materials within the cSAC at Letterlilly and to deposition being confined to one area only. It is intended to provide compensatory planting between the old road and new road at Letterlilly.

- With regard to accidental discharges at the operational phase, there will be a low spillage risk. Sensitive outfalls will be further protected from accidental large discharge of pollutants and appropriate measures will be provided at the outlet control of each treatment pond.

- Extensive consultation has taken place including with NPWS, Development Applications Unit of Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Birdwatch Ireland, Bat Conservation Ireland, and IFI. These included;

• Meetings held with IFI in advance of the finalisation of the scheme. All watercourses, fisheries significance, potential impacts and IFI recommendations on crossings were discussed. • Meeting with NPWS to discuss potential ecological impacts and impact on Freshwater Pearl Mussel (FPM) habitat in Owenea River. • Discussions with North Western River Basin District Project in relation to water quality and potential impact on the objectives of the River Basin Management Plan and WFD.

- Ongoing consultation with NPWS and IFI is to form an integral part of the continued development of the scheme design at construction and operational phases.

Other Ecological Considerations

Toome Lough

The most significant location of ecological sensitivity beyond the areas considered above in relation to the proposed scheme relates to Lough Toome which lies immediately south ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 59 of 95 west of Leitirmacaward and west of that part of the West of Ardara/Maas Road cSAC at Madavagh. The lough is mesotrophic. While wholly outside of the cSAC, it has hydrological links to the Gweebarra River. The significance of hydrological attributes of the lake is deemed by EPA to be ‘Very High’. Fish status is good under WFD ‘Fish in Lakes’ classification. Brown Trout and European Eel are in the lake. However, it is not reported as a WFD lake. Fish monitoring by EPA suggests it would be of good status under the WFD ecological status classification.

The proposed scheme includes the reclamation of an area at the south east end of Toome Lough that could potentially impact on water quality and ecological status by habitat loss, elevated suspended solids, contaminated leachate from fill material, and hydrocarbon run-off.

Overall, it is my conclusion that the proposed loss of 1.1% of Toome Lough on its extreme edge adjoining the existing road is not significant and will not result in significant habitat loss or detrimental fragmentation of habitat. The proposed scheme, in the context of an adjacent functioning road, is not anticipated to have likely significant adverse impacts on Annex II birds species at the lake, of which they have been demonstrated to occur in very small numbers here. Construction of the scheme within the lough is to include the placement of clean rock fill and the installation of a silt containment barrier. A specific Method Statement has been prepared and comprises Appendix 6.8 of the EIS. Floating silt curtains or anchored strawbales are to be used for the control of sediment generated by lake bed disturbance during placement of rock fill.

Overall Conclusions on Ecology

In relation to Natura 2000 sites, it is my submission that, due to the scale and design of the works, the avoidance measures to be employed and the significant range of mitigation measures proposed, the scheme can be developed such that there will be no significant impacts affecting the conservation objectives of the cSACs in the vicinity of the scheme. Furthermore, it can be concluded that the integrity of these Natura 2000 sites will not be adversely affected. It is also concluded that the proposed development, in itself or in combination with other plans or projects, will not be likely to have a significant effect on a European site, having regard to the conservation objectives of these sites. In addition, it is my submission that the conservation status of the freshwater pearl mussel, otter, salmon, Annex II bird species, and other protected species would not be significantly adversely affected by the proposed scheme, having regard to the application of the proposed mitigation measures. I am further of the view that those areas of sensitive ecological value beyond the designated cSACs and yet adjoining the route corridor will not be significantly adversely affected by way of substantial loss or fragmentation of or disturbance to habitat or protected species. To this end, it is determined that the proposed scheme will not have significant ecological impact.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 60 of 95 4.9 Landscape and Visual Impact

Landscape Character

The current Donegal County Development Plan states that the Donegal landscape is a national asset where the changing character of the physical landscape needs to be managed in a sustainable manner in order to retain, conserve and protect the quality of the landscapes. It is an objective to protect the character of the landscape where and to the extent that, the proper planning and development of the area requires it, including the preservation of views and prospects and the amenities of places and features of natural beauty or interest (Objective NH-O-8). I note for the Board that the landscape through which the proposed road development traverses, while of notable scenic character, is not one of the more sensitive landscapes so designated in the Plan as an Area of Especially High Scenic Amenity to which particular objectives apply.

The applicant, in assessing the proposal, has subdivided the study area into four landscape character areas, namely Open Upland Hills and Mountains, Open Lowland Hills and Lakes, Gweebarra River Valley, and Glenties Urban/Rural Fringe. Considerations on each of these character areas are as follows:

Open Upland Hills and Mountains

The applicant notes that the scheme does not cross this landscape character area and, therefore, there are no direct or indirect impacts on it. I concur with this position. What is particularly notable about the routing of the proposed scheme is that the corridor is lowlying throughout. There is no intrusion into this landscape, a landscape type in this part of the county that is frequently designated Areas of Especially High Scenic Amenity.

Open Lowland Hills and Lakes

The applicant acknowledges that this is the landscape through which most of the scheme travels. It is a lowland undulating landscape, frequently exposed to rugged coastland on the approaches to Gweebarra Bay. The undulating character of the route restricts visibility for much of this section of road. Much of the route development is on-line and thus there is minimimal change to the landscape from the associated development. Even where the there are off-line sections, in general these are short stretches and they remain for the most part within a channel that can reasonably be determined to form part of the existing road corridor, for example at Letterlilly.

Gweebarra River Valley

There will be no change to the existing bridge over the Gweebarra River itself. It is the approaches to the river which undergo the most significant change. On the northern side of the bridge the landscape character changes are relatively imperceptible. The most significant change is the re-routing through the Gweebarra Bends to the south. However,

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 61 of 95 this results in what can be determined to be localised change, albeit in a highly sensitive landscape. Cutting through to create a new corridor is kept to a minimum, is not extensively perceptible within the wider environment and much of the character of the fringe areas is retained. While there is a distinctive physical intrusion by the loss of woodland and cutting, the significance of landscape change is low in my opinion. I note that the impact of the re-routing results in the widening of the buffer between the main corridor and the coastal edge.

Glenties Urban/Rural fringe

As the routing of the scheme primarily stays on-line on the approaches to Glenties, it is reasonable to determine that the landscape character change will be negligible. The suburbs of the town spread out extensively in a linear pattern to the north and south and the associated widening of the road will not be a readily discernible change on the character of the landscape. Indeed, to the south of the town measures such as the cantilevered boardwalk at Mullinierin Bridge over the Owenea River and limiting any further widening at Derries reduce landscape change further. Overall, it is not a character area that is particularly sensitive to change.

In conclusion, I am of the opinion that while the landscape character change associated with the road improvement scheme can be deemed to have a negative impact generally on those landscape character areas through which it traverses, such impacts can only reasonably be determined to be slight to moderate. There will not be substantial landscape character change resulting from the proposed development due to the routing options selected.

