An Bord Pleanála
Inspector’s Report
Reference No: NA 0001.
Proposed Development: Dunboyne (M3) Commuter Rail.
Location: Clonsilla, Co. Dublin to Pace, Co. Meath.
Applicants: Coras Iompair Eireann (CIE).
Planning Authorities: 1. Fingal County Council. 2. Meath County Council.
Application Type: Railway Order under section 37 of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act, 2001 as amended by section 49 of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act, 2006.
Observers: There are 31 observers and they are listed overleaf.
Dates of Site Inspection: 21st and 30th November 2007.
Inspector: David Dunne.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 1 List of Observers.
1. Richard B. Leahy, Liverpool. 2. James Reeves, 8a Elton Drive, Dunboyne. 3. Thomas & Maud Potterton, Rathcormick, Ballivor. 4. James & Adrienne McGrath, 9 Elton Drive, Dunboyne. 5. John Connaughton Ltd. 6. Millfarm Residents Association. 7. Hilltown Partnership. 8. SIAC Construction Ltd. 9. Menolly Group. 10. Virginia Kerr. 11. Rail Users Ireland. 12. McGarrell Reilly. 13. Sean Boylan, Castlefarm, Dunboyne. 14. Ian Pringle, Barnhill. 15. Tony Murray & Michael Degan, Lucan. 16. Mrs Betty Larkin, Station Road, Dunboyne. 17. DTO. 18. Manor Park Homebuilders. 19. Gerty Gregan, Lands at Bennettstown, Dunboyne. 20. Michael Mc Loughlin, 11 Riverwood Heath, Castleknock. 21. NRA. 22. Barina Construction Ltd. 23. An Taisce. 24. Gerard & Moira McGrath, Stirling Bridge. 25. Meath Local Authorities. 26. Castelthorn Construction. 27. Colm Moore. 28. Fingal County Council. 29. Dept. Environment, Heritage & Local Government. 30. Waterways Ireland. 31. Tom Maher (Note: Observation received 13/12/07 during oral hearing).
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1. 1.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………. 5. 1.2. Site and Surroundings…………………………………………………… 5. 1.3. History…………………………………………………………………….. 6. 1.4. Proposed Development…………………………………………………… 7. 1.5. Observations……………………………………………………………… 9. 1.6. Planning Framework…………………………………………………… 23. 1.7. Provisions of EIS………………………………………………………… 27. 1.8. Oral Hearing……………………………………………………………. 34.
Section 2. 2.1. Preamble………………………………………………………………… 37. 2.2. The Application………………………………………………………… 37. 2.3. Need…………………………………………………………………….. 38. 2.4. Adequacy of EIS……………………………………………………….. 39. 2.5. Conservation…………………………………………………………… 43. 2.6. Stations/Park & Ride – General………………………………………. 49. 2.7. Pace Station and Park & Ride………………………………………… 52. 2.8. Dunboyne Station and Park & Ride………………………………….. 54. 2.9. Hansfield Station……………………………………………………… …58. 2.10. Clonsilla Station…………………………………………………….. 60. 2.11. Roads Issues…………………………………………………………. 61. 2.12. Property Acquisition & Related Issues……………………………. 65. 2.13. Other issues…………………………………………………………. 77.
Section 3. Recommendation……………………………………………… 79.
Amendments to Articles in draft Railway Order………………………. 80. Amendments to Schedule 1 -The railway and railway works authorised by this order…………………. 81. Amendments to Schedule 2 - Land to be acquired…………………….. 82.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 3 Amendments to Schedule 3 - Roads to be closed permanently……………… 83. Amendments to Schedule 4 - Roads to be closed temporarily………………. 83. Amendments to Schedule 5 -Roads to be altered…………………………….. 83. Amendments to Schedule 6 - New roads to be constructed…………………. 83. Amendments to Schedule 7 - Land over which rights including rights of way and other rights and easements are to be acquired………………… 83. Amendments to Schedule 8 - Part 1- Public rights to be extinguished……… 83. Amendments to Schedule 8- Part 2 - Private rights to be extinguished…….. 84. Amendments to Schedule 9 - Public and private rights of way to be temporarily interrupted…………………………84. Amendments to Schedule 10 - Land of which temporary possession is to be taken………………………………….. 85. Schedule 11 - Agreements reached at the oral hearing……………………… 86. Schedule 12 – Conditions……………………………………………………… 96.
Report Attachments. Attachment 1: CIE/IE Evidence to Oral Hearing. Attachment 2: Local Authorities Submissions to Oral Hearing. Attachment 3: Observers Submissions to Oral Hearing. Attachment 4: CIE/IE Amendments to draft Rail Order. Attachment 5: CIE/IE Responses to Submissions. Attachment 6: Photos from site inspection.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 4 SECTION 1.
1.1. Introduction.
1.1.1. This is an application for a Railway Order under section 37 of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act, 2001 as amended by section 49 of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act, 2006. It involves reopening a railway line between Clonsilla and Pace that previously operated for a period of approximately 100 years between 1862 and 1963 as part of the Dublin- Navan railway but has been closed for the past 45 years. Since its closure in 1963, the tracks have been lifted and the land disposed of. The line would connect to the existing main line from Connolly Station to Sligo at Clonsilla.
1.1.2. The applicants are Coras Iompair Eireann/Iarnrod Eireann (CIE/IE) and they held pre-application consultations with the Board.
1.2. Site and Surroundings.
1.2.1. The former alignment of the proposed railway is largely intact and there is no development over it. The overall amount of land involved is stated as 23.5ha (see EIS 12.6.3 p153) and the alignment passes through the administrative area of two planning authorities, Fingal County Council and Meath County Council. The following is a brief description of the route travelling from south to north.
1.2.2. Clonsilla Station to Hilltown. The proposed railway links in with the existing Maynooth line to the west of Clonsilla Station and adjoining the Royal Canal. The stone abutments of the former bridge over the canal are still intact. The north bank of the canal is a pedestrian way but consists of a grassed area without footpath or public lighting. There is a towpath at the bridge abutments and the remains of a stone accommodation under-bridge to its north.
1.2.3. From the Royal Canal to Hilltown Stud the alignment is intact with earthen embankments and hedgerows either side. The central portion has been cleared. The Barnhill over-bridge has damaged parapets on both sides and a pipe on its eastern side. Parts of the flank walls are loose. There are no dwellings immediately adjoining the line and there is farmland on both sides adjoining the route.
1.2.4. Hilltown to Sterling. The line is blocked at Hilltown Stud by an earthen bank and hedgerow. Through the stud the hedgerow along the western side of the alignment is still intact but the line and its eastern boundary have been incorporated into fields separated by post and rail fencing. To the east of the line is Hilltown House with a walled garden. At the northern end of the stud farm the line is blocked by a concrete walled dungstead. The route of the recently constructed pipeline through the farm from the R149 is visible with cleared hedges and trees at the road frontage.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 5 1.2.5. From Hilltown Stud to Sterling over-bridge the line and hedgerows are intact. At the southern side of the bridge there are paddocks to the west and Sunny Bank house to the east, both set back from the line. The parapets of the stone- arched bridge are intact but there is evidence of cracking and repairs to the crown of the arch. To the north of the bridge the line leading to a stone-arched accommodation bridge is impassable due to flooding. The parapets of this bridge are badly damaged.
1.2.6. Sterling to Dunboyne. The line is intact between Sterling and Dunboyne over-bridges with mostly farmland either side. To the southeast of Beechdale housing estate there is an ESB pylon blocking the line but there is a farm track around it that continues to Dunboyne Bridge. The estates of Beechdale and Larchfield are immediately adjoining the line to the west and between these estates the line crosses the Dunboyne or Castle Stream where there is a stone-arched under-bridge. To the southeast of Dunboyne Bridge there is a residence and health clinic. Here there is also an intact water tower. The bridge appears to be in good condition and its parapets are intact.
1.2.7. Dunboyne to Pace. Immediately to the north of Dunboyne Bridge the line is blocked as it has been incorporated into the garden of a dwelling that was formerly the station building. This garden is surrounded by tall evergreen trees and there are remnants of the former station platforms in this garden. The line then becomes intact again with the Millfarm housing estate immediately to the west and farmland to the east.
1.2.8. North of Millfarm the line passes through rough pasture and then tillage before becoming identifiable again as it crosses the Tolka River in two places. To the north of the river there has been some encroachment onto the former alignment by the rear gardens of houses fronting the R157. The line then passes through Bennetstown over-bridge where the parapets on both sides have been badly damaged. North of the bridge the line is blocked where the garden of a house has been extended to the bank of the Tolka. North of the Tolka there is a short intact section of the former line with a farmhouse and outbuildings to the west. Thereafter there are construction works at the proposed M3 interchange including diversion of the river.
1.2.9. I attach photographs taken during my site inspection.
1.3. History.
1.3.1. Originally a railway line from Clonsilla to Navan was opened in 1862 as a single line. Following the take-over by the Midland Great Western Railway in 1888, doubling of the line took place between Clonsilla and Drumree. Passenger services were suspended temporarily during the Second World War and were finally suspended in 1947. Goods traffic continued to use the line until it closed completely in 1963. The track was then lifted and most of the land disposed of.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 6 1.4. Proposed Development.
1.4.1. The principal elements of the proposed development consist of The construction of approximately 7.5km of dual track from Pace to Clonsilla along an existing discontinued alignment for series 2900 Diesel Multiple trains with plans to electrify the railway line in the future. This is seen as the first phase in the reopening of the Navan line. The line would connect to the existing main line from Connolly Station to Sligo at Clonsilla. It is intended to run a total of 44 trains between Clonsilla and Pace increasing to 88 trains over subsequent years leading to a peak service of one train every 15 minutes. Total passenger demands are predicted from rail feasibility studies to be in the region of 2 million passenger trips by 2016. The construction of new railway stations at Pace and Dunboyne. The stations are to a generic design and will consist of 174m long platforms, buildings and footbridges. The style of the stations follows an IE Architectural theme already established along the Maynooth line. Construction of platforms at Hansfield Station site (Hansfield station will be constructed in the future as the area is developed). The provision of park and ride facilities for 1200 cars located south of the M3 interchange at Pace. The provision of car parking spaces for 420 cars at Dunboyne station on the east side of the rail. The construction of three accommodation bridges at Hilltown, Dunboyne and Hansfield. The demolition of bridges at Bennetstown and farmer’s Accommodation Bridge north of Stirling Bridge. Strengthening works to the existing bridges at Barnhill, Sterling and Dunboyne. The construction of a new railway bridge across the Royal Canal west of Clonsilla. The construction of a new foot/cycle bridge immediately north of Dunboyne Bridge. The replacement/construction/strengthening of three river-under-rail bridges, one for crossing the Tolka north of Dunboyne, one south of Dunboyne for the Castle Stream water-course, and a third for the Tolka at Bracetown. Associated infrastructure, earthworks, drainage, culverts etc. The installation of new boundary treatment works along the rail corridor – to be one of four types. Public lighting for roads, stations and car parks.
1.4.2. Given that all of the property required to construct and operate the railway is in private ownership, the lands to be acquired constitute only those areas necessary to construct stations and car parks, maintain minimum lateral clearances, embankments/cuttings and longitudinal drainage ditches.
1.4.3. The overall construction period is expected to take 24 months commencing in 2008. It is proposed to locate five construction compounds along the railway. Four of these take access from existing roads. The fifth, the Pace Park and Ride site, will take access from the new Dunboyne by-pass and M3 Interchange that
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 7 is expected to be in place when railway works begin. There may be a need for two additional compounds at Barnhill Bridge and at Sterling Bridge.
1.4.4. The draft Legal Order and Schedules are set out in four volumes. Volume 1 sets out the articles and contains Schedule 1 listing the railway and railway works authorised by this order. Volume 2 contains Schedule 2 listing the lands to be acquired on a permanent basis.
Volume 3 contains the following schedules:- Schedule 3 – Roads to be closed permanently. This refers to the closure of the R157 following the demolition of Bennetstown Bridge. Schedule 4 – Roads to be closed temporarily. This refers to the closure of the R149 at Barnhill Bridge and the closure of Sterling Road Bridge while works to these bridges is being undertaken. Schedule 5 – Roads to be altered. There are 5 items and they refer to the provision of an entrance to proposed station from the R156 at Dunboyne Bridge, the construction of a roundabout on the Dunboyne by-pass, alterations to the vertical alignments of Sterling and Barnhill over-bridges, and revised access arrangements to private property on the R156 at Dunboyne opposite station car park. Schedule 6 – New roads to be constructed. These refer to vehicular access to Dunboyne and Pace Park and Ride sites. Schedule 7 – Land over which rights including rights of way and other rights and easements are to be acquired – none. Schedule 8 Part 1 – Public rights to be extinguished – Bennetstown Bridge. Schedule 8 Part 2 – Private rights to be extinguished. There a 3 such rights and they refer to demolition of the Farmers Accommodation Bridge to the north of Sterling road bridge, and relocation of a well and a private entrance from public road, both at Castlefarm, Dunboyne. In the case of the latter two items, alternatives are being provided. Schedule 9 – Public and private rights of way to be temporarily interrupted. These refer to watermains, surface water and foul sewers, overhead electricity lines, electricity pylon, gas mains, telecoms and other services.
Volume 4 contains a schedule of the lands of which temporary possession is to be taken.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 8 1.5. Observations.
A total of 30 written observations were received prior to the oral hearing and 1 during the hearing. The following is my summary of the main issues contained in each observation:
1.5.1. Richard B. Leahy, Liverpool. Transportation corridors involving road and rail operate successfully in Europe and are more likely to obtain a grant if the terms ‘transportation corridor’ or ‘economic corridor’ are used.
1.5.2. James Reeves, 8a Elton Drive, Dunboyne. Noise issues. Having regard to the noise mitigation measures proposed for 14 Elton Grove and 10 The Elms, and the fact that his house had not been constructed when the studies were carried out, the observer says his property qualifies for all the additional noise reduction measures.
1.5.3. Thomas & Maud Potterton, Rathcormick, Ballivor. Property issue. They object to the location of the proposed temporary service road for the construction compound at Hilltown as it would bisect their farm. They have indicated an alternative access point and route.
1.5.4. James & Adrienne McGrath, 9 Elton Drive, Dunboyne. Noise, vibration, air quality and property issues. The proposed increase in noise levels from 50 to 59 dB would have a significant impact on the quality of their lives and environment and would not have the ‘slight’ impact referred to in the EIS. An application for outline permission, Reg.Ref. DA/30429, has been made for a dwelling on the land beside the existing house and abutting the boundary with the railway. The railway should be constructed a significant distance from their boundary wall, at least 20m, to ensure no noise nuisance and acoustic screening should be provided. There should be no intrusion during construction into the public area at the end of Elton Drive as shown on temporary acquisition map. Noise and vibration should be controlled during construction and there should be no air or water pollution. Given the uncertainty and potential harm that vibrations could cause to the existing and proposed dwelling, the railway line should be relocated. CIE should be required to ensure there is no deterioration in air quality and there is no pollution resulting from construction and operation of the railway. The proposed car parks at Dunboyne and Pace should not be built unless the danger of flooding can be eliminated. There should be immediate electrification of the line as this would have environmental benefits for noise and air pollution.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 9 1.5.5. John Connaughton Ltd. Issues - parking and access to Dunboyne station, surface water and sewerage pipes. 420 spaces excessive and inconsistent with IAAP. Adverse impacts not assessed in EIS as quantum of parking to be re-evaluated at a later date. The access to Dunboyne station off Clone Road is contrary to the IAAP which states that access be taken from the Eastern Distributor Road (EDR) and not from Clonee Road. While it is noted that the proposed access is temporary pending construction of the EDR, it is not clear from the EIS whether the entrance to the car park from Clonee Road will remain. The proposed access should be reconsidered as it compromises the development potential of the lands which front onto Clonee Road and the layout of development as per IAAP. The EDR should be constructed by IE to allow cell 5 to begin development at the same time as the train station. The location of the entrance to the station will lead to major traffic congestion in this area of Dunboyne. The EIS does not take cognisance of the existing sewage connection on the observer’s lands. The location of the pipes is not indicated on Alignment Plan A006. The train station and car park is located on and above the observer’s surface water and sewage pipes. This impacts on the lands and future development potential. It restricts freedom to upgrade these facilities in the future. Confirmation is sought that the line of these pipes and their use will be maintained. The RO should confirm that there is no change of ownership or use of these pipes. and ownership is confirmed in the RO.
1.5.6. Millfarm Residents Association. Broadly supportive but has concerns. Block walls should supplement the proposed timber screens at the end of 2 culs-de-sac and the open space at Willow Park. The residents with side walls to front gardens bounding the railway should be given the option of having them raised in addition to the proposed construction of timber screens. Any further areas adjacent to Millfarm should be planted/landscaped to minimise noise and to camouflage the proposed timber fence. Acoustic screening should be installed for all houses located at the end of culs-de-sac adjacent to the railway and that a regular timber screen be provided along the entire length of the boundary with Millfarm. There should be no unreasonable over-lighting of the private areas to the rear of existing houses from the station. Timetable information should be given by electronic signage and not by way of public address. The proposed pedestrian bridge should not afford unreasonable overlooking into the rear of properties, should be aesthetically well presented and appropriately lit. Construction hours should be limited to 8.00am to 7.00pm Monday to Friday only. Noise screening should be put in place during construction where works are likely to exceed 70 dB(A) and this limit should not be exceeded during construction.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 10 The services of an accredited pest control company should be employed to deal with displaced rodents. If sewerage associated with the estate intrudes into the area of the railway, contingency measures should be introduced to ensure continuity of services. Vibrations should be kept to a minimum and within limits that preserve the amenity and structural integrity of existing houses. A liaison officer should be appointed between the residents and contractor and should be on site during all operational hours.
1.5.7. Hilltown Partnership. There is no provision for a Park and Ride facility south of Dunboyne. There is adequate green space adjacent to the line in the observer’s lands for a P&R facility to be provided. The RO application makes no provision for a future station south of Dunboyne, close to the Meath County boundary, as envisaged in the Meath County Development Plan. The RO is deficient in not including a station at Hillstown in its plans. Electrification of the line should be part of the current works.
1.5.8. SIAC Construction Ltd. This is a property issue regarding reference 007.P.42. The observers say they have agreed a revision of the property take with CIE as shown on attached drawing SK-CIE-01 and understand that this is acceptable to CIE.
1.5.9. Menolly Group. Issue - Hansfield Station. A requirement of the SDZ is that occupation of dwellings constructed in a later phase may not occur until all of the required facilities and infrastructure in the previous phase(s) have been completed. Phase 2 allows for occupation of up to 2,000 units and requires the provision of a new railway station. Thus, the occupation of dwellings in phase 3 (units 2,001- 3,000) cannot occur until the railway station with a 15-minute frequency is in place. To date 700 units have planning permission and further applications are in preparation. It is realistic to assume that an additional 1,300 units could be approved before the completion date of 2010. The Barnhill LAP is well advanced. There is a current variation of the development plan to alter the zoning of lands immediately adjoining the station from open space to residential with the specific objective for pedestrian access between Barberstown/Barnhill and Hansfield by way of a new over-bridge integrated with the railway station. A planning application for the principal north-south road within Hansfield which will provide access to the station will be submitted by Menolly Group in the immediate future. In the light of the above, it is essential that an adequate railway station be provided for Hansfield/Barnhill as part of the overall scheme and that the station has a strong visual presence as the focal point and principal entrance point for both communities. The section 49 schemes in Fingal and Meath for the re-opening of the railway applies to the lands at both Hansfield and Barnhill and will generate
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 11 14 million euro. The rail scheme fails to provide access and facilities and thus the application of the s.49 scheme is unjust and inequitable. The design criteria for the station are set out and a plan and layout for the proposed station are attached. The RO does not specify the frequency of trains proposed to serve the new rail spur. It should be modified to include specific details of frequency to at least that required under the SDZ, i.e. 15-minute train service at Hansfield and 7.5-minute service at Clonsilla during peak hours with each train having a capacity of c.1,250 passengers. Should this frequency not be provided, the final 1,000 units under phase 3 could not be occupied under the terms of the SDZ.
1.5.10. Virginia Kerr. Property/boundary refs 004.P.23, 004.T.23, and 004.T100A. No tree survey assessment has been carried out or included in the RO yet recommended in EIS. Reference is made to detailed planting plans but they do not accompany the documents on public display. Inconsistencies in EIS and lack of certainty regarding retention of vegetation on the boundary bank and the impact of works to the road side embankment. The boundary to the railway to consist of 2.4m steel powder coated palisade fence – type 3. The existing mature hedge to be replaced with suitable size material so as to provide adequate screening, shelter and privacy – non-toxic species. The existing bank along the boundary to be maintained or replaced. Timber stud railing to be provided to enclose the paddock and be located so that horses cannot damage new planting and shall include electrified tape. Provision shall be made for grazing horses off site during construction. A detailed assessment of vegetation likely to be removed to be undertaken and a detailed reinstatement plan provided. The 2 cherries near the house to be maintained. A base-line noise survey to be carried out near the studio and an assessment of the construction noise associated with the bridge works be provided and any necessary mitigation put in place. Working hours to be restricted to between 0800 and 1800 hrs and that no weekend or evening works be undertaken.
1.5.11. Rail Users Ireland. Access & design issues. Objection to charging for parking at Pace and Dunboyne. If this is not withdrawn, the applicant should be required to offer a range of tickets which incorporate a parking charge. The applicant should engage a bus operator to offer connecting bus services serving Pace and Dunboyne with integrated bus and rail tickets. The applicant should demonstrate that the number of turnstiles at Pace and Dunboyne are sufficient to cope with the expected passenger flows. The entry routes for wheelchairs are overly complex. The general land height around stations should be raised to reduce steps and ramps. A gate should be provided adjacent to the station side of the footbridges.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 12 The line design sped should be increased to 75mph. All trackside electrification equipment should be constructed in parallel with the line opening.
1.5.12. McGarrell Reilly. Owners of the land of the Pace Park and Ride. Fully supportive.
1.5.13. Sean Boylan, Castlefarm, Dunboyne. This is a property issue. The exact line of temporary and permanent land take has not been set out on the lands. The reason for the temporary land take on the bridge embankment along the NW boundary of the lands is unclear as CIE previously said no works were to be undertaken to the bridge other than parapet strengthening. There are certain inefficiencies in the extent of the permanent land take particularly in the area of the Castle Stream and at the eastern side of the bridge embankment where the need is unclear. Re plot 006.E.32A the proposal is poorly designed, will not accommodate turning by 16.5m heavy vehicles accessing the site, has substandard sight lines to the east on egress and sterilises a significant length of frontage. CIE have been requested to produce drawings showing a swept path analysis and sight lines in accordance with DMRB. A direct access in line with that to the proposed car park on the north side of R157 is preferred. The observer’s well falls within the permanent acquisition area and there is no indication that an appropriate alternative source can be found on site. There are some contradictions in the EIS as to whether a sound barrier is to be provided along the western boundary. Details of the relocation of foul, water and gas services running along the line of the railway have not been shown. Clarity on the proposed timescale for the scheme is required. The 7-year timeframe is excessive.
1.5.14. Ian Pringle, Barnhill. Property issue. Strong objection to temporary possession of plots 003.T.12 and 003.T.100A as these lands are within 20m of his home and are in an area of mature woodland providing a shield from road noise. There are alternative access routes which would not require any trees to be destroyed.
1.5.15. Tony Murray & Michael Degan, Lucan. Property - Boundary Detail, Dunboyne lands. The proposed boundary detail should be amended to a high quality timber fence of 3m minimum incorporating noise mitigation.
1.5.16. Mrs Betty Larkin, Station Road, Dunboyne. Property issue plot 006.P.35. The acquisition of portion of the observer’s property would render the remaining portion totally unviable. Accordingly, the entire holding should be incorporated in the CPO. Preliminary discussions with CIE indicated their agreement.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 13 1.5.17. DTO. Strategic, access and design issues. No clear demonstration how the key policies in the strategic planning policy documents have been reflected in rail service levels, the pattern of services, station design and station accessibility. The forecast passenger demand figures for the peak period are low in relation to the scale of development referred to by Meath Co. Co. It is not clear what rail capacity could be achieved as the completion of other T21 projects are likely to have a major bearing on capacity and the level of car trips associated with the rail stations. Phase 2 implications. Justification for P&R at Dunboyne questioned. Scale in excess of that recommended. The longer term case for P&R at Pace needs to be examined. Station design should be sufficiently adaptable to accommodate future development in the immediate vicinity. Dunboyne station does not appear to have been designed with specific regard to the surrounding environment in terms of non-car accessibility. It is not clear that planning policies and other objectives have guided station design. The EIS should consider pedestrian accessibility from within the wider area. The segregated pedestrian/cycleway alongside Station Road/Bridge is insufficient in width at 4m as a shared facility and should be 5m. To the north of the pedestrian bridge, the footway and cycle route are not continued and there are no crossing facilities proposed. More pedestrian routes should be incorporated into the design of the car park at Pace. Measures to improve passenger safety should be included. A variable messaging system should be introduced with the NRA to inform users about the quantity of P&R spaces available. There is a need to regulate car parking on the surrounding road network around Dunboyne and Pace stations.
1.5.18. Manor Park Homebuilders. Issues – Hansfield station and second entrance at Clonsilla. The arguments regarding the requirement in the SDZ to provide a station with a specified train frequency as phase 2 are similar to those set out in the submission of Menolly Group, including drawings of a station. In addition, it is argued that the level of detail in the Dunboyne IAAP and M3 Interchange is no greater than that of the Hansfield SDZ. The RO fails to include for a second entrance to Clonsilla Station in the form of a footbridge over the Royal Canal connecting the western end of Clonsilla station with the Hansfield Road. The applicant’s argument that this is outside the scope of the project and does not require a railway order is rejected. It would appear logical, practical and of major benefit to the existing and future residents of the surrounding area to provide a second entrance including footbridge in the RO. It would provide certainty that such a facility will be delivered. The inclusion of a second entrance is a requirement of the Planning Scheme approved by ABP (Ref.PL06F.ZD.2002).
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 14 1.5.19. Gerty Gregan, Lands at Bennettstown, Dunboyne. Property issue. No direct contact by CIE to explain proposals. 7-year period unreasonable. Amend article 5 of Order to ensure that surface water does not drain onto lands. No closure of a road should take place unless unrestricted access is provided and is suitably surfaced. No alteration to any public ways unless access and egress to the property will not be interfered with. No trees, hedges or shrubs on the property to be removed without prior notice and suitable replacement with a fence or wall to agreed specifications. The observer reserves ownership of the air space above 5m for re- development purposes together with all rights and easements. Any damage to lands not acquired to be reinstated and made good immediately. Adequate compensation for acquisition of any easements. Property acquisition should be limited to 3 years from date of Order. Compensation for any diminution of the value of lands not acquired. Objection to lack of information re mitigation of noise impacts and other disturbance. The scheme involves acquisition of lands which are superfluous to requirements and will have a devastating effect on the use and value of the remaining lands. Access is flawed due to lack of proper planning.
1.5.20. Michael Mc Loughlin, 11 Riverwood Heath, Castleknock. The application fails to take account of the needs of residents in communities living along the line closer to the city particularly where level crossings are located. The level crossings in the Castleknock, Clonsilla and Diswellstown areas currently cause severe traffic congestion. The proposal ignores the impact of additional trains on these crossings. Currently there are as many as 12 per hour closings at Coolmine and these plans will increase this to 20 per hour or for 45 of the 60 minutes with chaotic results.
1.5.21. NRA. Property issue and traffic management. Plots 007.P.102, 008.P.102, 008.T.101A, 008.T.102, 008.T.102A, and 008.T.102B as owned by Meath Co.Co. and occupied by NRA and Eurolink. The Order should not interfere with or prejudice the availability of the lands for the M3 and should state that they will not be made available until after construction of the M3 is completed and written approval is given by the NRA. A condition is requested that the design for the railway line takes into account the conditions attached to the Board’s approval of the M3 Clonee to North of Kells Scheme applicable to the area.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 15 A condition should be attached requiring detailed design of the access/junction arrangements for the Park and Ride facility to be subject to the approval of the Authority. The NRA requests that a ‘Traffic Liaison Group’ be established to assess and approve traffic management proposals during the railway construction period.
1.5.22. Barina Construction Ltd. Property issue. No objection in principle to temporary acquisition but the exact nature and extent of the proposed works is unclear from the documentation. They have requested a site meeting with CIE and request an Oral Hearing.
1.5.23. An Taisce. Further information should be sought on the best technology for minimising energy consumption and incorporated into the mitigation measures.
1.5.24. Gerard & Moira McGrath, Stirling Bridge. Property issue. The proposed scheme is unnecessary, unlawful, in breach of constitutional property rights, not in the public interest and in excess of that necessary to provide a railway. There are alternative and more suitable lands available in the area. The development is not in accordance with the development plan. The CPO notices, including maps, are defective. Removal of shelter (trees and hedges) for horses also needed to absorb diesel fumes. No tree survey or planting of screen hedgerows as recommended in EIS. Impact of loss of lower field on bloodstock business not addressed. Security risks. Works will necessitate relocating 4 horses. The house is 7m from the railway line. Noise and vibration levels will not be attenuated by triple glazing. Removal of all large trees for bridge works and temporary possession of part of front paddocks will leave the observers open to the public with consequent security and visual problems and the loss of 2 fields. Dirt and dust at house during construction may render occupation impossible. There should be no weekend work or work before 8.30am. When the works are ongoing, the observers and their horses may have to be relocated. The EIS and equine report therein is deficient. What happens to pheasants and disturbed rats? No provision to relocate slurry pit. If the order is granted it should include conditions requiring CIE to replace all mature trees of non-toxic variety, minimising noise, dust and vibration, provide for suitable accommodation for the observers and their bloodstock during construction, and the carrying out of a survey to assess potential damage to the premises arising out of the works to Sterling Bridge and identifying mitigation works.
1.5.25. Meath Local Authorities. The planning authority draws attention to and quotes extensively from the various development plans and guidance documents that it has prepared.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 16 The reinstatement of the former rail line accords with the provisions of the County Development Plan as they relate to rail/public transport. The delivery of the rail line from Clonsilla to Pace is considered critical in realising the adopted spatial policy framework of the County by 2012 and beyond. The reinstatement of the former line accords with the provisions of the Dunboyne Detailed Objectives and Written Statement contained in Volume II of the County Development Plan 2007-2013. Objective DB7 reserved a potential site for future rapid transit station facilities on the western side of the rail line. Having regard to the assessment of options contained in the EIS, the planning authority accepts the decision to locate the car parking to the east of the rail line rather than the west. The planning authority is concerned that the station at Hansfield is not being provided at the initial stage of construction. It is considered that this will result in motorists from the Ongar area in particular using the proposed station car parking at Dunboyne although it is accepted that motorists do not normally travel in the opposite direction from their intended destination. This issue is not addressed in the EIS and will in the medium to longer term make it more difficult to reduce or remove the station parking from Dunboyne Station in line with the adopted spatial framework provided in the Dunboyne IAAP. The strategy of the local authorities to have local feeder bus services to the stations is not specifically addressed in the RO. The planning authority accepts the points made in the EIS and will await the IFPLUT before reconsidering such bus services. The quantum of parking spaces now being proposed at Dunboyne exceeds the numbers included in the IAAP and the manner in which the rail station would integrate with future bus services and the wider development context of the local centre has not been considered. The planning authority considers that within a timeframe, suggested as 5 years after the commencement of passenger services on this line, the necessity of the quantity, layout and principle of station car parking at Dunboyne should be revisited in the context of the wider development strategy contained in the IAAP for this area and that a condition to that effect be included in confirmation of the RO. A condition should also be attached seeking the closing off of the temporary access to the station from the Clonee Road, as proposed, and connection to the proposed Local Distributor Road at the expense of CIE. The planning authority is satisfied as to the safety of the proposed priority junction off Clonee Road in the interim and to the proposed access to the 2 no. adjoining properties off the Clonee Road. The provision of the proposed pedestrian/cyclist footbridge immediately north of the existing Dunboyne Bridge realises objective DB17 and the planning authority is satisfied that it caters for the wider development needs of the lands east of the rail line. The planning authority is also satisfied that the existing capacity provided by the existing Dunboyne Bridge is adequate for the medium term development needs of Dunboyne. The planning authority engaged in detailed consultations with the applicants regarding the need to provide for a dedicated pedestrian and cyclist footbridge as part
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 17 of the RO and is satisfied with the proposals lodged in this regard. The exact alignment of the proposed footbridge is unclear from Structure Plan No. B009 and should be submitted for the agreement of ABP prior to commencement of development. The Council is currently in the process of appointing consultants to prepare an IFPLUT for the Clonee to Pace Interchange area. This will inform the preparation of the Dunboyne/Clonee/Pace Corridor LAP and guide development over the next 20 years. It is hoped to appoint a firm of consultants by the year-end. The planning authority accepts the rational for the level of proposed parking spaces at the M3 Pace Station. However, the statements with regard to the necessity for the quantity of car parking spaces or the percentage of passenger peak period boardings are not substantiated and are considered anecdotal. The applicants acknowledge the potential for possible future retail and commercial developments at the Pace P&R and the current proposals will not limit of prevent future development plans. It is noted that if expansion of the P&R is required in the future, it may take the form of multi-storey. The planning authority also consider that the potential to develop over the P&R for other commercial uses proximate to a public transport interchange would be appropriate and request ABP to consider whether or not a condition to this effect should be included. The planning authority has no objection to the design of the proposed stations which are considered functional buildings. The Board should satisfy itself as to the design of the footbridges and in particular to prevent overlooking/loss of privacy at No’s 14 & 15 Elton Grove. An alternative material to the tensile galvanised woven mesh on the northern edge may be required. The planning authority recommends that the proposed palisade fence should be replaced with a more appropriate boundary treatment at the Pace station in order to screen 2 no. steel storage containers. The retention of the water tower at Dunboyne is welcomed and should be strengthened by condition. The proposed works to the Dunboyne over bridge will moderately impact on heritage but must be balanced against the use of the bridge for its intended purpose. The proposed new pedestrian/cyclist bridge adjoining Dunboyne Bridge will not have a significant adverse impact on the setting of the latter. It is proposed to reuse remaining short sections of railway platform on site at Dunboyne or elsewhere on the railway. This should be strengthened by condition. It is noted that none of the structures/buildings at the former Dunboyne Station are protected structures. Bennetstown Bridge - the planning authority has no objection to its demolition as the proposed project is considered to outweigh the negative impacts of demolishing a protected structure. Re architectural heritage, it is accepted that the context in which the railway was originally constructed was very different to the modern needs of a rail line. The suitability of these heritage structures for modern purposes was assessed in the context of the design process. It is considered that the
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 18 proposed project provides an acceptable balance between the retention of important heritage features whilst ensuring that their original context, namely along a railway line, is reinstated. The planning authority is satisfied with the methodology employed in the EIS assessment of noise impact and mitigation. Attention is drawn to the existing surface water and foul sewage pipes serving the adjoining Millfarm estate. The planning authority requests the inclusion of an appropriate condition requiring the diversion of this drainage at the applicant’s expense. It is proposed in the medium term to replace these pipes with new pipes located in or adjoining the proposed Local Distributor Road as part of the integrated residential development to the east of the rail line. The RO proposes to acquire lands that were acquired for the construction of the M3 Motorway Scheme. The Council entered into an agreement with CIE on 16th August to purchase the lands for the M3 Motorway Scheme and it was agreed that lands would be made available to facilitate the opening of the railway on terms to be agreed between the parties. The Council requires that the proposed acquisition of the lands is carried out in accordance with the agreement of 16th August 2007 and request ABP to attach a condition to the RO to this effect. A condition should also be attached that the railway scheme to include provisions such that the M3 Clonee to North of Kells Scheme mitigation measures (landscaping) remain materially unchanged. A condition should be attached requiring the applicants to agree details with the Council, NRA and DTO relating to the geometry, capacity, pedestrian and cycleway facilities and programme for construction of the proposed roundabout on the Dunboyne By-pass (R157).