Overview of Visual Impact

Once again I note the scenic character of the landscape through which the scheme travels, while I also acknowledge that the route corridor is primarily within a lowlying area. The visual impact of the development of this scheme as a result of the lowlying nature of the terrain will be localised as panoramic views of the route are not discernible throughout the wider landscape in general. The exceptions where panoramic views can be gained of the northern section of the route is from short stretches of local road at Cleengort west of Gweebarra Bridge and south of the river, at Kilkenny, and north of the N56 at Letterlilly. However, even here the route is seen to lie at the base of the hills and is otherwise obscured by the undulating nature of the landscape. Views from these locations are either dominated by the expanse of water comprising Gweebarra Bay and by the bridge which is to undergo no change, or by extensive bogland well outside the route corridor. Such views from these elevated locations are not protected views in the Development Plan. Views from and in the vicinity of Gweebarra Bridge itself remain unaltered. Indeed, with the development of the lay-by to the south of the bridge and the development of a new

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 62 of 95 viewing area at Maas, views of the wider scenic landscape will be enhanced by the scheme.

The most significant change in terms of visual impact will relate to change to views for private residential properties in the vicinity of the route. These impacts on private views are not considered to be particularly of concern in the context of assessing this scheme from the public realm.

Route Character

An aspect of the assessment of visual and landscape impact not undertaken by the applicant was consideration of the development on the route character. Needless to say the character of such a lengthy section of route varies considerably. In addressing route character, I am seeking to consider what contribution the route itself makes to the amenity value of the area and to determine if the proposed changes significantly alter that character. It has been determined earlier that overall the route traverses primarily open lowland and that the undulating nature of the landscape assures limited viewing therefrom. Looking in a little more detail, my considerations on sub-sections of the route are as follows:

Leitirmacaward to Gweebarra River

This sub-section comprises three parts. The first part is the approach from the north to Leitirmacaward village. The middle section is the village itself. The final part is from Toome Lough to the north of Gweebarra Bridge. The scheme involves on-line widening and an off-road cycleway on the right hand side into the village from the north. It follows the line of the existing road through the village and provides for an on-road cycleway on the left hand side. It then skirts the edge of Toome Lough on exiting the village before providing a new alignment to address three 90 degree bends. Local road junctions are to be improved. The bypassed section is to be used for local access and as the cycleway.

In terms of affecting the route character, there is little of significance to note. The intrusion into Toome Lough has been kept to a minimum and reduces the impact on residential properties that would otherwise arise. While the most notable new development is the new alignment in the vicinity of Meenagowan, it is clear that this is an area dominated by ribbon development and the new alignment is not intruding on any particular landscape of sensitivity.

Gweebarra River to Maas

There is no change to the bridge structure at the crossing of the Gweebarra River. An off- line section is to be developed to address the Gweebarra Bends. Cuttings will be up to 15m deep and side slopes are proposed to be steepened to 70 degrees to avoid excessive excavation. The design results in some departures from standard and an advisory speed

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 63 of 95 limit of 80kph is to apply. The bypassed section will be for local access and for the cycleway. The Gweebarra Bridge viewing area is to be upgraded and road junctions are to be improved. From Mulnamin Beg the scheme comprises primarily on-line widening. To accommodate a wider cross-section and to avoid impact on the cSAC, side slopes will be steepened to 70 degrees. A new service road will be developed to serve three properties. The Maas Junction (N56/R261) is to be realigned and a short section of the R261 is to be realigned here. A new viewing/picnic area is to be developed north of the junction.

I acknowledge that this is perhaps the most sensitive section of the route in landscape and visual impact terms. It is my submission that the correct choices are being made to allow the proposed design to proceed for this section. A correct balance has been achieved in the design by avoiding intrusion on the cSAC at Gweebarra Bends and steepening side slopes to reduce excavation. Use of the bypassed road for a cycleway reduces the take also. Those using the road benefit also from the provision of a new viewing area that will allow for panoramic views across Gweebarra Bay in a particularly scenic location. The character of the existing road evidently changes with the introduction of the scheme. It improves greatly for the cyclist and walker in one of the most scenic sections of the overall route. The coastal edge character for the motorized traveler remains highly attractive.

Maas to Glenties

From Maas to Letterlilly the new scheme is primarily on-line and the off-road cycleway is contiguous with the road on the right hand side. A new bridge is to be provided over the Maas River. At Letterlilly Hill there will be a short shift in the alignment and the mainline gradient will be steepened by 1%. Side slopes of 70 degrees are to be used to minimise the impact on an adjacent cashel. The bypassed section at this location is to be used as the cycleway. From Letterlilly to Glenties the scheme comprises primarily on- line widening. A new river bridge is to be provided over the Sruhangarve River to remove sharp bends here. Local road junctions are to be upgraded throughout. From the Sruhangarve River there is an on-road cycleway.

Overall, it is my submission that the options being pursued are ultimately correct for this section. The cycleway is varied in form but is done so to minimise impact and reduces excessive land take. At Letterilly Hill encroachment onto the cSAC and a structure of archaeological significance has been addressed. The character of the route for this section would not be significantly distorted and it ultimately retains the character of the corridor through which the existing road travels.

Glenties to Kilraine

No works would take place within Glenties itself. From Glenties to the end of the project at Kilraine all of the scheme will be on-line. A new boardwalk will be provided upstream of Mullinierin Bridge to accommodate the cycleway. There will be junction

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 64 of 95 improvements throughout, with the junction with the R262 relocated approximately 50m in the direction of Glenties. An off-road cycleway on the left hand side of the road is to be provided, with the exception of the use of a local road at Derries for part of this facility.

There is minimal interference with the character of this section of the route by the proposed changes being introduced.

Overall, the route character is protected by the development options being pursued in this instance.

Mitigation

The most relevant measure for the overall development is that it is primarily an on-line scheme. Secondly, where it is off-line it is primarily within the established corridor of the existing road. These measures culminate in the avoidance of significant impact on the landscape and visual amenity qualities of the area. The proposals for screening to minimise visual intrusion along widened sections will ease the scarring caused and will readily integrate the resulting changes. I note that side cast peat areas are to be reinstated. The greatest impact will be at Gweebarra Bends with the loss of woodland. Extensive replacement woodland is to be provided, which, while unable to immediately replicate that which is being lost, will significantly buffer the exposure of the changes at local level.

Overall, it is my submission that the landscape and visual impacts arising from the development of the road improvement scheme will not result in significant adverse impacts for this section of the N56.

4.10 Residential, Business and Community Impacts

Impact on Residential Amenity

Due to the proposed scheme being primarily on-line, it will have direct impacts on many residential properties that are located with frontage onto the existing N56. Within the settlements of Leitirmacaward and Glenties there is little if any impacts on residential properties due to the minimal works being undertaken. The proposed development will not result in the demolition of any dwellings. Virtually all of the residential property proposed to be acquired comprises frontage to such properties. There are a few exceptions where the rear of property holdings is proposed to be acquired, primarily at the end of the route outside of Glenties. The scheme as proposed requires, however, the acquisition of one residential plot in its entirety. This is due to the extent of necessary ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 65 of 95 land take and is at Chainage 16,200 in the area of Mulnamin. It is important for the Board to note that this is a residential property under construction and is not a completed and occupied residence.