In further letter received 29/11/07, the Council listed the personnel that will attend the Oral Hearing.
1.5.26. Castelthorn Construction. Issues – pedestrian and cycle connection to Clonsilla Station, and provision of a station at Hansfield.
Regarding Hansfield station, the arguments are similar to those submitted by Menolly Group and Manor Park Homebuilders. Regarding a second entrance at Clonsilla, the arguments are similar to those submitted by Manor Park Homebuilders.
1.5.27. Colm Moore. Mr Moore with an address in Dublin 6 has submitted a large document running to over 70 pages and subdivided into 7 sections: Part 1 – Commentary on Draft Railway Order. Part 2 – Commentary on Schedules. Part 3 – Commentary on EIS. Part 4 – Commentary on drawings. Part 5 – Commentary on Building Regulations. Part 6 – Commentary on other issues. Part 7 – Commentary on alternative stairs and bridge options.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 19 The points raised are very detailed and are too numerous to summarise. Many refer to errors in punctuation, spelling and grammar. Others highlight alleged errors and omissions in the text of the EIS or on drawings. Personal comments and opinions have also been made about a large number of issues. A considerable amount of work has gone into the making of this submission. There appears to be no overall objection in principle to the re-opening of the railway line. Nowhere in the document is there any indication that Mr Moore owns property along the proposed rail corridor or that there are particular property issues that would affect him.
1.5.28. Fingal County Council. An observation from this planning authority was not received by the end of the statutory six-week period, i.e. 24/10/07. Accordingly, the Board direction of 8/11/07 requested a submission with a latest date of 26/11/07. A submission was received on 20/11/07.
In many respects this observation covers issues concerning the provision of a station at Hansfield and access improvements to Clonsilla previously identified in the submissions of Menolly Group, Manor Park Homebuilders and Castlethorn Construction.
The submission refers to the strategic planning framework, the planning scheme for Hansfield SDZ and the provisions of the County Development Plan. The following points are of particular note: The Hansfield SDZ stipulates that the Clonsilla Station improvements to be completed to enable the occupation of 1000 dwelling units and that the provision of a new rail station serving the SDZ must be in place to enable the occupation of up to 2000 dwelling units. A LAP for Barnhill (40.55ha) is in preparation and will be presented to Council in Spring 2008. The lands are zoned RS1 and the planned neighbourhood would contain approximately 1600-1800 dwelling units. A Variation of the Development Plan is in progress for lands at Barberstown. This proposes rezoning 3.8ha from open space to residential adjoining the rail alignment. It includes an objective that pedestrian access be provided between Barberstown/Barnhill and the Hansfield SDZ by means of a pedestrian over-bridge integrated with the adjoining development including the proposed Hansfield rail station. The draft Variation public display period ended on 18/10/07, 4 submissions were received and the Manager’s Report was considered at the Council meeting on 12/11/07. The terms of the section 49 Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme for the Re-opening of the Navan to Dublin Railway Line – Phase 1 – Clonsilla to Dunboyne (Pace) are presented. The scheme applies to a 1km corridor either side of the rail line. The yield would be approximately 30 million euro. It is likely that over the lifetime of the scheme (30 years) additional lands will be brought forward for development yielding an overall sum of approx. 60 million euro. Three planning permissions have been granted for new residential development within the Hansfield SDZ (listed details) and for advertising
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 20 hoardings (temporary for 2 years) for the Menolly Homes site. In accordance with the provisions of the SDZ, these permissions are restricted by condition to occupation of only 150 dwellings each pending written confirmation from the planning authority that the infrastructure phasing of the SDZ Phase 1A is being complied with. Planning enforcement proceedings have issued in respect of non- compliance with conditions in one of the permissions. An outline of road network improvements in the vicinity is presented. Adequate water supply and foul drainage is available for a station at Hansfield. A storm water management system would be required. The proposals for C & D waste are acceptable subject to conditions regarding contaminated soil, and re-use of uncontaminated soil and road surfacing tar based wastes.
The planning authority advocates that permission should issue subject to the inclusion of specific conditions covering the provision of Clonsilla Rail Station improvements and the provision of a new rail station at Hansfield. Draft conditions are presented.
A further submission received 29/11/07 informed the Board that Variation 21 of the County Development Plan had been adopted on 12/11/07. Enclosed was the Manager’s map of the variation and a copy of an application for a new road to the rail station at Hansfield that had been received by the planning authority.
1.5.29. DoEHLG. Late submissions were received and returned. The Board then requested a submission and that received 22/11/07 is in three parts – architectural heritage, archaeology, and nature conservation. Architectural heritage – on account of their age it is not possible to simply reuse the existing structures generally without modification. The return to use will have an impact on the structures and a balance has to be struck between the retention of existing structures of architectural heritage merit and the works necessary to be carried out to them to achieve current standards of construction and safety. The loss of structures has to be balanced against the gain to the common good of having a commuter link from Dunboyne to the city centre. Some discussion of the legislation follows. Three archaeological monitoring conditions are recommended. Re nature conservation it is acknowledged that all hedgerows will be cleared but it is unclear why hedges cannot be left along the wider sections of the alignment. Site synopsis of the Royal Canal pNHA is attached. The following are recommended - All mitigation measures for flora and fauna be carried out including those for birds, bats, badgers and otters. - As much hedgerow as possible should be retained and suitable planting in mitigation for loss of hedgerow should be carried out. - Where possible all crossings of watercourses should be by bridges and the riparian zone retained. Where bridging is not possible, culverts must contain suitable ledges to allow mammals such as otters to use them.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 21 - The applicants should apply to the DoEHLG for licences to relocate badgers, to disturb or destroy bat roosts and to disturb the habitat of the protected plant species (Hairy St. Johns Wort, found in the past at Barnhill). A badger and a bat expert should carry out such work.
1.5.30. Waterways Ireland. It is the policy of Waterways Ireland not to allow any water to be discharged into the canal system either on a temporary or permanent basis. The Royal Canal shall remain open to navigation from 1 March to 31 October with no canal closures between these dates. During construction, the towpath, which is a public right of way, should be open to pedestrians. Where this is not feasible, a suitable diversion route should be established. During construction, the applicants should provide an access route for maintenance vehicles to Waterways Ireland, possibly via their construction compound. The steel bridge should be painted in a subdued colour in keeping with the canal setting. Any retaining walls facing the canal should be clad in a stone in keeping with the stone on the existing abutments.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 22 1.6. Planning Framework.
1.6.1. National and Regional Plans. National Spatial Strategy 2002. In the strategy, Dublin is identified as a gateway settlement and, within the GDA, Navan is a primary development centre. Section 3.7.1 says that to support balanced regional development, Ireland’s transport networks must - build on Ireland’s radial transport system of main roads and rail lines connecting Dublin to other regions, by developing an improved mesh or network of roads and public transport services, - ensure, through building up the capacity and effectiveness of Ireland’s public transport networks, that increases in energy demand and emissions of CO2 arising from the demand for movement are minimised, - allow internal transport networks to enhance international access to all parts of the country, by facilitating effective interchange possibilities between the national transport network and international airports and sea ports, - address congestion in major urban areas by increasing the use of public transport. The section later says that cities and large towns require well developed and effective internal public transport networks.
A Platform for Change – DTO Strategy 2000-2016 (November 2001). The strategy includes the construction of a new spur line off the Maynooth line near Clonsilla via Dunboyne to Navan. It says there are a number of possible alignments and the final alignment will depend on detailed design and public consultation. In the ‘Indicative Implementation Programme 2000 to 2016’, ‘construct rail line from Clonsilla to Dunboyne (Navan line phase 1)’ is given a time horizon of 2006-2010.
Strategic Rail Review 2003. This report prepared by consultants to the Dept. of Transport examined the proposed direct Dublin to Navan rail line. It concluded that the scheme performed poorly in economic evaluation and that whilst the provision of effective public transport to Navan is essential to enable the town to become self-sustaining, the means of delivering this will require re-evaluation in the form of a detailed feasibility study. Phasing was not examined.
Regional Planning Guidelines – Greater Dublin Area 2004-2016(July 2004). The Guidelines support the vision and objectives contained in A Platform for Change – DTO Strategy 2000-2016 and, at 8.4, say that the main railway alignment from Navan to Dublin via Dunboyne should be identified and a link from the City to Dunboyne could be considered as a first phase of this development.
Transport 21(November 2005). In the 10-year plan, a completion date of 2008 is given for ‘extension of rail line to Dunboyne’. Extension of electrification to Drogheda, Maynooth, Dunboyne and Kildare is to be completed by 2014.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 23 National Development Plan 2007-2013. In chapter 7, the Public Transport Sub-Programme for the Greater Dublin Area lists a set of projects to be advanced over the plan period of 2007 – 2013 in line with the timetable in Transport 21. Included in this list of projects is the re-opening of the Dublin to Navan rail link (page 134).
1.6.2. Fingal County. Development Plan 2005-2011. The following policies, objectives and designations are of particular note: - Strategy TS2 & Policy TP12: To facilitate and promote the development of a new and improved rail based transportation system including --- a new rail line from Clonsilla to Dunboyne ---. - Objective TO8: To maintain the reservation of the former Navan rail line free from development. - Record of Protected Structures – Barnhill Bridge (RPS No. 712). - The lands on either side of the rail line are zoned objective RS1 – residential.
Variation 21. This variation of the development plan was adopted on 12/11/07 and concerns lands at Barberstown, Barnhill. An area of 3.8ha located to the south of the site of the proposed Hansfield railway station has been rezoned from objective ‘OS’ (open space) to ‘RS1’ (residential). In addition, the variation includes three local objectives, the first of which is of relevance and states: ‘That pedestrian access shall be provided between Barberstown/Barnhill and the Hansfield SDZ by means of a new pedestrian overbridge integrated with adjoining development including the proposed Hansfield rail station’.
Hansfield SDZ. On 30/1/06, the Board approved the making of a SDZ (PL 06F.ZD.2002) subject to modifications. The main purpose of the SDZ was to provide for approximately 3,000 residential units together with associated local services and facilities on a phased basis. The following provisions are of particular note - Phase 1B (501-1,000 dwellings): allows for the occupation of 1,000 dwellings and requires, among other things, Clonsilla Station improvements completed. - Phase 2 (1,001-2,000 dwellings): allows for the occupation of up to 2,000 dwellings and requires, among other things, the provision of a new rail station serving the SDZ.
Section 49 Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme. The scheme is for The development of a railway from Clonsilla, County Dublin, to Dunboyne (Pace) in County Meath, including acquisition of property, provision of stations, car parks, other ancillary development, rolling stock and diversion of utilities. Stations are proposed at Clonsilla (upgrade existing station), Hansfield, Dunboyne and Pace.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 24 of 24 The scheme applies to a 1km catchment either side of the proposed rail line and will be in operation for 30 years from its adoption on 10/7/06. The Council will receive the contributions and pay them to Coras Iompair Eireann.
Barnhill LAP. A LAP for the Barnhill lands (40.55ha) is in preparation and it is anticipated that a draft will be presented to the Council in Spring 2008. The LAP will provide a structure for the development of a residential neighbourhood of approximately 1600-1800 dwelling units.
1.6.3. Meath County. County Development Plan 2007-2013. The following policies, objectives and designations are of particular note: - Policy INFRA SP8 gives priority to the implementation of the recommendations in the DTO’s Platform for Charge and subsequent reviews. Section 4.3.1 says the Council is actively promoting the development of the railway line from Clonsilla to Dunboyne/Pace and on to Navan and will ensure that the route is reserved free from development. - Policy INF POL 1 seeks to promote, facilitate and co-operate with other agencies in securing the re-opening of the Dublin to Navan railway line and rail services. - Objective INF OBJ 1 : To maintain the reservation of the former Dublin - Navan rail line free from development. - Objective INF OBJ 4 : To facilitate the provision of Park and Ride facilities at Dunboyne rail station, Pace Interchange etc. - Strategic Settlement Objective SO2 – to prepare a IFPLUT Plan for the Clonsilla to Pace Interchange Corridor. - Policy SS POL 1 : The written statement and maps contained in the 2001 Development Plan will remain in force pending preparation of a set of LAPs. - Objective SS OBJ 1 : To prepare LAPs for the urban centres in table 7. Dunboyne/Clonsilla/Pace Corridor is listed in the table as a ‘Moderate Growth Town’. - Record of Protected Structures - Bennetstown Bridge (Reg.No.MH050- 105), Sterling House (Reg.No.MH050-107),
Integrated Action Area Plan for Lands east of the Railway Line, Dunboyne, 2005. This is a non-statutory plan setting out the strategic issues determining the development of lands to the east of the railway line in Dunboyne. The ‘Concept Masterplan’ (figure 12) identifies a location for the railway station to the NE of the existing bridge over the Clonee Road. The station would form one side of a civic square where retail and commercial uses would act as a local centre. The centre of the square would have 200 parking spaces with access from a new north-south distributor road but not from Clonee Road. To the north of the station square and parallel to the eastern side of the railway line there would be a linear parking area for 100 cars together with a bus station, community facility and primary school. The plan has 3 phases and the station, local centre and car park form cell 5 to be developed in phase 3.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 25 of 25 Section 49 Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme. It is noted that the planning authority has adopted a similar s.49 scheme to that of Fingal regarding the Clonsilla to Pace railway corridor.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 26 of 26 1.7. Environmental Impact Statement.
1.7.1. The application is accompanied by an EIS in four volumes: Volume 1 - a non-technical summary. Volume 2 consists of 4 chapters giving background, description of the proposed development, consideration of alternatives, and public consultation. Volume 3 consists of 14 chapters giving a description of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures under the prescribed headings. Volume 4 is in two parts. Part 1 consists of 4 appendices under the headings of alignment and station layout drawings, preliminary EIS report, consultations, and ecology report. Part 2 contains 8 appendices consisting of technical reports.
1.7.2. Description. A detailed description of the development and all proposed works is given in Volumes 2 and 3 of the EIS.
1.7.3. Alternatives. Section 4 of Volume II considers alternative corridors, services and operational form. The overall proposal is based on the findings of a number of key feasibility assessment and strategic planning studies. A summary of the provisions of the key development documents is provided. Consideration of alternative corridors was carried out in the Dublin Suburban Rail Strategic Review 2000 and the proposed development was the preferred corridor.