Residents are also be affected by revision of access arrangements, leading to an increase in journey length. Those most affected are as follows:

- Five residential properties between Chainages 14,000 and 14,250, located between Toome Lough and Gweebarra Bridge, have direct access onto the N56. The proposal sees this section of the existing road retained, with a revised access onto the N56 via a revised junction at Chainage 13,900. The increased journey length resulting for these residential properties is up to 250m. This is a minor impact in my opinion. - Residential properties at Chainages 27,930 and 27,945 south-west of Glenties presently have direct access to the N56. The proposal seeks to provide a revised, joint access to the west, resulting in an increased journey of approximately 100m. This can reasonably be viewed as a minor impact. - As a result of the closure of a minor road at Chainage 28,600 close to the end of the scheme near Kilraine, a number of residents will be required to make increased journey lengths to gain access to and from the N56 at the junction with the local road at Chainage 27,880. Associated users of 16 individual residential properties will be required to travel an additional 200-1100m. This can be considered inconvenience but in the interests of achieving the design standard and improving junction safety for all road users here, it should be viewed as a minor adverse impact.

With the exception of the above, existing accesses to residential properties are generally to be retained.

Overall, in terms of land take and revisions to access, it is my opinion that the changes are required to provide the necessary road widths, verges, services, accesses, and junction improvements.

Moving then to potential adverse impacts arising from the construction phase of the scheme, it is noted that there will be adverse effects from noise, dust, nuisance and general disruption to local and passing traffic. I note that the scheme will be developed on a phased basis. It is estimated that there will be 32,000 HGV movements associated with the construction phase. However, the phasing of the development over a five year period will not result in significant impacts from such traffic, notably when the existing N56 will be utilised for transportation purposes. I further note that normal working hours will apply during construction, i.e. 07.00-19.00 Monday to Friday and 08.00 to 16.30 on Saturdays. A range of conventional mitigation measures are proposed to be employed to limit impacts from noise, dust, disruption to utilities, etc. Section 3.5 of the EIS refers to these and those applicable from other sections of the EIS on noise, air quality, etc. are ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 66 of 95 also noted. Adherence to recognised standards and NRA guidance should result in the construction phase not constituting a significant adverse impact on residential amenity.

At the operational phase, I note that the road at all times is to be a single carriageway, that effectively the same traffic volumes are to be accommodated, and that the scheme does not extend beyond the footprint of the existing road in urban areas such as Glenties. The issue of severance is, therefore, not likely to prevail in these circumstances. Where the route is to be realigned, such as at Gweebarra Bends and Letterilly, the road will generally be drawn away from residential properties in those areas and will likely improve amenity for the relevant properties.

In conclusion, the impact on the residential community is not predicted to be significant.

Impact on Commercial Property

Only three commercial properties are to be affected by the proposed land take. All relates to frontage and affects the forecourts of two filling stations at Emo Filling Station, Leitirmacaward (Chainage 12,850) and Topaz Filling Station at Gortnamucklagh north of Glenties (Chainage 24,680), and Sweeney Valu Hardware on the southern outskirts of Glenties (Chainage 27,250). The small land take in each instance results in the impact being insignificant on the functioning of these commercial premises. I further note that all existing access arrangements are to be retained. It must also be acknowledged that The Maas Inn, a former commercial property that is derelict on the N56 (Chainage 19,350), is to be acquired in its entirety and is to be demolished. In recognition of the extent of land take for commercial properties, it is my conclusion that the impact is not significant.

A further impact for commercial property is the revisions to access arrangements. The proposed scheme results in severance of three commercial properties. The Cope Stop & Shop and the Gweebarra Bar are located adjacent to each other (Chainage 13,920) and directly front onto the N56 at Meenagowan. The scheme includes an alternative junction to serve these properties directly from the realigned N56. Users of these premises will experience an increase in journey length of less than 100m and this is seen to have a minor impact. I note that those affected are satisfied with the revised arrangements being provided here and submitted by the applicant at the Oral Hearing. The third commercial property affected is Laughlins Motors at Meenagowan. The proposed scheme deviates away from the existing N56 and leaves the existing road footprint intact. Traffic movements will be diverted onto a revised junction which incorporates an existing junction between the N56 and a minor road at Chainage 13,950). This will result in a diversion of approximately 150m and this is regarded as a minor impact.

Overall, it can reasonably be concluded that the improved road conditions arising from the proposed scheme will prove to be of significant benefit to commercial premises

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 67 of 95 operating in the vicinity of the road scheme, providing a safer road network and improved journey times and comfort.

Community/Recreational Land Take

The proposed scheme includes the taking of frontage at Leitirmacaward Community School, St. Bridget’s Parochial Hall, Leitirmacaward, and Owenea Angling Club, Glenties. The area of take in each instance is small and the overall impact on the functioning of these facilities is considered not significant. It is notable that the consequences of the land take in each instance do not result in severance for the local community.

4.11 Impact on Agriculture

While the proposed scheme will have direct impacts on established farm enterprises, it is again noted that the scheme is primarily on-line, resulting on farmland road frontage being affected for the most part. Much of the land acquired will comprise poorly drained lands. A total of 54 hectares of agricultural land is to be acquired, with the average take being 0.23 hectares. Several access points will be affected. Other impacts will include those associated with noise, dust, traffic and drainage. The applicant’s schedule of mitigation addresses the range of impacts beyond compensation. These include reinstatement of accesses, boundaries, drainage, maintenance of access throughout the construction phase, making appropriate provisions for water supply and other services potentially affected, etc. Ultimately at the operational phase the scheme will provide a safer road network for the farming community using it.

4.12 Impact on Cultural Heritage

I note that there are no national monuments located within 200m of the scheme. There are six Record of Monuments and Places (RMP) sites within 200m of the edge of the scheme. None will be directly affected by the scheme. There are a total of six protected structures within 200m of the scheme and none will be impacted by the scheme. There are four vernacular bridges at Gweebarra Bay, Maas, Sruhanagarve, and Mullenerin. None will be directly affected although it is proposed to attach a cantilevered steel boardwalk (cycleway) to Mullenmerin Bridge. Adequate mitigation is being provided. Advance archaeological testing is to take place at the land take area adjacent to Letterlilly cashel/ringfort and at other areas of archaeological potential cited in Table 12.5 of the EIS. A written and photographic record of Mullenerin Bridge is to be carried out before the steel boardwalk is attached. Maas Inn, while not a protected structure or building of noted architectural merit, is to have a written and photographic record taken and the Edwardian post box opposite is to be restored and located elsewhere in the vicinity if An Post requires it to be retained. ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 68 of 95

Overall, the scheme is not seen to result in significant impacts on cultural heritage.

4.13 Land Requirements

The lands stated to be required for the development of the scheme are illustrated in the Donegal County Council N56 Leitirmacaward to Glenties (Kilraine) Compulsory Purchase Order of 2011. The rights of way to be extinguished are described in Part II of the Schedule. There are no habitable houses proposed to be demolished to make way for the scheme. Three derelict buildings would be demolished to accommodate the scheme. The frontage of a residential property under construction would be adversely affected at Mulnamin. Some portion of approximately 85 residential properties is to be permanently acquired. Approximately 54 hectares of agricultural land would be acquired. If the road improvement scheme is to proceed to the design standard proposed, it can only reasonably be determined that the lands to be acquired are necessary to facilitate the provision of the scheme.

4.14 Environmental Impact Assessment

4.14.1 Need for Environmental Impact Assessment

An application was received by An Bord Pleanála from Donegal County Council requesting it to exercise its powers under section 50(1)(b) of the Roads Act, 1993, as amended, to direct the road authority to prepare an environmental impact statement in respect of the N56 Dungloe to Glenties (Kilraine) Road Project. The Board, by Order dated 10 th October, 2011, directed that the road authority prepare an environmental impact statement in respect of that part of the road project from Leitirmacaward to Glenties (Kilraine) only and to so do for the following reasons:

(a) the landscape sensitivity of the route; (b) the potential impact on protected views; (c) the environmental sensitivity of the proposed route, notably the potential impacts on the West of Ardara/Maas Road Special Area of Conservation and priority habitats and species; (d) the degree of interaction of the project with rivers that host communities of freshwater pearl mussel, an Annex II species; (e) the proximity of the route to a number of sites in the Record of Monuments and Places and the potential impacts thereon; (f) the guidance set out in Schedule 7 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, and to Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government guidance on sub-threshold development; (g) the submissions made to the Board; and ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 69 of 95 (h) the report and recommendation of the person appointed to make a report and recommendation on the matter.

4.14.2 Compliance with the requirements of Section 50(2) and Section 50(3) of the Roads Act, 1993 (as amended)

It is my submission to the Board that the submitted EIS, in overall terms, is in compliance with the requirements of Section 50 subsections (2) and (3) of the Roads Act 1993, as amended. To this extent I observe:

• The EIS contains the information required to be specified under Section 50(2) as it:

- describes the proposed road development, comprising information about the site, design, size, physical characteristics and land use requirements of the proposed development;

- provides the data necessary to identify and assess the main effects which the proposed road development is likely to have on the environment;

- describes the likely significant effects, direct and indirect, on the environment of the proposed road development, explained by reference to its possible impact on – (i) human beings, fauna and flora (ii) soil, water, air, climate and the landscape (iii) the interaction between any of the matters referred to in subparagraphs (i) and (ii), (iv) material assets, and (v) the cultural heritage.

- describes, where significant adverse effects are identified with respect to any of the matters referred to in paragraph (c), the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy those effects;

- gives an outline of the main alternatives studied and an indication of the main reasons for choosing the proposed alternative, taking into account the environmental effects, and

- provides an adequate summary in non-technical language of the above information.

• The EIS contains the relevant information specified in Section 50(3) by containing, in addition to the above, further information on the following:

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 70 of 95 (a) the estimated type and quantity of expected emissions resulting from the proposed road development when in operation;

(b) a description of the likely significant direct and indirect effects (including secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects) on the environment of the development proposed which may result from: (i) the use of natural resources; (ii) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste;

(a) a description of the forecasting methods used to assess any effects on the environment about which information is given under subparagraph (b);

(b) an indication of any difficulties, such as technical difficulties or lack of knowledge, encountered in compiling any specified information;

4.14.3 Identification of the likely significant direct and indirect effects of the project on the environment

The submitted EIS and my assessment preceding this part of my report focus on the likely significant direct and indirect effects arising from the proposed development. I propose here solely to identify the main likely effects under a range of headings as follows:

Human Beings

Construction Impacts Socio-Economic Severance Property Take

Agriculture

Land take from farms, forestry and bogland

Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology

Excavation and Construction Effects on Watercourses Drainage Impacts

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 71 of 95

Water Quality / Aquatic Ecology

Interfering with surface hydrology Undermining water quality and control of runoff Effecting important habitats

Terrestrial Ecology

Direct impact on West of Ardara/Maas Road candidate Special Area of Conservation Indirect effects for Natura 2000 sites in the vicinity Potential impacts on protected fauna and their habitats

Fisheries

Fishery destruction/displacement Effect on Gweebarra, Maas, Sruhangarve, and Owenea Rivers Encroachment of Toome Lough

Air Quality & Climate

Undermining local air quality by traffic Dust emissions

Noise & Vibration

Noise and vibration disturbance at construction phase

Landscape and Visual Impact

Eroding landscape character Impact on protected views Impact on views from residential properties

Cultural Heritage

Adversely affecting archaeology Adversely affecting structures of architectural heritage

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 72 of 95 Interactions

Humans and noise, air quality, visual impact, material assets Flora and fauna and water quality, hydrology, soils Landscape and the natural environment, cultural heritage

4.14.4 Description of the likely effects identified

The likely effects arising from the development proceeding are anticipated to include the following:

Human Beings

Construction Impact: Temporary road closures, movement of heavy plant and machinery, noise and dust emissions.

Socio Economic: Benefit to local communities, safer road network, increased traffic capacity.

Severance : Loss of direct access to business premises.

Property Take: Property acquisition to provide verges and services, accesses and tie-ins to local roads.

Agriculture

Land Take: Potential impact on farm viability and functioning, acquisition of forestry and turbary rights.

Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology

Excavation and Construction: Removal of significant volumes of rock, subsoil and peat; deep cuttings and high embankments

Effects on Watercourses: Bridging/culverting of waterways; infilling of Toome Lough.

Drainage Impacts: Introduction of road drainage affecting natural drainage.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 73 of 95

Water Quality / Aquatic Ecology

Surface Hydrology: Damaging the natural hydrological state of the primary waterbodies by pollution, habitat loss and degradation; interfering with the established drainage pattern in the environs.

Undermining water quality : Changes in surface runoff volumes; impacting on water chemistry and quality for protected and other species.

Effecting important habitats : Distorting the natural water system and undermining the important habitats for protected species; distorting the natural habitats of the West of Ardara/Maas Road cSAC at the construction stage; siltation impact for Freshwater Pearl Mussel in the Owenea River; Destruction/removal/fragmenting of valuable habitats on the site through excavation and earthworks.

Terrestrial Ecology

Impact on Special Area of Conservation: Land take of 6.76ha within West of Ardara/Maas Road cSAC

Indirect effects for Natura 2000 sites: Construction impacts arising from proximity of scheme to Gannivegil Bog and Lough Nillan Bog Natura 2000 sites

Impacts on Protected Fauna/Habitats: Degrading/fragmenting habitats; reducing diversity of species, including freshwater pearl mussel, marsh fritillary butterfly, otter, whorl snails, and harbour seals

Fisheries

Fishery Destruction/Displacement: Loss/displacement of resident or migratory fish stocks and/or their habitat

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 74 of 95 Effect on Maas River: Significant in-channel works on the watercourse crossing by realignment of the channel

Encroachment of Toome Lough: Realignment of road adjacent to Toome Lough and loss of part of lake habitat

Air Quality & Climate

Effects on local air quality: Potential increased levels of NOx, NO2, PM10, Benzene and CO from traffic.

Dust emissions: Dust arising from the construction phase

Noise and Vibration

Noise & Vibration Disturbance: Adverse impact by construction plant / traffic noise impacts on sensitive receptors.

Landscape & Visual Impact

Landscape Character: Distortion of the natural landscape character by routing and works.

Impact on Protected Views: Distortion of views at Gweebarra Bridge

Visual Impact on Residents: Obtrusive impact of scheme from residential properties

Cultural Heritage

Archaeology : Disturbance to or destruction of on-site archaeology.

Architectural heritage: Interference with/damage to structures of architectural heritage value.

Interactions

The effects of the interactions between humans and noise, air quality, visual impact, and material assets, between flora and fauna and water quality, hydrology, and soils, and between landscape and the natural environment and cultural heritage are implicit in the range of preceding issues listed. ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 75 of 95

4.14.5 Assessment of the likely significant effects identified, having regard to the mitigation measures

My detailed assessment set out before this section of the report fully considers the range of relevant likely significant effects with due regard given to the mitigation measures proposed to be applied with the proposed development proceeding. What follows is a short list of some of the most important mitigation measures proposed to be employed which are considered as necessary to address the range of potential significant impacts arising from the proposed development.