A series of value management workshops in 2004 considered options for single or double track. A workshop in 2007 established project teams and management methodology. Alternative locations for stations at Dunboyne and Pace are reported and were selected using environmental criteria.
1.7.4. Human Beings. Section 7 examines existing population and employment and their forecasts with reference to the development plans. It details the phasing provisions of the Hansfield SDZ. Impacts, during construction and during operation, are considered under the headings of population and employment, residential community, agriculture, the working and visiting community, mobility, community severance, and safety. Some of these are considered in detail later in the EIS, e.g. noise impact on the residential community. Mitigation measures are outlined in general. Of note are the traffic management arrangements necessary during construction, and the accommodation bridges for agriculture.
1.7.5. Fauna and flora. Surveys were carried out of habitats and flora (April & June 2007), mammals, amphibians and reptiles (April & May 2007) and bats (May 2007). Bird species were surveyed during the fieldwork for habitats and observations on winter birds were made in January.
The most important habitats are the pNHA at the Royal Canal and the un- designated Tolka River system that is of regional importance. Scrub clearance of the line under supervision was carried out during the preliminary site
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 27 of 27 clearance. The hedgerows along most of the line have an average height of 6-7m and very mature tree standards do not occur, reflecting the past maintenance of trees along the line. The hedgerows are rated as having moderate value of local importance and are dominated by ash and hawthorn. Some whitebeam are of note. A typical array of herbs and ferns are present in the ground layer. There are no legally protected plant species within the study area but cowslip (Red Data Book) occurs along parts of the line. There are some areas of semi-natural grassland that are of recent origin and these are considered to have moderate value in a local context.
The flora species of particular conservation interest that were present or may be expected to occur include otter, badger, Irish hare, hedgehog and a number of bat species. There are no bird species which occur solely along the corridor but the species present utilise the habitats along the line and on adjoining lands. Bird species of note include kingfisher, yellowhammer, sand martin, swallow, stonechat and buzzards. All other bird species are commonly occurring in the countryside.
The impact assessment elements of particular note are The actual placement of a bridge over the canal would not be expected to have any impacts on habitats. The scheme will involve complete clearance of all vegetation from the line as well as from the sites for the proposed stations and associated car parking areas. Therefore all existing habitats will be lost. This is considered to be a moderate negative impact. New bridges across the Tolka will not directly affect the habitat. Some protected fauna species such as pygmy shrew and hedgehog will be directly impacted. There are limited ways to protect such species and both are common in Ireland. While badger setts will be disturbed and some foraging habitat will be lost, there are not expected to be any long-term significant impacts . Otters are relatively tolerant of disturbance and the proposed development is not likely to reduce or impact on this species unduly if adequate mitigation measures are taken. Bat activity is high along the line and it provides a significant commuting corridor and roosting sites at bridges and some mature trees. The development is considered to have a moderate negative impact. As all bird species also use adjoining habitats it is expected they will continue to have a presence in the immediate area after construction. The kingfisher species is not expected to be affected by the scheme, other than by minor disturbance.
Section 8.5 sets out detailed mitigation measures with particular reference to otters, badgers and bats. The section lists measures that should be undertaken, including evacuation of badgers by a badger expert and the appointment of a bat expert. Owing to the existing relatively low ecological interest along the route corridor, and subject to full incorporation of mitigation measures and best practice design and operation of the proposed development, it is considered that the overall impact of the scheme on habitats, vegetation and flora may be considered as minor negative.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 28 of 28 1.7.6. Soils, geology and hydrogeology. Soil investigations were carried out at 11 locations (table 9.1) in May 2007. The results indicated that the majority of samples were well within the Dutch Guidelines Target Values but some exceeded them (table 9.2). The main exceedance was for copper at location TP89. Further investigation will be undertaken. Nine groundwater monitoring wells were installed. The results are presented in table 9.6-9.8 and indicated that the majority were well within the Dutch Target Levels. Where target levels were exceeded the results in most cases were less than half the intervention levels.
Figure 9.1 presents aquifer vulnerability based on GSI data. Section 9.3.5 says there is a well at chainage 4870 south of Dunboyne Bridge that will have to be moved east prior to construction works in the area.
Section 9.4 identifies potential impacts arising from works to the bridges, culverts, station buildings, car parks, and earthworks. The handling of contaminated soil is dealt with in section 15 of the EIS covering Waste. Mitigation measures during construction are presented for soil excavation and stockpiling control, fuel and chemical handling, transport and storage, and the sourcing of aggregates. During the operational phase mitigations cover leaks and spillages from trains, the use of bio-degradable herbicides, spraying guidelines, and the provision of oil interceptors at station car parks.
1.7.7. Water. The proposed railway crosses the Tolka River (at 3 locations), the Dunboyne or Castle Stream and the Royal Canal. The Tolka is not designated as a NHA or SAC. Water quality data for the Tolka and Castle Stream is presented from EPA monitoring and shows phosphate pollution. Sampling of the Royal Canal by the Central Fisheries Board showed no breaches of nutrient or faecal coliform threshold limits.
The works associated with the railway that have potential for impact particularly during the construction of culverts and bridges. Potential impacts may arise from removal of soil cover, ponding during flooding with release of silt or suspended solids, discharge of raw concrete, spillage of fuels or chemicals, and uncontained spillage of domestic effluent.
Mitigation measures to protect surface waters are set out in 10.4.2 and include preparation of a EMP. Baseline water quality surveys show that the majority of measured parameters are within the relevant water quality standards. Further surveys will be carried out on a quarterly basis during construction. Mitigation measures during operation are set out in 10.5.2 and include attenuation from paved areas such as car parks. However the system has not been designed and alternatives to attenuation by underground tanks may be used.
A Preliminary Flood Study is contained in Appendix L2 and there are no predicted impacts on stormwaters arising from construction and operation. The study recommends that track level and substructure be raised above the 1/100- year flood level and this results in a build up of up to 2m above existing ground
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 29 of 29 levels at Pace. The loss of flood plain storage by car park construction at Pace has been discussed and alternatives are available.
1.7.8. Noise and vibration. Section 11.2.1 reviews noise assessment criteria and a criterion of 60 dB(A) LAeq 06.00-00.00 (free field) is adopted, above which the impact is judged to be of moderate significance (justification contained in Appendix E). Baseline noise surveys were carried out at 14 locations along the line during March & April 2007. Predicted noise assessment for both construction and operation are presented.
During construction for houses within 20m of the track, the noise levels are likely to significantly exceed 70 dB(A) for a short duration but as works progress away from a house the levels will fall off rapidly and beyond 50m the level would be less than 70 dB(A). As there will be no blasting it is expected that vibration levels at nearby properties will be comfortably within the vibration limits for protection against structural damage (NRA standards) and in terms of nuisance are likely to be imperceptible. During operation there are 4 locations identified where noise levels are predicted to equal or exceed the 60 dB(A) criterion. It is not possible to predict vibration levels during operation with absolute certainty, but based on measured ground vibration levels of less than 0.5mm/s at 5m from the track, there is no potential for any cosmetic or structural effects on buildings along the line.
Mitigation measures are set out in 11.5. During construction, they include working hours and setting noise limits with the use of temporary screening if necessary. During operation, acoustic screening is proposed at the 4 sensitive locations referred to above. Section 11.7 says noise monitoring should be undertaken.
1.7.9. Air quality and Climate. Air monitoring surveys were carried out at 4 locations during February and March 2007. Sensitive residential and ecological receptors were identified.
During construction, the main impacts on air quality will arise from increased traffic and from excavations, earth moving and demolition, and from transportation and storage of materials at compounds. The principal mitigation measures will be identified through the Contractor’s EMP and Method Statements supported by a Pollution Incident Control Plan. A Dust Control Plan will be implemented and its main control measures are outlined (page 143). Wheel wash facilities are mentioned.
A comparative analysis is presented of rail and road emissions during the operational phase. Mitigation measures include the use of new diesel powered trains designed to comply with the relevant (specified) current and future EU legislation.
Under the heading of climate, the EIS says there is no distinctive micro- climate on site. There is a general discussion of greenhouse gases and acidification. It is predicted that the construction phase will not have any
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 30 of 30 significant adverse impact on climate. During operation, train traffic will emit greenhouse gases in the form of CO2 but the levels will be significantly less than other forms of traffic. Taking account of the traffic that will be displaced by the railway, a slightly positive impact is predicted.
1.7.10. Landscape and visual. Photomontages are not presented because the alignment has a low level of visibility from public roads and the most significant visual and landscape changes will occur at Pace and are determined to a greater extent by the M3 motorway.
Section 13.5.1 says there will be a planting plan around the new railway stations and in the associated car parks, and screen planting will be provided in selected locations. The landscape and visual impacts are described in sections 13.6.3 and 13.6.4.
Locations for planting and associated works are listed in 13.8.3. Broadly the locations refer to the stations and car parks. Planting is also proposed Adjoining the property of St. Joseph’s Hospital at Clonsilla, Adjoining the properties to the north and south of Sterling Bridge.
Buffalo fencing with sections of acoustic screening is proposed at the housing estates immediately north and south of Dunboyne Bridge.
1.7.11. Material assets. Minimal use of natural resources during construction phase – aggregates for ballast and road & bridge improvement, new rail track, and the use of fuels for machinery. During the operational phase, rail transport is known to use 4 to 6 times less direct energy per tonne kilometre than transport by road. There are adequate electricity and telecommunications services in the area. Mains water supply will be provided at the two stations. Foul drainage for Dunboyne station will connect to public sewers. Foul effluent at Pace station will have a dedicated domestic treatment system. It is noted that the existing natural gas pipe crosses the line on the deck of Stirling Bridge and safety issues arise.
The project will not have any significant impact on natural resources or public utilities or other services.
1.7.12. Waste Section 15 examines the nature of waste arising from construction (table 15.2). The operational phase will not lead to significant increases in waste quantities as they are expected to be mainly mixed municipal waste. Food services will not be provided on the trains.
The principal mitigation measure will be the development of a Waste Management Plan for the project (15.3.4) covering specified areas. Of note in relation to waste soil (15.4.2), it is proposed to carry out a trial pitting exercise prior to disturbance of contaminated soil supervised by a specialist. Specific measures are set out for storing and disposal of contaminated soil. Other mitigation measures are of a standard nature.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 31 of 31 1.7.13. Traffic This section is based on Appendix H and examines the background traffic flows on the road network in the immediate vicinity of the line. It predicts the amount of construction traffic and provides an assessment of the quantum of parking required at both Pace and Dunboyne stations. The projected impacts of traffic generation for opening year (2010) and plan year (2025) are examined in conjunction with road proposals and are deemed to be satisfactory. Appendix H (page 30) says it is envisaged that Clonsilla Station would have a 15-minute service frequency during peak hours from December 2008. Therefore, the project would not result in any additional services or road closures at existing level crossings on the existing line between Clonsilla Station and Docklands.
Works at the bridges will involve temporary road closures. In the case of Dunboyne Bridge, a single lane with traffic control system will operate. Mitigation measures are set out in 16.5.
1.7.14. Cultural Heritage – Architectural Heritage. Section 17 identifies a set of structures associated with the former railway that have heritage value. These include the following: Engine shed and turntable between the main line and the Clonsilla/Dunboyne line west of Clonsilla. The shed is without a roof and is overgrown. No works are proposed to these structures. Stone abutments of former bridge over the Royal Canal. It is proposed to retain these and erect a new canal bridge. Predicted impact is positive. The remains of an under-bridge just west of the canal crossing. It is proposed to remove these damaged remains. A stone arched over-bridge at Barnhill that is a protected structure. It is proposed to remove the stone parapet walls and replace them with higher concrete parapets faced with stone internally. Damaged or missing capping stones on the wing walls will be replaced. The existing unsightly guarding each side of the ramps up to the bridge will be replaced by in- situ concrete guarding. The stone arched over-bridge at Sterling. The arch would be demolished as it shows clear evidence of structural failure. Significant heritage impact but the bridge is failing. A new concrete portal span bridge would be erected on the existing abutments. A stone arched accommodation over-bridge just north of Sterling, which it is proposed to demolish. Slight negative impact as the bridge is a minor one and not generally visible. Retain stone arched under-bridge spanning stream south of Dunboyne. Retain water tower at Dunboyne – NIAH Regional Rating. Retain stone arched over-bridge at Dunboyne - NIAH Regional Rating. It is proposed to remove the stone parapet walls and replace them with higher concrete parapets faced with stone internally. Damaged or missing capping stones on the wing walls will be replaced. Provide guarding each side of the ramps up to the bridge in precast and in-situ concrete walls. Moderate negative impact.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 32 of 32 Retain station house (in domestic use) and outbuildings (other than those attached to the bridge embankment). The remaining short sections of railway platform will be reused on site or elsewhere on the railway. Two stone arched under-bridges spanning the Tolka River at Bracetown would be removed and replaced. Slight negative impact as these are minor structures. Demolish stone arched over-bridge at Bennetstown – a protected structure. Profound negative impact. Due to extensive flooding in the area, the proposed new level of the rail line in this area is some 1.5m above the original level. There is, therefore, insufficient clearance under the existing bridge arch. Retain stone abutments of under-bridge over Tolka River at Bennetstown with a new bridge span being added.
It is predicted that electrification (attaching supports to the undersides of Barnhill and Dunboyne over-bridges) will only have an imperceptible to slight neutral impact on heritage bridges.
1.7.15. Cultural Heritage – Archaeological Heritage. This section states that an examination of the RMP and SMR maps for the area indicate that there are no recorded archaeological monuments within a 500m corridor on either side of the railway track. Sites levelled in the past may not present any surface remains and the sub-surface evidence may still remain below the modern surface and only be detected when ground is disturbed. Consequently, impact on existing archaeological heritage is considered to be limited and the greatest potential impacts will arise during the construction phase.
As mitigation, it is recommended that no construction, land take or topsoil removal take place without the presence of a suitably qualified archaeologist. A licensed archaeologist should be retained for the duration of the relevant groundworks and a monitoring programme should include the areas of the two stations, car parks at Dunboyne and Pace, works on overbridges and underbridges, construction compounds, including maintenance and access roads, and the removal of topsoil along the horizontal clearance area on both sides of the railway line.
1.7.16. Interactions. Section 19 examines cumulative and indirect impacts and concludes that there will be no significant negative impacts. Interaction of impacts is also examined and visually represented on figure 19.1. No significant negative impacts are identified.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 33 of 33 1.9. Oral Hearing.
1.9.1. At the Direction of the Board, I conducted an oral hearing on 10th to 14th December 2007 at the Board’s offices. The proceedings were recorded by stenographers and a transcript of the hearing in five volumes is attached. A hard copy of the evidence presented by CIE/IE is contained in Report Attachment 1 and that of Fingal and Meath County Councils in Report Attachment 2. During the hearing the Board received letters from some observers and these together with hard copies of oral evidence presented to the hearing by other observers are contained in Report Attachment 3.
1.9.2. On the final day of the hearing, CIE/IE proposed amendments to the draft Railway Order following agreements with observers. These are contained in Report Attachment 4. They also submitted a folder containing ‘Responses to Submissions’ and these are in Report Attachment 5.
1.9.3. The following is a list of appearances and the order of presentation:
Monday 10th December 2007.
Presentation of evidence by CIE/IE. Maurice Gaffney S.C assisted by Conleth Bradley S.C and Michael O’Donnell S.C – Opening. Tom Finn – Strategic Background. Fiona O’Sullivan – Project Overview. Peter Cunningham – Property Referencing & Landtake. Barry Kenny – Project Public Consultation. Oliver Doyle – Operations Precis. John de Villiers – Engineering. John de Villiers – Construction Strategy. Mags Dalton – EIS Overview. Brendan Allen – Assessment of Relevant Planning Issues. Bill Hastings – Architectural Heritage & Visual Impact. Michael Cregan – Landscape Assessment. Colin Doyle – Noise. Seamus Quigley – Roads and Traffic.
Continued overleaf
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 34 of 34 Tuesday 11th December 2007.
Continuation of Presentation by CIE/IE. Dr. Kevin Dodd – Impact on Bloodstock.
Questions to CIE/IE Eamon Galligan S.C for Hilltown Partnership. Brendan Kilty S.C for Sean Boylan. Patrick Butler for Menolly Homes/Manor Park Homebuilders. Rory McEntee, Law Agent for Meath County Council. Joan Caffrey for Fingal County Council. Gary O’Brien for Fingal County Council. Colm Moore.
Presentation of evidence by Fingal County Council. Joan Caffrey – Planning Gary O’Brien – Roads.
Presentation of evidence by Meath County Council. Rory McEntee – Opening. Bernard Green – Planning. Jim Gibney – Roads. Tim O’Leary – Drainage. Jill Chadwick – Conservation. Philip Bayfield – Traffic. John McGrath – Roads.
Presentation of evidence by Hilltown Partnership. Eamon Galligan S.C.
Presentation of evidence by Menolly Homes/Manor Park Homebuilders. Douglas Hyde.