Human Beings

Construction Impact: Controlled and monitored construction management; short-term construction project; provision of temporary traffic management and planning of works; noise, air quality and visual impact mitigation measures apply; limiting working hours, limiting construction vehicle routing, restricting access to the construction site, controlling movement close to sensitive receptors, keeping residents informed of works, locating main compounds away from sensitive receptors, phasing construction programme to limit disruption to road users.

Socio Economic: Positive impact results in no requirement for specific mitigation measures.

Severance : Provision of alternative access arrangements

Property Take: Minimisation of land take and demolition, agreements with property owners on new boundary treatment, reinstatement of affected utilities, road design to minimise effects on existing roads.

Agriculture

Land Take: Generally poor quality land being acquired; minimisation of land take.

Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology

Excavation and Construction: Design employs minimisation of impact by primarily focusing on widening.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 76 of 95

Effects on Watercourses: New bridging/culverting of waterways where required and maintenance of existing water crossings; limiting infill of Toome Lough.

Drainage Impacts: Road drainage scheme designed to modern standards, including flood prevention.

Water Quality / Aquatic Ecology

Effect on Habitats: No permanent works in Gweebarra River, no excavation of peat within the Oweneaa River catchment.

Impact on Hydrology Construction Management Plan and & Water Quality: Environmental Operating Plan, to include a comprehensive suite of mitigation measures and monitoring.

Terrestrial Ecology

Impact on Special Area of Conservation: No permanent works in Gweebarra River; no excavation of peat within the Oweneaa River catchment; replacement woodland.

Effect on other Natura 2000 sites Construction Management Plan and & on protected Fauna/Habitats: Environmental Operating Plan, to include a comprehensive suite of mitigation measures and monitoring.

Fisheries

Fishery Destruction/Displacement: No in-channel works at the principal crossings over the Gweebarra, Stracashel and Owenea Rivers.

Effect on Maas River: New channel to include standard stream habitat features required by indigenous fish.

Encroachment of Toome Lough: Minimal land take for realignment of road adjacent to Toome Lough.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 77 of 95

Air Quality and Climate

Effects on local air quality: No requirement for specific mitigation as predicted levels are significantly below required threshold levels.

Dust Emissions: Dust Minimisation Plan.

Noise & Vibration

Noise & Vibration Disturbance: Short-term impact; best practice construction methodologies; limited working hours.

Landscape and Visual Impact

Landscape Character Change: No requirement for specific mitigation as there is a low level of landscape resource change predicted.

Impact on Protected Views: No requirement for specific mitigation as protected view not significantly altered.

Visual Impact on Residents: Application of suitable native planting.

Cultural Heritage

Archaeology : Programme of pre-construction archaeological testing and subsequent investigation; temporary fencing at construction phase to protect adjoining monuments.

Architectural heritage: Restorative works for relevant local features of architectural heritage merit at Mullenierin Bridge.

Interactions

There is a distinctive interrelationship between a wide range of mitigation measures applied, notably in the relationship between soils, hydrology, and ecological sensitivity, between residential impacts and noise and air quality control, and between the natural environment and the landscape impacts.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 78 of 95

4.14.6 Conclusions regarding the acceptability or otherwise of the likely residual effects identified

The conclusions regarding the acceptability of the likely main residual effects of this proposal are clearly addressed under the various headings of my main assessment and I do not propose to repeat them. Suffice to indicate that the principal areas of concern focus on impacts on Natura 2000 sites, residential amenity, impacts on farming and other business operations, and the impacts on water, soils, the landscape and on the amenity of the area. The following concluding section of my assessment now seeks to draw out the conclusions on the critical issues and to determine the most desirable approach to reaching a balanced decision on the proposed development.

4.15 Conclusions

The main conclusions arising from the above assessment are as follows:

• With regard to the objections to the proposed scheme, it is concluded that the land take is necessary for the development as designed and is suitable to meet the needs of the proposed scheme. • With regard to the proposed ‘Gateway Layout’ option at Derries, Glenties, significant effort has been made to reduce the land take at this location, resulting in minimisation of impact on properties. What results from the revisions made are lands to be acquired that are necessary to provide a scheme with a suitable design speed for this rural location. • The need for an EIS for the scheme has been adequately demonstrated and the development proposal does not constitute project splitting. • The proposed scheme is compatible with national, regional and local transportation policies and objectives. • The existing road is substandard and the principle of the proposed improvements is accepted. • In terms of detailed design and with due regard to adopted relaxations, the proposed scheme meets with the standards set out in Interim Advice Note 01/09 “ Design of Low Flow Single Carriageway Roads ”. • The applicant’s approach to the development of a cycleway for this section of the N56 is a practical approach, versatile, likely to encourage greatest use of the route, and is sensitive in environmental terms. • The applicant’s approach to considering alternatives is satisfactory. The route option ultimately chosen and derived from the assessment of alternatives minimises potential significant adverse effects on the environment. • Due to the scale and design of the works, the avoidance measures to be employed and the significant range of mitigation measures proposed, the scheme can be developed such that there will be no significant impacts

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 79 of 95 affecting the conservation objectives of the cSACs in the vicinity of the scheme. The integrity of these Natura 2000 sites will not be adversely affected and the proposed development, in itself or in combination with other plans or projects, will not be likely to have a significant effect on a European site, having regard to the conservation objectives of these sites. The conservation status of the freshwater pearl mussel, otter, salmon, Annex II bird species, and other protected species will not be significantly adversely affected by the proposed scheme, having regard to the application of the proposed mitigation measures. Those areas of sensitive ecological value beyond the designated cSACs and along the route corridor will not be significantly adversely affected by way of substantial loss, fragmentation of, or disturbance to habitats or protected species. • There will not be substantial landscape character change resulting from the proposed development. The visual impact of the scheme will be localised as a result of the lowlying nature of the terrain and, generally, panoramic views of the route are not discernible throughout the wider landscape. Overall, the route character is protected by the development options being pursued. • The impact on residents, businesses, farm enterprises, and community interests is not predicted to be significant. • The scheme will not result in significant impacts on cultural heritage. • If the road improvement scheme is to proceed to the design standard proposed, the lands to be acquired are necessary to facilitate the provision of the development.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 80 of 95 5.0 RECOMMENDATION

(i) Compulsory Purchase Order

I recommend as follows:

DECISION

CONFIRM the compulsory purchase order, subject to the errata and proposed changes to the schedule and deposited maps submitted to the Board at the Oral Hearing on 24 th April 2012, based on the reasons and considerations set out below.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Having considered the purpose of the compulsory acquisition as set out in the form of the compulsory purchase order, the provisions of the Donegal County Development Plan 2012-2018, the objections made to the compulsory purchase order and the report and recommendation of the person appointed by the Board to report on the case, it is considered that the acquisition by the local authority of the lands in question is necessary for the purpose stated and the objections cannot be sustained having regard to the said necessity.

(ii) Application for Approval of Proposed Road Development

I recommend that approval is granted under section 51 of the Roads Act, 1993, as amended, in accordance with the documentation submitted, including the environmental impact statement lodged with An Bord Pleanála on 14th December, 2011, as follows:

Having regard to:

(a) The national, regional and local strategic road policies and objectives, inclusive of those set out in the National Development Plan, National Spatial Strategy, Infrastructure and Capital Investment 2012-16 Medium Term Exchequer Framework , Smarter Travel - A Sustainable Transport Future, the National Secondary Roads Needs Study, the Border Regional Planning Guidelines, and the current Donegal County Development Plan, (b) The scheme constituting an important key element of the proposed upgrade of the N56 road between Glenties and Dungloe, (c) The seriously substandard condition of much of the existing N56 road between Leitirmacaward and Glenties, (a) The design, layout and alignment of the proposed development minimising the impact of the development on the West of Ardara / Maas Road candidate Special Area of Conservation, and

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 81 of 95 (b) The range of proposed mitigation measures set out in the submitted Environmental Impact Statement it is considered that the proposed road improvement scheme would not have significant environmental impacts on the residential, farming and business community in the vicinity of the scheme, would not adversely affect the integrity of the West of Ardara / Maas Road candidate Special Area of Conservation through which the scheme partly traverses or other Natura 2000 sites in the vicinity, would be acceptable in terms of the resulting visual and landscape impacts, and would otherwise be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

CONDITIONS

1. The proposals, mitigation measures and commitments set out in the Environmental Impact Statement, and as further stated and clarified in the Schedule of Environmental Commitments submitted by the local authority to the oral hearing on the 25th day of April, 2012, shall be implemented as part of the proposed development.

Reason: In the interest of clarity and to mitigate the environmental effects of the development, and to protect the amenities of properties in the vicinity.

2. The developer shall consult with the National Transport Authority in relation to the detailed design of pedestrian and cycle paths and crossings in the scheme, prior to commencement of development.

Reason: In the interest of traffic safety and to create a user friendly environment for non-motorised modes of transport in relation to the new scheme.

______Kevin Moore Senior Planning Inspector August, 2012.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 82 of 95 APPENDIX 1 - OUTLINE REPORT OF THE ORAL HEARING

Appeal Refs.: 05.HA0034 / 05.KA0021

Development Proposal: (a) EIS Approval for N56 Leitirmacaward to Glenties (Kilraine) Road Project

(b) Application for N56 Leitirmacaward to Glenties (Kilraine) Road Project Compulsory Purchase Order 2011

Venue: Highland Hotel, Glenties, County Donegal

Dates: 24 th -25 th April, 2012

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 83 of 95 In Attendance:

FIRST PARTY

Donegal County Council

Dermot Flanagan Barrister Patrick McMullin Solicitor Brendan O’Donnell Senior Executive Engineer, Donegal County Council Raymond Holbeach Regional Director, RPS, Landscape & Visual Impact Witness James McCrory Associate Director, RPS, Terrestrial Ecology Witness Mark Magee Associate Director, RPS, Water Quality & Aquatic Ecology Witness Frank Sweeney Senior Executive Planner, Donegal County Council

OBJECTORS

Martina Rodgers

Philip Rodgers (for John Rodgers)

Mary Ward

Kieran & Noreen Kelly

Michael McElhinney, Chartered Surveyor on behalf of:

David & Cornelia Bennett Kevin McCready John Ignatius Boyle Julie McDyer Nan Boyle Patricia Melley Patrick & Anne Brown Ian & Deirdre Vincent Paul Burns Patricia Watson Michael Byrne Margaret McDyer Michael Duddy Joe McGrath Richard T. Hanlon Helen & Sean Bonner Connell Keys

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 84 of 95 NOTE 1: All of the proceedings of the Oral Hearing are recorded and the recording is attached to my report. What follows below is a brief outline of the proceedings. This outline is proposed to function as an aid in following the recording.

NOTE 2: The assessment in my main report makes reference to details submitted in evidence at the Oral Hearing.

NOTE 3: For a list of prepared texts and other submissions given to the Inspector at the Hearing see the end of this brief outline. These submissions have been numbered and references to same in the outline below directly relate.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 85 of 95 Opening of Hearing

At the outset of the hearing I outlined details of the proposal, the objections received by the Board and set out the Order of Proceedings.

The Proceedings

Applicant’s Submissions

Project Description

Mr. Brendan O’Donnell gave an overview of the proposed scheme. His brief of evidence included a background to the scheme which included a review of the existing road, a description of the Type 3 Single Carriageway Road, the approach to assessment of the overall scheme development in three sections (Dungloe-Leitirmacaward, Cloghbolie- Boyoughter, and Leitirmacaward-Glenties), the design process, and public consultation. The submission also addressed the issue of the need for the scheme as well as the detailed design of the scheme, inclusive of road type, speed, junctions, drainage and structures. An overview of the route design on a section by section basis was provided. Finally, details on the suitability of the lands to be acquired and on the rights of way to be extinguished were addressed. Mr. O’Donnell’s submission included a schedule of design drawings at a scale of 1:2500.

In response to questions from the Inspector throughout the hearing, Mr. O’Donnell provided details on accident rates for the route, the extent of geophysical testing, route intrusion in cSAC, locations for side casting of spoil materials, recent road upgrading along the route, and impacts on habitability of dwellings resulting from land take.

Overall Environmental Impact and Landscape and Visual Impact

Mr. Raymond Holbeach’s brief of evidence included an overview of human environmental impacts, including predicted impacts on private residential and commercial property and the effects on community and recreational lands, as well as the associated mitigation measures proposed. It was noted that a single residential plot is to be acquired for the scheme. Each of the commercial premises along the route likely to be affected by the scheme was addressed, as was each community building. The effects on agriculture were similarly considered. It was noted that lands affected are mostly of poor or poor/medium quality and that 54 hectares of agricultural land is to be acquired in total. The submission also addressed the issue of noise and vibration. It was noted that all modelled noise receptors were deemed to have satisfied the design goal. The issue of landscape and visual impact was considered in the submission, which included a description of the landscape character areas affected, predicted impacts thereon, visual impacts, and proposed mitigation measures. Finally, the issue of cultural heritage, in

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 86 of 95 terms of the impacts on archaeology and architecture and associated mitigation, was addressed.

Terrestrial Ecology

Mr. James McCrory’s submission considered the terrestrial ecology impact and the submitted Natura Impact Statement (NIS). Designated conservation sites were identified, important habitats were listed, and protected fauna found within the study area were referred to. Finally, proposed mitigation measures were examined.

Water Quality & Aquatic Ecology

Mr. Mark Magee considered the water quality and aquatic ecology assessment and the fisheries assessment contained in the EIS. He characterised the hydrological environment within the study area, addressed the impacts from suspended solids, other pollutants, and road drainage, looked at habitat loss, the impact on the Freshwater Pearl Mussel (FPM) habitat, the effects on fish, hydromorphological impacts, and overall mitigation measures to be applied. The latter considered the proposed Environmental Operating Plan, sediment control, peat excavation and side casting, compounds, habitat loss, provisions for FPM, and proposals relating to effects on fish.

Planning Context

Mr. Frank Sweeney addressed strategic planning policy at national, regional and local levels. The latter focused on the Donegal County Development Plan provisions relating to the county’s spatial strategy, transportation and communications, employment, environmental protection, heritage, and tourism.