Presentation of evidence by Castlethorn Construction. Stephen Little.
Wednesday 12th December 2007.
Presentation of evidence by Observers. Ray O’Malley for Gerard McGrath. Des Laydon for Gerard McGrath.
Update on discussions between CIE/IE and Menolly Homes/Manor Park Homebuilders re Hansfield Station.
Adjournment. Note: There was no after lunch session.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 35 of 35 Thursday 13th December 2007.
Presentation of evidence by Observers. Ian Pringle. C. McGarry (RPS) for John Connaughton Ltd. Owen Shinkwin for DTO.
Update on discussions between CIE/IE and Menolly Homes/Manor Park Homebuilders re Hansfield Station.
Adjournment.
Friday 14th December 2007.
Responses and submission of amendments by CIE/IE. Comments from Gerard McGrath. Rory McEntee for Meath County Council. Joan Caffrey for Fingal County Council. Gary O’Brien for Fingal County Council.
Closing Submission by CIE/IE.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 36 of 36 SECTION 2 - ASSESSMENT.
2.1. Preamble.
2.1.1. I consider that the documentation submitted with the draft Railway Order, including the EIS, and the written and oral submissions by CIE/IE and the observers address the principal issues and that there are no new issues to be considered by the Board. My assessment is arranged under the following headings:
The Application. Need. Adequacy of EIS. Conservation. Stations/Park & Ride - General Pace Station and Park & Ride. Dunboyne Station and Park & Ride. Hansfield Station. Clonsilla Station. Roads Issues. Property Acquisition & Related Issues. Other issues.
2.2. The Application.
2.2.1. The application has been screened by the Board and appears to comply with the documentary requirements of section 37 of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001.
2.2.2. CIE/IE submitted the following documents to the Oral Hearing: Revised Volume 1 of ‘Draft Legal Order and Schedules to the Order’, ‘Property Errata’, ‘List of Proposed Amendments to Draft Railway Order drawings and additional drawings submitted in support of agreements reached’,
In relation to the document Revised Volume 1 of ‘Draft Legal Order and Schedules to the Order’, there are two changes as explained by Mr. Gaffney for CIE/IE (see transcript day 5 page 6). The first change is the replacement of the wording ‘mechanical power’ by ‘mechanical power includes electrical power and other power’. The second change is to delete reference to the Railway Act 1891 as this has to do with safety and has been overtaken by subsequent legislation.
2.2.3. Mr. Colm Moore in written submissions both prior to and during the oral hearing has brought the attention of the Board to his difficulty in accessing documents at Connolly Station and from the internet. This matter was raised at
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 37 of 37 the oral hearing (see transcript day 2 pages 85 & 86). Ms. O’Sullivan for CIE/IE said the matter of access at Connolly Station was corrected when brought to their attention. She said the documents were on public display at Dunboyne library and at Dunshaughlin but had to be requested at Connolly due to space constraints.
2.2.4. I consider that the procedural matters raised are of a minor nature and it appears that the significant documents involved in the draft Railway Order were on public display.
2.3. Need.
2.3.1. The need for this railway project is discussed in Volume 3, section 6, of the EIS, the evidence presented to the oral hearing by CIE/IE, and the observations of Fingal County Council, Meath County Council and the Dublin Transportation Office.
2.3.2. The reopening of the Clonsilla to Pace railway line is identified as a strategic development in the following documents (described in more detail in section 1.6 of this report):- A Platform for Change – DTO Strategy 2000-2016 (November 2001), Regional Planning Guidelines – Greater Dublin Area 2004-2016 (July 2004), Transport 21 (November 2005), National Development Plan 2007-2013, Fingal County Development Plan 2005-2011 (Strategy TS2, Policy TP12 and Objective TO8), Fingal Development Plan Variation 21 (2007), Hansfield SDZ (2006), Fingal Section 49 Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme (2006), Meath County Development Plan 2007-2013 (Policies INFRA SP8, INF POL1, and Objectives INF OBJ 1 and INF OBJ 4), Integrated Action Area Plan for Lands east of the Railway Line, Dunboyne (Meath County Council 2005), and Meath Section 49 Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme.
2.3.3. I consider that the need for the project is well established by these national, regional, county and local plans. In particular, the county and local plans are primarily based on the provision of this railway in terms of transportation and land use planning policies and objectives.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 38 of 38 2.4. Adequacy of EIS.
2.4.1. A summary description of the main provisions of the EIS is given in section 1.7. of this report. A number of observers have referred to aspects of the project description and individual topics and these may be considered under the following headings:
Project description:- Forecast demand. Train frequency. Electrification. Pace telecom mast. Drainage at Pace.
Topics:- Tree survey. Noise standards. Energy. Environmental Management Plan.
2.4.2. Forecast demand. The DTO said the forecast passenger demand figures for the peak period are low in relation to the scale of development referred to by Meath Co. Co. It is not clear what rail capacity could be achieved as the completion of other T21 projects are likely to have a major bearing on capacity and the level of car trips associated with the rail stations.
2.4.3. CIE/IE in ‘Responses to submissions’ (item 17) say the modelling for the Business Case was undertaken by DTO and the key result from the DTO output was for a total of 2300 boardings in the AM peak by 2016. The assumptions of a capacity provision of 3600 and populations of 7000 at Hansfield and 10,000 at Dunboyne formed the base case scenario. It is accepted that there will be an associated uplift in demand, estimated to be 3000 in AM peak, following the roll out of T21 and with the metro/interconnector in particular (representing 85% capacity). Consultants are currently preparing a scoping study for phase 2 extension to Navan and the 2025 year model is being calibrated. A preliminary indication is that the 30% expected uplift associated with T21 is a realistic benchmark. Some preliminary statistics are presented with comments.
2.4.4. Train frequency. Some of the observers asked whether the frequency of a 15-minute train service at Hansfield Station and a 7.5 minute train service at Clonsilla Station during the peak hours with each train having a capacity of circa 1,250 passengers referred to in condition A4(ii) of the Board’s decision on the Hansfield SDZ would be achieved (PL 06F.ZD2002). CIE/IE in ‘Responses to submissions’ (item 26) stated that it is intended to run a service every 15 minutes during peak periods.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 39 of 39 2.4.5. Electrification. Some of the observers said that electrification of the line should be carried out during construction while others said the EIS did not adequately describe the impact of electrification.
2.4.6. Mr. Oliver Doyle for CIE/IE in direct evidence during day 1 of the oral hearing (see hard copy in Report Attachment 1) said the Dunboyne line will not be electrified from the outset as it cannot be electrified in isolation from the Maynooth line. The electrification of the Maynooth line is a separate project included within Transport 21 with an implementation date of 2015. Provision for electrification has been made within this scheme. Additional property has been sought and all the bridges being provided are of adequate clearance to allow future electrification of the line with minimal disruption to services. He said a separate Railway Order will not be required for future electrification of the line.
2.4.7. Mr. Finn for CIE/IE in response to my questions on day 2 of the hearing (see transcript pages 109-113) said the additional property now sought was specifically to do with sub-stations. He said that up to now they have not needed approvals for any work within the railway boundary itself for the electrification of the DART line in 1999 or thereabouts. One of the key factors that would drive electrification in the Dublin area is the inter-connector between Heuston and the Docklands. He said the EIS does not address visual impact of electrification, as that is not being proposed in the project. Ms. Dalton clarified that there is no detailed design for electrification at this stage. In his closing submission, Mr. Gaffney (see transcript day 5 pages 26 & 27) said that if electrification occurs, all the necessary permissions, and there would be many permissions required, will be sought at one and the same time and will be a matter of public knowledge. He said that the acquisition of additional land to provide for the future is not unfamiliar to railway orders and ever since they began it was recognised that provisions might be made which were for circumstances that did not immediately apply, but were thought likely to apply at some time in the reasonable future.
2.4.8. Pace telecom mast. In response to my questions at the oral hearing, Mr. Oliver Doyle for CIE/IE said that the proposed telecom mast at Pace was for the local train radio system and that it was not intended that other telecommunication companies would use it. He said its height was determined by surveys along the route and the proposed height was the minimum necessary (see transcript day 2 page 113 & 114).
2.4.9. Drainage at Pace. In response to my questions at the oral hearing (see transcript day 2 pages 106- 109), CIE/IE in ‘Clarifications and Responses to points raised during oral hearing’ submitted 14/12/07 (see Report Attachment 4) provided information on proposed surface and foul water drainage at Pace. This included drawing 011506-49-DR-0843 showing the location of the proposed surface water attenuation tank and the percolation area for the bio-cycle treatment unit. They said the ground level in the area of Pace is to be raised approx. 2.5m above
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 40 of 40 existing level thus providing adequate clearance for the predicted 100 year flood level of the Tolka River.
2.4.10. Tree survey. The BSM report ‘Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment’ 2004 is contained in Appendix B Volume 4 of the EIS and it advocates carrying out a tree survey. Some observers have criticised the EIS because a tree survey was not carried out. It is to be noted that the draft RO proposes to clear all vegetation from the line.
2.4.11. CIE/IE in ‘Clarifications and Responses to points raised during oral hearing’ submitted 14/12/07 (see Report Attachment 4) make the following points: The EPA Advice Notes section 2 are quoted. The Ecology section of the EIS, Chapter 8, was conducted in accordance with the EPA Guidelines. The majority of hedgerows had a good structure as regards height and intactness, though mature trees were largely absent. Also, the species diversity was low with near dominance of hawthorn and ash. Due to the relatively low flora value and near absence of mature trees, there was no requirement for a tree survey. This approach is fully in line with EPA guidance documents. In addition, prior to commencement, the survey was scoped and agreed with the local National Parks and Wildlife Service.
2.4.12. Noise standards. There was criticism of the noise reports and the noise standards adopted by CIE/IE by some of the observers, most notably by Mr. Colm Moore and by Mr. Ray O’Malley for Gerard McGrath. The main points were:- The criterion of 60 dB(A) is unreasonably high and contrary to the EPA Guidelines. The noise calculations underestimate the number of trains. Night-time noise criteria not adequately considered. Averaging used in predicted noise levels. Back calculation from 70m inappropriate. Construction noise understated. Cumulative and indirect impacts not considered. The graphs in figures 3 and 4 of EIS Volume 4 Appendix E appear to have errors. Table 8 not supplied.
In summary, CIE/IE in ‘Clarifications and Responses to points raised during oral hearing’ submitted 14/12/07 (see Report Attachment 4) replied as follows: There are no Irish limits for railway noise and the 60 dB(A) criterion used is numerically equal to the Irish NRA criterion for road traffic noise. It was derived from the UK rail noise criterion and the NRA criterion and incorporates a rail bonus of 3dB. It could be argued, reasonably, that a rail bonus of 6dB should have been used. Therefore, the 60 dB(A) criterion was biased on the conservative side. The EPA guideline limits of 45/55 dB(A) refer to scheduled activities and are not directly applicable to rail operations where the noise profile is intermittent in nature. There will be a signalling capacity of 8 trains per hour in each direction. This provides extra capacity to allow for timetable robustness in terms of
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 41 of 41 delays, defective trains and unforeseen events. However, the service in the RO application is to provide 4 trains per hour in each direction during peak periods and 2 trains per hour during off-peak. This equates to a total of 88 trains per day. There may be an occasional requirement to deviate from these frequencies. During the nigh-time period there would be 2 empty train movements from 00.00-00.25 from Pace to Clonsilla and 2 empty train movements from 05.30-05.45 from Clonsilla to Pace. All transportation noise in Ireland and throughout the EU is assessed in terms of average noise levels over the relevant time periods. The modelling was based on a combination of measurements taken 70m from the Maynooth rail line and 20m from the Cork to Cobh rail line. From a comparison of these results and other measurements it was found that the measurements at the 70m location formed a reliable basis for modelling. Table 11.3 details the highest noise levels predicted during track construction and table 11.4 details the predicted noise associated with the construction of structures. This explains the different noise levels referred to by Mr. O’Malley. Re cumulative and indirect impacts, the project specifically excludes any extension to Navan and/or provision of electrification. The possible opening of an extension from Pace to Navan would not increase the frequency of the trains or the train size. On figure 3 Appendix E noise maxima data for the period 0.6.00 to 15.15 was copied in error to the time period 16.30 to 05.45. A corrected graph is attached and there is no implication for the data analysis and conclusions presented in the EIS. The noise plots in figure 4 have been re-examined and are correct. A copy of table 8 is attached.
2.4.13. Energy. The observation of An Taisce said that further information should be sought on the best technology for minimising energy consumption and should be incorporated into the mitigation measures.
2.4.14. CIE/IE in ‘Responses to submissions’ (item 23) discuss the intended introduction of a 5% biodiesel blend, the use of sulphur free fuel and the conformity of IE’s latest fleet of Class 22000 railcars with EU Directive 2004/26/EC in relation to standards of emissions.
2.4.15. Environmental Management Plan. In response to my questions at the oral hearing (see transcript day 2 pages 116- 118), CIE/IE in ‘Clarifications and Responses to points raised during oral hearing’ submitted 14/12/07 (see Report Attachment 4) lists the topic contents of the EMS and says They have developed an EMP that captures all mitigation measures identified in the EIS and any further requirements during detailed design. The EMS will form part of the tendering process and will form a core element of the successful contractor’s deliverables. It is not normal practice to finalise the document until the detailed design is complete and conditions attached to a decision are made. Therefore, it is
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 42 of 42 considered premature to release the information for public review at this stage. It is not required that the EMP is placed on public display. However, members of the public and residents can raise their concerns via the appointed liaison officer. IE commit to continuing public liaison throughout the construction phase to ensure minimal impact on affected parties. Monitoring will ensure legal compliance and effectiveness of EMP.
2.4.16. Conclusion. It is to be noted that the EIS contains a non-technical summary in volume 1. In relation to some of the proposed mitigation measures, the EIS says they ‘should’ be carried out or they are ‘recommended’. However, at the oral hearing I obtained a commitment from Mr. Finn of CIE/IE that all mitigation measures would be carried out (see transcript day 2 page 116). In my opinion, the responses of CIE/IE adequately address the issues raised by the observers.
2.4.17. The required content of an EIS is set out in section 39 of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act, 2001 as amended by section 49 of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act, 2006. I consider that the EIS, together with the additional written and oral information and explanations presented by CIE/IE, complies with the requirements of section 39 of the Act and provides an adequate description of the project, its impacts and the proposed mitigation measures for the purposes of making an informed decision.
2.5 Conservation.
2.5.1. Natural environment. The relevant sections of the EIS are contained in chapter 8 (flora and fauna) and chapter 13 (landscape and visual). The Royal Canal is designated as a pNHA while the undesignated Tolka River system has regional importance. The proposed railway involves constructing a bridge over the canal using the existing stone abutments. New underbridges are proposed over the Tolka. In both cases, the EIS says there will be no impact on habitat. Construction of the line will involve total clearance of existing vegetation. Mitigation measures are proposed in relation to bats, otters, and badgers.
2.5.2. The DoEHLG observation requires the following: All mitigation measures for flora and fauna shall be carried out including those for birds, bats, badgers and otters. As much hedgerow as possible should be retained and suitable planting in mitigation for loss of hedgerow should be carried out. Where possible all crossings of watercourses should be by bridges and the riparian zone retained. Where bridging is not possible, culverts must contain suitable ledges to allow mammals such as otters to use them. The applicants should apply to the DoEHLG for licences to relocate badgers, to disturb or destroy bat roosts and to disturb the habitat of the
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 43 of 43 protected plant species (Hairy St. Johns Wort found in the past at Barnhill). A badger and a bat expert should carry out such work.
2.5.3. The Waterways Ireland observation requires the following: It is the policy of Waterways Ireland not to allow any water to be discharged into the canal system either on a temporary or permanent basis. The Royal Canal shall remain open to navigation from 1 March to 31 October with no canal closures between these dates. During construction, the towpath, which is a public right of way, should be open to pedestrians. Where this is not feasible, a suitable diversion route should be established. During construction, the applicants should provide an access route for maintenance vehicles to Waterways Ireland, possibly via their construction compound. The steel bridge should be painted in a subdued colour in keeping with the canal setting. Any retaining walls facing the canal should be clad in a stone in keeping with the stone on the existing abutments.
2.5.4. CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ (item 28) say that all comments by DoEHLG are noted and it is intended to appropriately manage all vegetation and protected species in accordance with applicable legislation. Regarding the observation from Waterways Ireland, CIE/IE make the following points (see item 29) IE will provide access for Waterways Ireland to cross under the rail alignment via the reconstructed Farmers Underpass. A right of way will be provided on the east side of the railway embankment to link the underpass with the canal bank. The construction contractor will be required to coordinate with Waterways Ireland for occasional access through the underpass and right of way during the construction period. The underpass will have a minimum headroom of 3180mm and width of 3600mm and the wing walls shall be stone-clad to match the existing bridge abutments. The proposed drainage for the right of way and the underpass will not discharge into the canal and either existing drainage channels or soak pits will be used. The alignment section from the underpass to the Royal Canal Bridge will drain south towards Clonsilla. The trackside drainage pipes will run under the bridge or walkway deck and be encased in a box as part of the structure. A 1.8m high plastic coated steel mesh fence will be fixed to sides of the walkway and will connect with a 2.4m high palisade fence which runs along each side of the railway embankment. The existing tow path at the base of the northern abutment will be kept open for pedestrians, except at times of heavy construction overhead. During these short periods, temporary access may be provided via the underpass.