Other submissions by the applicant included the following:

(a) Mr. Flanagan submitted a copy of an e-mail sent on 23 rd April, 2012 by the Development Applications Unit of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht to NDRO office of Donegal County Council. This comprised observations and recommendations in relation to nature conservation. A formal response to this submission by Donegal County Council was addressed to the hearing also. (b) Mr. O’Donnell presented corrections/amendments to the submitted Schedule – Part 1, which referred to owner changes, as well as adding details of two plots that had been shown on deposited maps; two deposited maps with the two plots correctly labelled; a correction to Schedule – Part 2 which in Item 14 replaces the N56 with local road L2713; and changes to Schedule – Part 1 which comprises

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 87 of 95 omissions of plots from the Schedule relating to lands in ownership by a number of the objectors to the scheme and associated maps showing the relevant plot locations. (c) Mr. O’Donnell presented a document comprising a summary response to the objections received by the Board. This gave a formal response to each objection individually and measures proposed to address concerns raised. (d) Mr. O’Donnell presented accident data relating to the N56 after a request for such information from the Inspector. (e) Mr. O’Donnell presented a Geophysical Survey Report for the scheme following a request for such details from the Inspector, with particular reference to the impact at Gweebarra bends. This included an attached drawing showing the mainline earthworks at this location. (f) Mr. O’Donnell presented details of submissions by NRDO to the NRA in relation to seeking departures from the NRA’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) at Kilraine in response to issues raised at the hearing by objectors. (g) Mr. Flanagan presented a document entitled ‘EIS – Schedule of Commitments’. (h) Mr. Flanagan presented a route options report relating to the alignment at Letterlilly Hill in response to questioning from the Inspector relating to the potential impact on the cSAC at this location. This included an attached drawing showing the options considered. (i) Mr. Flanagan presented a method statement for peat deposition in response to the Inspector’s questions relating to the disposal of waste material resulting from the scheme.

Objectors’ Submissions

Those Objectors who made formal submissions to the hearing were as follows:

Martina Rodgers

Philip Rodgers on behalf of John Rodgers

Mary Ward

Kieran and Noreen Kelly

Michael McElhinney on behalf of

David & Cornelia Bennett Kevin McCready John Ignatius Boyle Julie McDyer Nan Boyle Patricia Melley Patrick & Anne Brown Ian & Deirdre Vincent Paul Burns Patricia Watson Michael Byrne Margaret McDyer ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 88 of 95 Michael Duddy Joe McGrath Richard T. Hanlon Helen & Sean Bonner Connell Keys

Martina Rodgers

Ms. Rodgers had no objection to the overall scheme or to the proposal to close a local road at one end in the vicinity of her property in Derries but had concerns with the impact of the scheme on the local road junction, traffic speeds on the main road and effects on public safety. It was submitted that the Council had agreed to provide for a 60kph speed limit for this location but that she had now become aware that the speed limit proposed on the main road at this location was 80kph. It was submitted that there is a concern that traffic speeds will be a serious issue at this location, despite the use of road signage.

In response, Mr. O’Donnell explained the background to engaging Roughan & O’Donovan engineers to address local concerns at Derries and the development of a ‘Gateway’ scheme and introducing a reduced design speed. It was stated that the local authority gave an undertaking that it would pursue this proposal and to seek to get it accepted by the NRA. This would have reduced the land take at this location and would have left the road in its present condition. It was submitted that the NRA was not satisfied to reduce the design speed to 60kph and, following further applications to it, it agreed to an 80kph advisory speed limit for this location. Mr. O’Donnell submitted that it was proposed to modify the design at this location and that the NRA had agreed to allowing reduced access visibility at individual house accesses down to 90m and to reducing stopping distance down to 90m through this section of road. It was stated that 160m sight visibility at the local road junction is to be retained. It was confirmed that the mechanism to apply the advisory speed limit comprises use of signage.

Philip Rodgers

Mr. Rodgers, on behalf of his father Mr. John Rodgers, submitted that the scheme proposed an excessive land take affecting his farm. It was submitted that the implication was that almost one-fifth of the farm would be acquired and this comprised the best land, while the garden of the house would also be curtailed. Concerns were expressed about the movement of cattle and to speeding concerns for residents. It was noted the road had been upgraded in 2005 and 2011 and that since 2005 no accidents had been recorded at this location. The impact on the scenic amenity of the Owenea River was also referred to. Reference was also made to the Roughan & O’Donovan report for the section of road at Derries and to being misled by Donegal County Council in relation to the NRDO seeking a 60kph design speed for Derries. It was asked that the CPO be reviewed for this location. Mr. Rodgers submitted a copy of the Roughan & O’Donovan report to the Inspector.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 89 of 95 Mr. O’Donnell in response submitted that Roughan & O’Donovan considered concept proposals which provided for a design speed of 60kph. It was noted that this would still require junction visibility of 120m. It was noted that the proposal now proposes less in terms of stopping sight distance and that the land take is necessary to achieve a 90m stopping distance in the interest of safety. It was submitted that the scheme has been reduced to a minimum at this location. It was stated that the 60kph speed limit proposal for this stretch of road was not put to the NRA by Donegal County Council and that a reduced design speed of 85kph had been rejected by the NRA. It was stated that the Council then proceeded to seek departures from standards that were agreed by the NRA resulting in the current advisory speed limit of 80kph for this stretch of road.

Mary Ward

Ms. Ward has a site with planning permission for a house at Derries. She raised a number of concerns. Noting the road has been upgraded in 2005 and 2011, she referred to how she facilitated these works. She submitted that at the location of her site there is a bend on the road that allows traffic to travel at 60kph only and that by carrying out the road scheme, notwithstanding the advisory speed limit of 80kph, traffic will travel at 100kph or more and will pose a serious concern. Reference was again made to the Rough & O’Donovan recommendation and to being misled by Donegal County Council on the ‘Gateway’ proposal and the reduction of speeds to 60kph at this location. While having no objection to the scheme in general, the provision of the ‘Gateway’ is seen as having been agreed and as being essential at this location. Other concerns raised related to the impact on the scenic amenity of the area by the scheme’s intent of improving vision lines at this location for properties and to the impact on her site area by reduced frontage with the added effects of the flooding problem associated with the Owenea River at this location.

Mr. O’Donnell again submitted that the NRA did not accept an 85kph speed limit for this location and that it would not be expected that it would accept a 60kph limit for this location. He noted that the road is not to be realigned at this location and that it was proposed to improve vision lines. It was submitted that one could not be sure that the consequence of improved vision lines will increase traffic speed along this stretch of road. He submitted that the road itself will be the limiting factor on traffic speeds. He suggested there is an opportunity in providing signage for the advisory speed limit to affect traffic speeds.

Kieran & Noreen Kelly

Mr. Kelly detailed the range of concerns raised in his written submission to the Board, notably the effects on his dwellings at Derries. He referred to meetings and correspondence with the NRDO and to the agreed alternative produced by Roughan & O’Donovan. Mr. Kelly has no objection to the scheme in principle but objects to the CPO impacts on his property, notably on the easternmost house. He reiterated the significant ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 90 of 95 impact on his property and detailed correspondence with the NRDO and how their concerns were inappropriately treated.

Mrs. Kelly addressed in detail the consultations with the NRDO, how it was agreed that the Roughan & O’Donovan ‘Gateway’ option was to be pursued by the County Council, and to the recent notification from the Council of the current proposal, with the ‘Gateway’ option not being pursued with the NRA. She referred to the existing road being safe and that after its upgrade in 2005 that there have been no accidents, that traffic flows well and that there is no congestion. It was submitted the road is safe for 60kph traffic speed. It was further submitted that increased vision lines will increase traffic speed. The closure of one of the access points of the nearby local road was a concern as it was seen to double the traffic accessing the main road at a junction opposite their property. It was repeated that the illusion of the narrowing of the existing road at this location to create the ‘Gateway’ option is what should be pursued. There was a serious concern about an accident resulting at this location and a car leaving the road and entering their property resulting in fatalities.