2.5.5. I consider that the mitigation measures contained in the EIS, together with the responses, adequately address the issues raised in the two observations.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 44 of 44 2.5.6. Built environment. On the railway alignment there are only two protected structures, Bennetstown and Barnhill over-bridges, but there are other railway-related structures that have heritage value.
2.5.7. Bennetstown Bridge. It is proposed to demolish Bennetstown Bridge, a protected structure. Section 17.7 of the EIS says that due to extensive flooding in the area, the proposed new level of the rail line will be some 1.5m above the original level. Therefore, there is insufficient clearance under the existing bridge arch.
2.5.8. It is noted that the DoEHLG say, in written observation received 22/11/07, that the loss of architectural heritage is part of the environmental cost of returning the railway to use and has to be balanced against the gain to the common good of having a commuter link from Dunboyne to the cite centre.
2.5.9. It is also noted that Ms. Jill Chadwick, Conservation Officer with MCC, said in oral evidence (see Report Attachment 2) that it is reluctantly accepted that it is necessary to demolish this bridge and that this is one of the ‘exceptional circumstances’ in which it is possible to demolish a protected structure. At the oral hearing, Mr. Tim O’Leary said that trains stopped due to flooding in November 1954 and this represented the 1 in 100 year event (see transcript day 2 page 187).
2.5.10. Subject to recording the structure, I accept that it is necessary to demolish this bridge.
2.5.11. Dunboyne and Barnhill Bridges. The stone arched over-bridge at Barnhill is a protected structure while that at Dunboyne has a Regional Rating on the NIAH. It is proposed to remove the stone parapet walls of both bridges and replace them with higher concrete parapets faced with stone internally. Damaged or missing capping stones on the wing walls will be replaced. The existing guarding each side of the ramps up to the bridge will be replaced by in-situ concrete transition walls (see Architectural/Structural Plans B003, B008 & B012).
2.5.12. The Conservation Officer of MCC in oral evidence (see Report Attachment 2) accepted the need for safety measures but said the bridge at Dunboyne is not visible just from the road but also from the station below. She said the design of the reinforced superstructure, coping and transition walls is unsympathetic to the historic structure and the Board should require revised designs to include ashlar stone facing on both sides of the parapet.
2.5.13. I raised this issue at the oral hearing (see transcript day 2 pages 192 – 195). Mr. Hastings for CIE/IE said that only concrete or stone finishes were considered for the replacement parapets and stone was rejected because it had no tensile strength. It was not possible to drill through small stones to tie them into the bridge. Consequently, stone would dislodge on impact. Mr. Hastings considered that a concrete finish made by plywood formers would be more honest than the use of concrete that was finished with moulded stone shapes.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 45 of 45 He drew attention to the difference in thickness between the parapet walls and the transition walls and said this could be accentuated. Mr. Finn stressed that the key issue was safety.
2.5.14. It is to be noted that CIE/IE in document ‘Conditions Requested’ submitted on 14/12/07 agreed in principle to MCC’s suggested condition 17 in relation to the replacement parapets. They said that ‘IE confirm that the replacement parapets will be replicated as far as possible with regard also to safety and current design practice’.
2.5.15. I accept that the safety issue is of paramount importance but I consider that the proposed design of the parapets is principally an engineering solution and the design would have a significant impact on the character of these bridges. The outer faces of the bridges will be visible to the public from Dunboyne station, Mr. Boylan’s clinic and following the development of the lands in Hansfield and Barnhill. It may be possible to face the parapets in stone combined with the introduction of speed restrictions on the approaches to the bridges. Failing that, at least the transition walls could be faced in an alternative material so that the massing of the overall length of walling is broken up visually. I cannot be prescriptive in terms of finish but consider that this issue should be explored with the planning authorities and in default of agreement referred back to the Board for determination. I consider that the design solution that is proposed in the draft Railway Order is not acceptable from a conservation viewpoint.
2.5.16. Mr. Hastings also said that only minor repair work was necessary to the side walls of these bridges. It is noted that conservation method statements had not been prepared. It seems that supervision by a conservation architect has been used in previous railway works. I consider that a condition should be imposed requiring the preparation of method statements and that a conservation architect should supervise the works. It is noted that the EIS says the predicted impact of electrification (i.e. attaching supports to the undersides of Barnhill and Dunboyne over-bridges) will only have an imperceptible to slight neutral impact on these heritage bridges.
2.5.17. Sterling Bridge. This is a stone arched over-bridge. While it is not a protected structure and is not included on the NIAH, it has similar heritage value to those at Barnhill and Dunboyne. The EIS says the arch would be demolished as it shows clear evidence of structural failure. A new concrete portal span bridge would be erected on the existing abutments (see Structure Plan B005). The Conservation Officer of MCC said she had not seen a structural report and thought the increased carriageway width could be achieved by replacing the deck and parapets while retaining the arch. MCC’s suggested condition 18 requires the arch to be retained if possible.
2.5.18. CIE/IE in document ‘Conditions Requested’ submitted on 14/12/07 says the bridge shows signs of structural damage and cracking has occurred in the spandrel walls extending into the parapets. In addition, the arch is sagging due to lateral movement of the abutments and is considered structurally unsound.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 46 of 46 The structural report contained in document ‘Clarifications and Responses to Points Raised during the Oral Hearing’ says that following removal of vegetation it was ascertained that the arch is in a very poor condition. The report says that stitching does not appear to be viable in this case.
2.5.19. I consider that CIE/IE have made a reasonable case for the replacement of the arch and subject to prior recording I consider that the proposal is acceptable.
2.5.20. Sterling Farmers Accommodation Bridge. It is proposed to demolish the stone arched accommodation over-bridge just north of Sterling. The EIS says this will give rise to a slight negative impact as the bridge is a minor one and not generally visible. I agree with this conclusion subject to prior recording.
2.5.21. Underbridges. In relation to these bridges, the EIS says It is proposed to retain the stone abutments of the former bridge over the Royal Canal. It is proposed to remove the damaged remains of an under-bridge just west of the canal crossing. It is proposed to retain a stone arched under-bridge spanning the stream south of Dunboyne. It is proposed to retain the stone abutments of an under-bridge over the Tolka River at Bennetstown with a new bridge span being added. Two stone arched under-bridges spanning the Tolka River at Bracetown would be removed and replaced.
2.5.22. I consider that these proposals are acceptable subject to prior recording where demolition is involved.
2.5.23. Other Structures. The EIS says No works are proposed to the engine shed and turntable between the main line and the Clonsilla/Dunboyne line west of Clonsilla. It is proposed to retain the water tower at Dunboyne which has a NIAH Regional Rating. The remaining short sections of railway platform at Dunboyne will be reused on site or elsewhere on the railway.
2.5.24. MCC in written submission prior to the hearing said the retention of the water tower at Dunboyne should be strengthened by condition. Having regard to the exempted development provisions of the legislation, I agree that a condition should be imposed requiring retention of this structure.
2.5.25. MCC’s suggested condition 19 required that all historic structures along the line be recorded in advance of construction in accordance with DoEHLG guidelines and that the results should be lodged with the IAA and respective planning authorities. It is to be noted that at the oral hearing, Mr. Bill Hastings for CIE/IE submitted a copy of an advice document from the Architectural Heritage Advisory Unit dated February 2004 which provides guidance on the
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 47 of 47 extent of heritage building recording (see Report Attachment 1). Based on this, I have drafted a condition for the recording of the bridges and other heritage structures proposed for alteration or demolition. CIE/IE in ‘Conditions Requested’ accept MCC’s proposed condition and, in ‘Clarifications and Responses to Points Raised during the Oral Hearing’, list the content of such recording.
2.5.26. MCC’s suggested condition 20 that requires that all stonework from demolished bridges and other structures to be reused where possible in the provision of structures as part of the railway scheme with remaining salvageable materials being sent for recycling. CIE/IE in ‘Conditions Requested’ accepts this condition subject to the modification that stonework from demolished bridges will be used to repair other stone-arched railway overbridges to be retained by IE.
2.5.27. Archaeology. Chapter 18 of the EIS deals with archaeology and says there are no recorded monuments within 500m of the alignment. Impact on existing archaeological heritage is considered to be limited and the greatest potential impacts will arise during construction. Monitoring by a qualified archaeologist is a proposed mitigation measure.
2.5.28. Observations by the DoEHLG and Mr. Colm Moore refer to archaeology. The DoEHLG recommends imposition of monitoring conditions. Mr. Moore refers to M3 Motorway archaeological finding ‘Dunboyne 3 - possible Neolithic settlement’ and two circular enclosures at Hilltown (see also oral hearing transcript day 2 pages 82-85).
2.5.29. CIE/IE in ‘Clarifications and Responses to Points Raised during the Oral Hearing’ say that Margaret McCarthy, appointed archaeologist for the project, responds as follows: The M3 Motorway archaeological finding ‘Dunboyne 3’ was omitted from the EIS. However, the mitigation measures will ensure that any potential archaeological finds will be monitored and therefore protected. The two circular enclosures were considered and were deemed sufficiently distant from the railway route not to warrant inclusion. These enclosures will not be impacted upon by the proposed railway project.
2.5.30. I consider that the inclusion of a condition requiring archaeological monitoring during construction by a qualified archaeologist will safeguard any potential impacts as advised by DoEHLG.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 48 of 48 2.6. Stations/Park & Ride – General.
2.6.1. The observations of Meath County Council (MCC), DTO, Hilltown Partnership, Rail Users Ireland and Colm Moore raise general issues about the proposed stations and park & ride facilities. The issues may be categorised as follows:- The Railway Order is deficient in not including a station at Hillstown in its plans. Issues concerning the design of the stations. Parking at Pace should be incentivised. More pedestrian routes should be incorporated into the design of the car park at Pace. Parking control in the vicinity of the park and ride facilities.
2.6.2. Hilltown. The Hilltown Partnership in its written submission prior to the oral hearing argued that there is no provision for a Park and Ride facility south of Dunboyne. They said there is adequate green space adjacent to the line in their ownership for a P&R facility to be provided. They said the RO application makes no provision for a future station, south of Dunboyne, close to the Meath County boundary, as envisaged in the Meath County Development Plan, and the RO is deficient in not including a station at Hillstown in its plans.
2.6.3. Meath County Council in written submission stated that it is currently in the process of appointing consultants to prepare an IFPLUT for the area of the Clonee to Pace corridor. This will inform the preparation of the Dunboyne/Clonee/Pace Corridor LAP and guide development over the next 20 years. It is hoped to appoint a firm of consultants by the year end.
2.6.4. In the oral submission of Mr. Galligan on behalf of Hilltown Partnership, (see transcript of oral hearing day 2 pages 198-203), there is recognition that the IFPLUT and future Dunboyne/Clonee/Pace Corridor LAP will address the need for additional stations.
2.6.5. I consider it sufficient for the Board to note that studies will be underway shortly leading to a LAP and this will consider possible future settlement nodes and stations along the proposed railway alignment. The Board is not being asked to amend the draft Railway Order or intervene at this stage. I consider that the issues raised by Hilltown Partnership are for a future forum.
2.6.6. Station design. Meath County Council in its written submission prior to the oral hearing said the planning authority had no objection to the design of the proposed stations. However, MCC in its schedule of conditions (number 8) submitted to the oral hearing (see Report Attachment 2) say that parking at Pace should be incentivised and there should be no ticket price disincentive between rail trips originating from Pace and Dunboyne stations. During questions on day 2 of the oral hearing, MCC explained that it was concerned that if there was a price difference between Pace and Dunboyne that commuters might be more
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 49 of 49 attracted to Dunboyne thus leading to congestion at that station (see transcript pages 16/17).
2.6.7. The DTO says station design should be sufficiently adaptable to accommodate future development in the immediate vicinity, that measures to improve passenger safety should be included, that more pedestrian routes should be incorporated into the design of the car park at Pace, and a variable messaging system should be introduced with the NRA to inform users about the quantity of P&R spaces available.
2.6.8. Mr. Colm Moore in his written submission presented a commentary on the drawings and indicated some errors and omissions.
2.6.9. Rail Users Ireland in its written submission said There is an objection to charging for parking at Pace and Dunboyne. If this is not withdrawn, the applicant should be required to offer a range of tickets which incorporate a parking charge. The applicant should engage a bus operator to offer connecting bus services serving Pace and Dunboyne with integrated bus and rail tickets. The applicant should demonstrate that the number of turnstiles at Pace and Dunboyne are sufficient to cope with the expected passenger flows. The entry routes for wheelchairs are overly complex. The general land height around stations should be raised to reduce steps and ramps. A side gate should be provided adjacent to the station side of the footbridges. The line design speed should be increased to 75mph. All trackside electrification equipment should be constructed in parallel with the line opening.
2.6.10. CIE/IE in ‘Responses to submissions’ sections 11 and 17 received by the Board on 14/12/07 during the oral hearing (see Report Attachment 5) address these matters and the following is my summary of the main points: It is IE policy to charge for car parking at stations but only to reflect operational and maintenance costs. IE is in discussions with DoT re possible inclusion of parking charges in the tax relief scheme for commuting costs. While IE encourages bus operators to provide local or commuter services it is not responsible for operating services, network planning or allocation of bus licenses. Integrated bus and rail tickets will form part of an overall scheme. The provision of 6 turnstiles is based on the requirement to evacuate a full complement of train passengers plus passengers waiting on a platform in an emergency. Three additional validators can be installed without disruption if forecasts are exceeded. Re facilities for mobility impaired, the arrangement shown in the Railway Order is at a preliminary design stage and it has been possible at detailed design stage to considerably reduce the number of steps and length of ramps at both stations. An emergency escape gate will be provided adjacent to station buildings.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 50 of 50 Line speed cannot reach 75mph due to short distances between stations. Electrification cannot be done in isolation but as part of the Maynooth/Connolly project. Space and clearance provisions for future electrification have been designed into this rail project. The location of the station at Dunboyne was selected having regard to the IAAP prepared by MCC. Future commercial/residential/retail facilities around station square is eminently feasible with the current position of the station. Provisions are made for the interface between bus and taxi services. Re pedestrian/cycleway accessibility, IE have provided for pedestrians and cyclists within the confines of the station but connectivity to the surrounding areas will take place after MCC have completed a Land Use Transportation Study that will define access routes within the station catchment areas. Walking routes from the park and ride to the station have been further developed in the detailed design and provide alternative routes. The park and ride will be serviced with CCTV and public lighting and the provision of a variable messaging system will be considered when selecting a car park operator.
2.6.11. At the oral hearing on day 2 there was a discussion of the issue of parking charges and incentives. In response to questions from MCC, Mr. Finn for CIE/IE (transcript pages 16/17) said giving incentives would be difficult to enforce. It is envisaged that parking charges would be modest and similar to those in operation at Leixlip, Lewis Bridge and Upper Gormanstown. Mr. Oliver Doyle for CIE/IE (transcript day 2 page 180) said fares are Government controlled and based on distances and zones and it is possible that that there would be a different fare at Pace and Dunboyne.
2.6.12. It is noted that Rail Users Ireland in letter received by the Board on 11/12/07 during the oral hearing indicated acceptance of the responses from CIE/IE (see Report Attachment 3). Mr. Owen Shinkwin for DTO on day 4 of the oral hearing reiterated its previously stated position (see transcript page 41).
2.6.13. I consider that the issue of fare structure is a matter for another regulatory body and, as such, beyond the remit of the Board. There is no indication from CIE/IE that the parking charges at the two stations would differ. They have said the charges would be modest and in line with those operating elsewhere within the Dublin rail network. On the issue of station design, it is apparent that the drawings submitted with the draft Railway Order represent a preliminary design but that detailed design has been completed or is underway. Consequently, the Board does not have answers to some issues concerning safety and access for mobility impaired commuters but these matters are covered by other codes. I agree in principle with the DTO that a variable messaging system should be introduced in consultation with the NRA. However, the roads authority would have responsibility for such in the road network surrounding the station. These are detailed matters that would not significantly effect the overall design of the station buildings in terms of their size, shape and layout. I consider that such matters could be agreed with the
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 51 of 51 planning authority and the NRA and in default referred to the Board for determination. I have drafted conditions to this effect.
2.6.14. Parking control. The DTO says there is a need to regulate car parking on the surrounding road network around Dunboyne and Pace stations. CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ submitted to the oral hearing says the regulation of car parking in the surrounding road network is a matter for the local authority but it should be noted that this issue is exacerbated by insufficient parking spaces at stations.
2.6.15. I agree with CIE/IE that this issue is a matter for the local authority, and having regard to section 44 of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001, I consider it to be outside the scope of the railway order.
2.7. Pace Station and Park & Ride.
2.7.1. The observations of Meath County Council (MCC), the Dublin Transportation Office (DTO), and Colm Moore refer to a number of issues specifically concerning the proposed station and park and ride facility at Pace, namely:- The park and ride facility should remain in public ownership. The long-term case for park and ride at Pace needs to be examined. Screening of station storage containers.
2.7.2. Public ownership. Meath County Council argued in both written and oral evidence that the proposed park and ride facilities should remain in public ownership and a condition to that effect should be imposed by the Board. In its written submission before the oral hearing, the Council said the applicants acknowledge the potential for possible future retail and commercial developments at the Pace P&R and the current proposals will not limit or prevent future development plans. It is noted that if expansion of the P&R is required in the future, it may take the form of multi-storey. The planning authority also consider that the potential to develop over the P&R for other commercial uses proximate to a public transport interchange would be appropriate and request ABP to consider whether or not a condition to this effect should be included.
2.7.3. In its oral submissions, Meath County Council (MCC) said its position was that Pace was a major infrastructural facility which should at all times remain in public ownership and it sought a commitment in that regard (see transcript day 2 pages 18-22). MCC submitted a document listing the conditions it sought to have included as part of the Railway Order and condition 21 refers (see Report Attachment 2). MCC clarified that by ‘public ownership’ it meant in the ownership of CIE/IE or alternatively transferred to the ownership of the local authority. On day 5 of the hearing (see transcript page 19), MCC said it is a matter of great concern that this facility is retained in public ownership and control. MCC referred to the cost to the State which was incurred when it had to buy back a franchise on the M50 Toll Scheme and do not wish to see this
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 52 of 52 happen in a case like this. MCC strongly believes that CIE/IE should not only operate but they should own the facility or, if they are not prepared to do that, MCC are willing to take on that responsibility, ownership and operation and maintenance.
2.7.4. CIE/IE in document ‘Conditions Requested’ submitted to the oral hearing on 14/12/07 said that in relation to the requested condition 21 it was not accepted and that CIE/IE or its agents will operate the car park. Mr. Gaffney for CIE/IE on day 5 of the oral hearing (see transcript page 9) said it can arise that CIE would obtain control of a particular space and retain control of it without retaining ownership of it. He said that MCC can be assured that CIE/IE will always operate the car park. In his closing submission (transcript day 5 pages 24/25), Mr. Gaffney said CIE/IE intend to take and keep control of the car park and while they keep control it cannot be used for any other purpose. He said there is no reason to think that that intention will be altered, and if it were altered, it cannot be altered without planning permission without control (sic). He said there is no reason to imagine that there is any stage that CIE/IE will want to give up control of that property.
2.7.5. The draft Railway Order proposes the permanent acquisition of plots 008.P.62, 008.P.62A and 008.P.65. These plots would contain the park and ride facility. It is to be noted that CIE/IE have not sought to alter such acquisition in the amendments to the draft Railway Order submitted on the final day of the oral hearing. I note section 44 of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 where the provisions in relation to a Railway Order are set out. Having regard to the terms of the legislation, I consider that it would be inappropriate for the Board to impose a condition requiring the P & R facility to remain in public ownership. However, it is noted that CIE/IE in document ‘Agreements reached with Iarnrod Eireann’ received 14/12/07 stated in reference numbers 12 and 19 that ‘at the request of Meath County Council, IE have confirmed that it will operate the car park at Pace’. I have included these (renumbered) agreements in Schedule 11.
2.7.6. Park and Ride long term. The DTO says the long-term case for park and ride at Pace needs to be examined in the context of extending the line to Navan. On a more general point, Mr. Colm Moore says the applicant appears not to consider measures to reduce car parking demand. It is noted that Meath County Council in its written submission prior to the oral hearing said it accepts the rational for the level of proposed parking spaces at the M3 Pace Station. MCC in its schedule of requested conditions (number 22) says future development works at the park and ride facility should be subject to normal planning controls and not subject to exempted development.
2.7.7. I consider that the long-term assessment of the extent of parking at Pace should await and form part of an application for a railway order for the extension of the line to Navan. As such, it would be outside the scope of the current application. It is noted that CIE/IE in commenting on the requested conditions (see Report Attachment 4) accept the terms of condition 22 proposed by MCC. However, I consider that this type of condition may not be possible. The Board
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 53 of 53 has an application for a Railway Order under the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 where, under section 38, the carrying out of railway works specified in the railway order or works for the maintenance, improvement or repair of a railway would be exempted development under the Planning Acts. Having regard to section 44, it would seem to me that there is no provision that would allow the conditions of a railway order to remove exempted development rights under the Act itself or under another Act, i.e. the Planning and Development Act 2000. Of relevance to this issue is the legal opinion of Mr. Gaffney for CIE/IE at 2.9.6 below in connection with Hansfield Station and the type of conditions permissible under the Act.
2.7.8. Screening. MCC in its written submission prior to the oral hearing requested that the proposed palisade fence should be replaced with a more appropriate boundary treatment at the Pace station in order to screen 2 no. steel storage containers.
2.7.9. I consider this to be a minor and non-essential matter.
2.8. Dunboyne Station and Park & Ride.
2.8.1. The observations of Meath County Council, DTO, John Connaughton Ltd., and Colm Moore refer to a number of issues specifically concerning the proposed station and park and ride facility at Dunboyne, namely:- Park and ride facility unnecessary or excessive in size. There should be a review of the size of the park and ride facilities within 5 years of opening of the railway. Access to station contrary to IAAP. Pedestrian accessibility and width of proposed pedestrian bridge.
2.8.2. Size of Park and Ride Facility. Meath County Council, the DTO and John Connaughton Ltd. expressed serious concern about the proposal to provide 420 parking spaces at the park and ride facility at Dunboyne. The DTO questioned whether any park and ride facility was necessary here as it was envisaged that by virtue of the size of the settlement, walking and cycling routes to the station would suffice. Each observer said the proposal would conflict with the provisions of the non- statutory IAAP for the lands to the east of the railway where cell 5 should consist of a station square containing 200 parking spaces with a further 100 in a linear space to the north and parallel to the railway line. Station square would be bounded on its northern side by a bus station and on its northern, eastern and southern sides by commercial/residential/retail developments. MCC expressed concern at the impact that pay and display parking could have on the establishment of this proposed local centre since parking charges were uncommon in such situations in Meath. MCC also questioned how a sense of enclosure could be created around the square. All three observers accepted that the quantum of parking should be reduced to a maximum of 300 spaces with a future review of its size. The relevant evidence presented at the oral hearing is contained in the transcript; MCC day 2 page 137 ff, J.Connaughton Ltd. day 4 page 12 ff and DTO day 4 page 36 ff.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 54 of 54 2.8.3. Meath County Council in its written submission prior to the oral hearing said it considers that within a timeframe, suggested as 5 years after the commencement of passenger services on this line, the necessity of the quantity, layout and principle of station car parking at Dunboyne should be revisited in the context of the wider development strategy contained in the IAAP for this area and that a condition to that effect be included in confirmation of the RO. The DTO in its written submission agreed with the views of MCC regarding a future review and the 5-year timeframe. These views were repeated in oral evidence.
2.8.4. It is to be noted that Mr. McGarry representing John Connaughton Ltd said in oral evidence that the 5-year review period was inappropriate, overly lengthy and unnecessary (transcript day 4 pages 16 & 17). He argued that the review as proposed would take place in 2015 based on an opening of the line in 2010 whereas cell 5 of the IAAP would be developed in phase 2 of that plan which will run ‘up to and beyond 2010’. Therefore, he recommended that a lesser quantum of parking be conditioned as part of the final order.
2.8.5. Regarding the location of the park and ride facility, I note that Meath County Council in written submission prior to the oral hearing said that that the Dunboyne Detailed Objectives and Written Statement in the development plan 2001-2009 reserved a potential site for future rapid transit station facilities on the western side of the rail line. It is noted that section 4.3.3 of the EIS and table 4.3 present three options for the location of the station. Option 2b is considered the optimum in terms of separation from existing houses (noise and visual impacts) and road safety. Therefore, MCC accepts the decision to locate the car parking to the east rather than the west of the rail line. In relation to the need for a park and ride facility, I note there is a specific objective INF OBJ 4 in the Development Plan 2007-2013 ‘to facilitate the provision of park and ride facilities at Dunboyne rail station……’.
2.8.6. CIE/IE in the document entitled ‘Conditions Requested’ received 14/12/07 says it has been agreed that the car park at Dunboyne will be reduced to 300 spaces with a review 5 years after commencement of operations. In their document ‘Responses to submissions’, CIE/IE have provided a revised layout for 300 spaces on drawing 011506-49-SK-0407 (see folder section 6 responding to J. Connaughton Ltd.).
2.8.7. Currently most of the Dunboyne settlement is located to the west of the proposed railway line and there are no pedestrian or cycle routes linking the existing residential areas with the proposed station. It will take a number of years for the lands to the east of the railway to be developed as envisaged in the IAAP and for pedestrian/cycle routes to be determined and implemented through either the IAAP or proposed IFPLUT study and proposed LAP. Noting objective INF OBJ 4 of the development plan, I consider that there is a need to provide a park and ride facility at Dunboyne. Having regard to the arguments presented in the EIS, and to section 6.2.15 of the IAAP where it is stated that a station to the east of the line would be more accessible, I consider
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 55 of 55 that the location of the proposed P&R facility to the east of the rail line is acceptable.
2.8.8. Meath County Council has criticised the applicant’s estimate of a need for 420 spaces at Dunboyne and point out that the DTO advice and the provisions of the IAAP suggest a figure of 300 spaces. However, in my opinion, neither the DTO nor MCC have provided a justification for this specific figure. It was noted earlier in this report that the DTO questioned the forecast passenger demand in the EIS. CIE/IE in response said that the DTO output was for a total of 2300 boardings in the AM peak by 2016, but it was conceded that there will be an associated uplift in demand, estimated to be 3000 in AM peak, following the roll out of T21 and with the metro/interconnector in particular. Such estimates included a projected population of 10,000 at Dunboyne. I note that the applicant has agreed to reduce the amount of parking to 300 spaces and I have included this figure in Schedules 1 and 11 attached. However, no adjustment to the permanent property take is proposed. In my opinion, the property take should remain unaltered since 300 spaces may not be adequate for a population of 10,000 with a possible uplift of demand and it would be difficult to secure additional space in the future in order to prevent parking by commuters in adjoining residential areas, as happens at Clonsilla.
2.8.9. I consider the imposition of a condition requiring the carrying out of a 5-year review of the quantity, layout and principle of the P&R facility may be outside the scope of the provisions of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001. Such a review might conclude that the quantum should be increased or decreased but there can be no certainty on the issue at this point in time. If such a condition were to be imposed it would be difficult to make a Railway Order that specified the quantity of land that may be compulsorily acquired on a permanent and on a temporary basis. In my opinion, a Railway Order cannot be vague in relation to acquisition. I also note the legal opinion of Mr. Gaffney for CIE/IE in his closing submission, albeit in relation to Hansfield Station (see transcript day 5 pages 33-37), that conditions in a Railway Order should refer to the proposals for works in the application and should not involve dependence on another project being completed, in this instance a LAP. Therefore, I recommended that the request for this type of condition should be rejected.
2.8.10. Access to station. John Connaughton Ltd. in written submission, repeated in oral evidence on day 3 of the hearing, says the access to Dunboyne station off Clone Road is contrary to the IAAP which states that access should be taken from the Eastern Distributor Road (EDR) and not from Clonee Road. He said that while it is noted that the proposed access is temporary pending construction of the EDR, it is not clear from the EIS whether the entrance to the car park from Clonee Road will remain. He said the proposed access should be reconsidered as it compromises the development potential of the lands which front onto Clonee Road and the layout of development as per IAAP. The EDR should be constructed by IE to allow cell 5 to begin development at the same time as the train station. The location of the entrance to the station will lead to major traffic congestion in this area of Dunboyne.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 56 of 56 2.8.11. Meath County Council accepts the proposed access from Clonee Road as an interim arrangement but requires it to be relocated to connect with the proposed distributor road in the longer term (see transcript day 2 page 142). In its written submission prior to the oral hearing, MCC said it is satisfied as to the safety of the proposed priority junction off Clonee Road in the interim. MCC in condition 1 of the list of conditions it has sought to be included by the Board, requires access to be taken from the distributor road once constructed and the temporary access from Clonee Road to be closed off.
2.8.12. CIE/IE in the document entitled ‘Conditions Requested’ received 14/12/07 does not accept this condition. They say they have provided in the draft Railway Order for access to the car park at Dunboyne station in the context of the current road layout. They are willing to accommodate revised access to the car park from the distributor road when it is constructed, including the closure of Clonee Road access, but at that time would not have the power to acquire the land required or to construct the connection. IE is not accountable for financing any aspects of the works. They agree to use reasonable endeavour to acquire by agreement the land necessary for the new access road. In the event that they are unable to acquire the land, then Meath County Council will use its compulsory purchase powers.
2.8.13. I note that MCC considers that the proposed access arrangements from Clonee Road are acceptable from a road safety viewpoint and I have no evidence to the contrary. The precise alignment, levels and timeframe associated with the proposed local distributor road have not been determined. Consequently, I accept the view of CIE/IE that they may be unable to execute the relocation of the access but I note their willingness to work with the local authority in achieving this. For similar reasons to those outlined above in relation to the suggested 5-year review condition, I consider that it would be inappropriate under the legislation for the Board to impose a condition requiring future relocation of the proposed access.
2.8.14. Pedestrian accessibility and width of proposed pedestrian bridge. The DTO says the segregated pedestrian/cycleway alongside Station Road/Bridge is insufficient in width at 4m as a shared facility and should be 5m. To the north of the pedestrian bridge, the footway and cycle route are not continued and there are no crossing facilities proposed.
2.8.15. It is to be noted that a revised design for the support of the proposed new pedestrian bridge by means of embankments, located immediately to the north of Dunboyne road bridge, was submitted by CIE/IE to the Board on day 1 of the oral hearing. Meath County Council stated there was no objection to this revision (see transcript day 4 page 29).
2.8.16. The Board should note that on day 2 of the oral hearing (transcript page 176), I asked Meath County Council whether the railway would impede the provision of pedestrian/cycle links across the line shown to the north of the station on the Master Plan for the IAAP. Mr. Green responded by stating that such pedestrian linkages were to be development driven and it was envisaged that they would
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 57 of 57 involve a pedestrian over-bridge between the lands on the western side and the lands on the eastern side of the railway, and that a separate supplementary contribution scheme to make provision for other infrastructure, to include pedestrian bridges, would be devised before planning permission would be granted. In ‘Responses to Submissions’, CIE/IE say the width of the proposed new pedestrian bridge is in excess of that recommended by the DTO manual for Urban Design. They say the connection of the new pedestrian/cycle way to the existing network is the subject of further design development but will be guided by the requirements of MCC who are responsible for the local road network. I consider that these responses satisfactorily address the issues identified by the DTO.
2.9. Hansfield Station.
2.9.1. In the draft Railway Order, CIE/IE propose to construct two platforms at Hansfield but say that a station would not be provided as part of the project. They say that Hansfield Station will be constructed in the future as the area develops. Fingal County Council, Meath County Council, Menolly Homes, Manor Park Homebuilders and Castlethorn Construction have each objected to the non-provision of a station at Hansfield. A written submission from Tom Maher received by the Board on 13/12/07 during the oral hearing makes a similar objection.
2.9.2. The principal grounds of objection refer to the inclusion of a rail station in the Hansfield SDZ approved by the Board on 30/1/06 (PL 06F.ZD.2002). Indeed, the Board required the draft SDZ to be revised by increasing residential density because of the proximity of access to a proposed railway station. Section 10.1.3 of the SDZ requires that the station be provided in phase 2, i.e. before occupation of 2,000 dwellings. The observers point out that to date 700 units have planning permission and further applications are in preparation so that it is realistic to assume that an additional 1,300 units could be approved before completion of the proposed railway in 2010. An application for the principal north-south road within Hansfield has been made recently. The planning authority adopted Variation 21 of the County Development Plan on 12/11/07 which rezoned 3.8ha for residential development to the south of the railway line (lands at Barberstown) and included an objective to provide pedestrian access between Barberstown/Barnhill and the Hansfield SDZ by means of a new overbridge integrated with adjoining development including the proposed Hansfield rail station. In addition, Fingal County Council has a section 49 Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme (adopted 10/7/06) for the development of the railway, including a station at Hansfield. The observers say that the omission of the Hansfield Station in the draft Railway Order is contrary to the provisions of the Hansfield SDZ and s.49 scheme.