In response to the submission, Mr. Flanagan detailed correspondence between the Kelly/Rodgers family and the NRDO in relation to the ‘Gateway’ option at Derries. He then clarified that an application had indeed been made to the NRA for a reduced 60kph design speed at Derries and this was rejected. A further application was made and this resulted in the accepted design speed of 80kph. Mr. O’Donnell confirmed details of the applications for a reduced design speed at Derries. He explained in detail the correspondence and applications to the NRA. He submitted that the request for the 60kph limit was in the context of a design speed and not a speed limit for this stretch of road. He submitted the project is designed to a design standard of 85kph and noted that a minimum sight distance of 90m stopping distance is required for a 60kph zone. He noted that the NRA approved stopping sight distance is consistent with the 60kph requirements. He noted that the main impact on land take in the original application was to achieve 160m junction visibility with the local road. The design presented now to the Board is for 85kph with a number of derogations but he noted that the 160 junction sight stopping distance is retained. It was submitted that there was still a need for land take in this area in order to ensure adequate visibility and so land take could not be eliminated entirely. He concluded that the proposal is consistent with a 60kph design speed as a result of the approved derogations and that the acquisition of Plots 13c, 13e and 351c at this location were necessary.

Michael McElhinney

Mr. McElhinney detailed the positions of each of his clients as follows:

- David and Cornelia Bennett met with representatives of Donegal County Council to consider their concerns. All issues were resolved. They formally withdrew their objection and offered their support for the scheme. ______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 91 of 95 - John Ignatius Boyle withdrew his objection to the scheme following negotiation with the Council and amendments to the scheme. - Nan Boyle considered the impact on her house results in it not being fit for purpose and has come to an agreement with the Council that it will be bought by the Council. Mr. McElhinney noted price had yet to be agreed and submitted that following this the objection would be withdrawn. The Inspector informed the hearing that the lands the subject of the CPO are those to which the Board will be making a determination and it was noted that the house does not fall within the proposed land take. - Patrick and Anne Brown withdrew their objection following clarification from the Council. - Paul Burns withdrew his objection following confirmation from the Council that the front boundary stone wall was to be replaced on a like-for-like basis. - Michael Byrne withdrew his objection following a meeting with the Council. - Michael Duddy withdrew his objection following clarification with the Council. - Helen and Sean Bonner withdrew their objection following clarification from the Council. - Richard T. Hanlon asked the Council to elaborate further on the proposed alterations and improvements to his existing entrance and it was stated he would then be in a position to withdraw his objection. - Connell Keys has a retail business not in use and has concerns in relation to lorry parking after the completion of the scheme. The objection was not withdrawn. - Kevin McCready noted the amendments made to the scheme in the vicinity of his property and withdrew his objection. - Julie McDwyer wished it noted that the scheme would impact on the development potential of her landholding. - Patricia Melley has concerns as the lands impacted represent the majority of her family’s landholding. It was noted from the Council that these lands could not be avoided and she submitted she will not be pursuing an objection. - Deirdre and Ian Vincent had negotiations with the Council and the majority of the issues were resolved. They wished to record that the Council would retain existing parking arrangements and it was noted the arrangement to shorten the cycle lane at this location was being proposed. Subject to this, the objection was withdrawn. - Patricia Watson had issues resolved following consultation with the Council. Subject to satisfactory compensation and the replacement of a front boundary wall on a like-for-like basis, the objection was withdrawn. - Margaret McDyer has had clarification from the Council and formally withdrew her objection. - Joe McGrath wished it noted that it was always his intention to provide a house at this location using the existing entrance and that the Council had informed him that the planning status does not alter pre- or post-scheme. Subject to this being noted, the objection was withdrawn.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 92 of 95 Mr. Flanagan, in response, noted accommodation works to be agreed with Deirdre and Ian Vincent, Paul Burns, Patricia Watson and Patricia Melley. It was noted also that the proposed works to Richard Hanlon’s access are to form part of future negotiations. In relation to Nan Boyle’s property, it was noted that there is an intention to negotiate a price to purchase the house and it was further noted that this remains a matter for consideration between the two parties. There was some discussion on the effect of the scheme on the serviceability of the existing house to maintain its habitability. With regard to Connell Keys and Julie McDwyer, it was submitted that the issues are a matter of compensation. Mr. O’Donnell confirmed for the Inspector that the proposed amendment to the access road arrangements at and in the vicinity of the Gweebarra Bar (Kevin McCready’s property) can be developed within the proposed land take along with the lands associated with the existing public road. Mr. McElhinney indicated his satisfaction with the responses received from the local authority.

Concluding Remarks

Concluding remarks were received from Mrs. Kelly on behalf of the Kelly, Rodgers and Ward families, with an emphasis placed on the process not having been transparent. Concluding remarks on behalf of the applicant were made by Mr. Flanagan who alluded to the submitted EIS, the reduced land take resulting from the amended Schedule, the considered conclusions on the impact of European Sites, and the schedule of EIS commitments.

Closure of Hearing

I concluded the hearing by informing the parties that each will be informed of the Board's decision in writing.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 93 of 95 SUBMISSIONS AT ORAL HEARING

The following is a complete schedule of copies of prepared submissions to the Oral Hearing and other references given to the Inspector:

Applicant's Submissions

1. Statement of Evidence of Brendan O’Donnell on project details 2. Statement of Evidence of Raymond Holbeach on landscape & visual 3. Statement of Evidence of James McCrory on terrestrial ecology 4. Statement of Evidence of Mark Magee on water quality & aquatic ecology 5. Statement of Evidence of Frank Sweeney on planning policy 6. Brendan O’Donnell – Summary Response to Objections

Additional Submissions:

A. Design Drawings associated with Brendan O’Donnell Submission B. Errata, Proposed Changes to the Schedule, Proposed Changes to Deposited Maps C. Email from Development Applications Unit (DAU) of Department of Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht to Donegal County Council NRDO, dated 23 rd April, 2012 D. Response to DAU Submission E. Project Appraisal Report on Accident Data F. (a) Report from Minerex Geophysics Ltd. on Geophysical Survey (b) Drawing of Plan and Profile at Gweebarra Bends G. (a) Extract from NRA TD 9/12 on design speed related parameters (b) Application for a Departure from the NRA Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (c) Application for a Departure from the NRA Design Manual for Roads and Bridges H. EIS - Schedule of Commitments I. Method Statement for Peat Deposition J. (a) Route Options Report – Letterlilly Hill (b) Route Options Drawing for Letterlilly Hill K. Oral Hearing Display Drawings (4 no. Sheets)

Objectors’ Submissions

1. Statements of Evidence of Kieran & Noreen Kelly

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 94 of 95 Additional Submissions:

A. Submission from Kieran and Noreen Kelly on correspondence with Donegal County Council B. Photographs associated with Kieran & Noreen Kelly Submission C. N56 Mill Road Layout Options Report received from John & Philip Rodgers

______Kevin Moore Senior Planning Inspector August, 2012.

______PL 05.KA0021/05.HA0034 An Bord Pleanala Page 95 of 95