2.9.3. Having listened to the oral submissions in relation to this issue on day 2 of the oral hearing, I expressed the view that the Board was concerned about the fact that Hansfield Station was not included in the draft Railway Order having regard to the decision of the Board on the SDZ and because the matter had been
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 58 of 58 flagged in pre-application discussions. I requested CIE/IE to give serious consideration to amending the draft Railway Order to include a station (see transcript day 2 pages 230-232).
2.9.4. On day 4 of the oral hearing (transcript pages 45-50), Mr. Gaffney for CIE/IE reported that the terms of an agreement between CIR/IR and Menolly Homes/Manor Park Homebuilders had been negotiated and were ready for signing. He outlined the contents and stated that the agreement would secure the provision of a station at Hansfield at or about the same time as the opening of the railway line. He said CIE/IE were committed to the provision of a station, that the agreement would be legally binding and that the property owners would be the enforcement agency.
2.9.5. On day 5 of the oral hearing, a copy of the signed agreement was submitted (see Report Attachment 4). In summary, the agreement provides for CIE/IE will seek confirmation from ABP as to the appropriate planning application process to be followed. Within 6 months of this agreement, CIE/IE shall pursue an application(s) for planning permission to construct a railway station at Hansfield/Barnhill to an agreed design. There shall be a continuing obligation on CIE/IE to secure planning permission until such time as it is obtained. The station design will reflect the intention to provide linkage between Hansfield and Barnhill by positioning it over the railway tracks. The structure spanning the tracks will include a footbridge and cycle path connecting the Hansfield and Barnhill sides of the proposed railway. Within 1 month of completion, CIE/IE will apply to the local authority to have the footbridge taken in charge. CIE/IE will use all reasonable endeavours to ensure that the rail station shall be completed and operational at the same time as the opening of the rail line between Clonsilla and Pace. The agreement will be submitted to ABP for noting. The agreement is binding on the successors/assigns of CIE/IE and the landowners.
The agreement contains other provisions dealing with ownership issues, provision of services and maintenance.
2.9.6. I asked Mr. Gaffney to provide a legal opinion as to whether this agreement could be copper fastened by including it in the draft Railway Order or in the conditions that the Board might apply. In this regard, I would draw the attention of the Board in particular to the closing submission of Mr. Gaffney on day 5 of the oral hearing (transcript pages 33-37). Mr. Gaffney said that along with Mr. O’Donnell S.C and Mr. Bradley S.C he came to the view that if the Board imposed a condition requiring the Hansfield Station to be provided then the Railway Order would be open to judicial review on the ground that the Board had acted ultra vires (see page 35). This is because a condition under the statute can only be a condition which would be relevant to the carrying out of the works for which permission has been given. I take this to mean that a condition under a Railway Order must relate to the proposed project and not to another
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 59 of 59 project and, therefore, section 44 of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 is more restrictive than the provisions governing conditions in the Planning and Development Act 2000. Mr. Gaffney said that it would be outside the jurisdiction of the Board to say that not only are you to do the works you want to do, or you are asked to do, but you have to do other works. That as a condition, whatever powers the Board might have in any other regard, would be an ultra vires condition. It is to be noted the Mr. Butler S.C for Menolly/Manor Park agreed with this opinion (see transcript day 5 page 40).
2.9.7. Having regard to the legal opinion of Mr. Gaffney, I consider that it is sufficient for the Board to note the legally binding agreement between CIE/IE and Menolly/Manor Park. I consider that this agreement resolves this significant issue, as there is now a commitment to provide a station at Hansfield albeit outside the terms of the Railway Order. Mr. Gaffney did not specifically address the possibility of the Board imposing a condition in the Railway Order requiring that the railway shall not operate until a station is constructed at Hansfield. However, it seems to me that his legal opinion implies that this would open the decision to judicial review. I recommend that the Board obtain its own legal opinion before they decide to impose such a condition. It is to be noted that I have added Schedule 11 containing an outline of the terms of agreement between CIE/IE and the observers. This is based on the submission made by CIE/IE at the final day of the oral hearing and it is noted that they used the format used in the Railway (Glounthaune to Midleton) Order 2007. CIE/IE included in their schedule reference to the agreement in relation to Hansfield station in the entries for Menolly Homes and Manor Park Homebuilders. This would satisfy my concern that there should be reference to the agreement in the Railway Order.
2.9.8. It is to be noted that there is an amendment to the proposed property acquisition at plot 002.P.03 to cater in part for the preliminary design indicated on drawing 0730-P100 prepared by Conroy Crowe Kelly, architects for Menolly/Manor Park and submitted to the oral hearing (see Report Attachment 4). This may not be the final design of the station and bridge but gives an indication of the likely outcome.
2.10. Clonsilla Station.
2.10.1. Fingal County Council, Menolly Homes, Manor Park Homebuilders and Castlethorn Construction have each requested that the draft Railway Order be amended or that conditions be imposed so that the requirements of the Hansfield Strategic Development Zone in relation to improvements to Clonsilla Station would be implemented.
2.10.2. The improvements to Clonsilla Station are described in section 8.3.2 of the Hansfield SDZ as approved by the Board on 30/1/06 (PL 06F.ZD.2002). They consist of the provision of a new weather protected pedestrian bridge over the Royal Canal and the railway line to provide direct access to both platforms of the station at its western end. Bus and car drop-off facilities, limited car and bicycle parking and covered waiting area and walkway to the new bridge are
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 60 of 60 to be provided. New ticketing facilities and improved weather protection and waiting facilities are to be provided for those using the western egress and access to the station. Section 10.1.1 of the SDZ requires the improvements to Clonsilla Station to have commenced in Phase 1A.
2.10.3. Mr. Finn for CIE/IE in response to questioning by Fingal County Council stated that they have provided a very elegant new pedestrian bridge at Clonsilla immediately adjacent to the road bridge, that this was opened in May 2007 and this has improved safety (see transcript day 2 page 45). He said that IE would be willing to facilitate another pedestrian bridge across the canal and a secondary ticket vending and validation point at the station. They have made such position clear to Fingal Co.Co. and have had some discussion regarding its practicality but it is not related to the railway order. CIE/IE in document ‘Conditions Requested’ received by the Board on 14/12/07 and submitted to the final day of the oral hearing (see Report Attachment 4 page 8) state that they have applied for a Railway Order between a point 180m to the west of Clonsilla Station to the Pace terminal station. As such, the Clonsilla secondary entrance is outside the scope of the Railway Order.
2.10.4. Having regard to the draft Railway Order – Alignment Plan No. A001, CIE/IE are factually correct in stating that Clonsilla Station is outside the scope of the project. Therefore, it is not possible for the Board to amend the Railway Order by imposing conditions as requested, in my opinion. There is the option of seeking modifications to the draft Railway Order to include these improvements. In my opinion a balance must be struck between the timely implementation of the overall railway line and the implementation of the localised Clonsilla improvements. The proposed railway will not impede the improvements to Clonsilla and the planning authority can pursue this matter outside the terms of the subject Railway Order having regard to the provisions of the SDZ Scheme and the section 49 scheme.
2.11. Roads Issues.
2.11.1. Leaving aside access to Dunboyne Station that was previously discussed, the following roads issues arose in the written or oral observations: Impact of the proposed railway on level crossings between Clonsilla and the City Centre. Provision of pedestrian and cycle facilities following removal of Bennetstown Bridge. Provision of Ongar to Barnhill Road. Other roads conditions requested by Meath County Council.
2.11.2. Level Crossings. The written observation of Mr. Michael Mc Loughlin says the application fails to take account of the needs of residents in communities living along the line closer to the city particularly where level crossings are located. The level crossings in the Castleknock, Clonsilla and Diswellstown areas currently cause severe traffic congestion. The proposal ignores the impact of additional trains on these crossings. Currently there are as many as 12 per hour closings
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 61 of 61 at Coolmine and these plans will increase this to 20 per hour or for 45 of the 60 minutes with chaotic results.
2.11.3. CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ (see Report Attachment 5 item 20) said there is an existing turn back at Clonsilla Station and trains are currently running from Clonsilla Station into Docklands at a frequency of two trains per hour during the peak period. Regardless of this project, it is intended that the frequency of these trains will increase to four per hour in future timetables. As such, this project will not specifically have any impact on the level crossings between Clonsilla and the Docklands. There are no new level crossings being introduced as part of this scheme. Notwithstanding this, IE is separately engaged in discussions with both Fingal County Council and Dublin City Council to look to replace some of the level crossings between Clonsilla Station and Docklands station with bridges.
2.11.4. I consider that this response adequately addresses the issue.
2.11.5. Bennetstown pedestrian/cycle link. Meath County Council requested the Board to impose a condition (number 11 – see schedule of conditions submitted to oral hearing in Report Attachment 2) that alternative provision be made for a pedestrian/cycle link from the northern end of the R157 (Dunboyne Road – Pace road) to the existing L22250 (Woodpark road) as required by mitigation measure no.1 in table 2.16 volume 3A of the EIS for the M3 Motorway Scheme arising from removal of Bennetstown Bridge as part of the railway scheme. It should be noted that this is different to the pedestrian/cycle connection discussed below in section 2.12.16 of this report. In oral evidence, Mr. John McGrath for MCC said the reason for this provision was to mitigate the impact of severance on the local communities and to allow access to bus services on the realigned N3. He asked that CIE/IE provide a solution to this problem.
2.11.6. CIE/IE in ‘Conditions Requested’ (see Report Attachment 4) say the condition is not required. They acknowledge that MCC have commissioned an IFPLUT study that will determine if the walkway and cycleway is required. Given that the bridge will have to be demolished for clearance reasons, and in the absence of the IFPLUT study, the CIE/IE proposals for the bridge remain.
2.11.7. It is to be noted that there was further reference to this issue by both MCC and CIE/IE on day 5 of the oral hearing (see transcript pages 6, 7,8, 12, 19, 20, 23 and 24). Mr. MacEntee for MCC said the Board is effectively being asked to give guidance on how the mitigation measure in the M3 Motorway EIS can be implemented in the absence of Bennetstown Bridge. Mr. Gaffney for CIE/IE argued that there is now uncertainty as to whether this facility will or will not be required and the answer must await the adoption of the IFPLUT study.
2.11.8. It would seem to me that when the Board made a decision (dated 22/8/2003) on the M3 Motorway (17.MS2004) there was no certainty as to whether the subject railway scheme would go ahead. Government (in November 2005) in Transport 21 provided that certainty. MCC is now embarking on a IFPLUT study and are about to engage consultants. It is acknowledged that the study
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 62 of 62 will examine pedestrian and cycle routes. Consequently, I consider that the planning circumstances in relation to pedestrian and cycle facilities have changed since the decision on the M3 Motorway and may change again following the IFPLUT report. Obviously, there are a number of possible routes that could be chosen and they may or may not involve crossing the railway line. In my opinion it is not the responsibility of CIE/IE to provide a solution in such changing circumstances and the Board cannot be prescriptive at this time. I consider that this is a matter for future agreement between CIE/IE and MCC and cannot be conditioned in specific terms in this railway order.
2.11.9. Ongar to Barnhill Road. The provision of a new road from Ongar to Barnhill is listed in table 6.1 of the Fingal County Development Plan 2005-2011 (item 39) and shown on Blanchardstown map 6. At the oral hearing, Mr. Gary O’Brien for Fingal Co. Co. (see transcript day 2 pages 131/132) said this road runs parallel to the western boundary of the Hansfield SDZ while also bounding zoned lands in Barnhill. This route will be carried over the proposed rail line by a bridge at chainage 1,580 on the rail line. The Part 8 process was completed in April 2007 and the construction of the bridge is by agreement with the landowners so that Fingal Co. Co. did not issue any CPO in this regard. Fingal Co. Co. requires the Board to impose a condition requiring the applicant to constrain his rail contractor in such a manner as to facilitate the new bridge construction. The early construction of the Ongar to Barnhill Road could facilitate the planned upgrade works on the existing Barnhill Road Bridge on the R149. If such a condition is not imposed, bridge construction works will be impacted by restrictions such as working under track possessions and will increase the cost of construction and the construction timeframe. The bridge works will include the construction of spill through abutments approximately 7.5m from the track edge and the lifting of beams over the rail line.
2.11.10. CIE/IE in ‘Conditions Requested’ submitted 14/12/07 during the oral hearing do not accept this condition. They say the design of the bridge has been agreed between the landowners and IE and the outstanding issue relates to the programming and implementation of the works. They say that IE and FCC agree to cooperate with each other to facilitate the construction of their respective works and IE will not unreasonably obstruct or restrict access to the lands required by FCC to construct the bridge.
2.11.11. I consider that this is a matter for agreement between CIE/IE and the local authority and is outside the scope of the Railway Order. Having regard to the terms of the legislation, I consider that it would be inappropriate for the Board to impose such a condition.
2.11.12. Other roads conditions. During the oral hearing, Meath County Council submitted a schedule of conditions that it requested the Board to impose. Conditions 2, 3, 4, and 6 refer to the following matters: Condition 2 - Ducting to facilitate possible future traffic signals at junction of R156 with Dunboyne Station access.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 63 of 63 Condition 3 - Reconstruction of ramped section of road at Dunboyne Railway Bridge. Condition 4 - Signage in accordance with Part 8 of the Traffic Signs Manuals and diversions advertised in local newspaper and radio. Condition 6 - Maintenance of pedestrian bridge/ cycle bridge at Dunboyne station and to ensure it remains open to the public at all times.
2.11.13. CIE/IE in document ‘Conditions Requested’ received by the Board 14/12/07 during the oral hearing (see Report Attachment 4) agreed to conditions 2 and 4. They agree to condition 3 subject to the wording that the approach ramps to the bridge over the length of the proposed containment works will be reinstated to match the existing alignment. In relation to condition 6, IE agree to implement reasonable maintenance measures with a view to ensuring the bridge remains open to the public.
2.11.14. I consider that these are detailed matters that can be covered by a condition requiring agreement with the local authority and I have included a condition to that effect.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 64 of 64 2.12. Property Acquisition & Related Issues.
2.12.1. Of the 31 observations received, 15 of them refer to property acquisition or related issues. Only 4 of such observers made presentations at the Oral Hearing, i.e. J.Connaughton Ltd, Sean Boylan, Ian Pringle and G & M McGrath. It is also to be noted that two observations, one from Richard B. Leahy, and the second from McGarrell Reilly (owners of the lands at the proposed Pace Park & Ride facility) support the proposed development.
2.12.2. CIE/IE submitted the following documents to the Oral Hearing: ‘List of Proposed Amendments to Draft Railway Order drawings and additional drawings submitted in support of agreements reached’, ‘Responses to Submissions’, ‘Agreements reached with Iarnrod Eireann’, and ‘Clarifications & responses to points raised during oral hearing’.
Hereunder is a summary of the agreements reached and comments thereon. Apart from individual concerns, the approach by CIE/IE appears to have met the concerns of the vast majority of landowners along the proposed line of the railway. It is to be noted that agreement was not reached with Gerard & Moira McGrath.
2.12.3. Millfarm Residents Association:- A summary of this observation is given in section 1.5.6 of this report. On 11/12/07 the Board received a letter from the Association stating that they are satisfied with the assurances given in correspondence with CIE/IE (copy of 2 letters in ‘Responses to Submissions’). In summary, CIE/IE propose the following: The ends of the open cul-de-sacs will be closed off by joining the existing garden walls across the open space at a height of approx. 1.8m. A timber acoustic fence of 2.5m will run the entire length of Millfarm with the exception of the opening at Willow Park where a 2.5m block wall will be provided. Subject to agreement with residents, the side walls to front gardens will be raised to 1.8m but will require replacement of the existing walls. At the ends of the cul-de-sacs on the Millfarm Estate side, a mixture of shrubs and standard trees will be planted. To prevent light pollution, the designers are investigating recessing the lighting on the bridge into its floor. These lights will only be on during the hours of operation of the station. A public address system is a requirement of Accessibility Legislation but will be directed towards the station and will only be used during operating hours. The station bridge is located on the southern limit of the middle third of the platform. Its side panels will be 1.8m high perforated metal screens which limit visibility. Construction working hours will be 08.00 to 18.00 Monday to Friday and 09.00 to 13.00 Saturdays with work outside these hours by agreement. Changes to existing boundaries will be implemented as the first construction activity and form security to the site.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 65 of 65 Details of rodent control will be set out in the construction contract, IE will have supervisory staff on site to ensure compliance and a liaison officer can be contacted if issues arise. Sewers serving existing dwellings will continue to be operational during the realignment of the outfall sewers by carrying out the works in stages and by the use of over-pumping. Houses within 40m of the track will be surveyed prior to commencement of construction activities and these will be monitored for any detrimental effects during construction. A letter notifying dates of the surveys will be issued to concerned parties.
Inspector’s Comment: I have no objection to the proposed additional measures from a planning perspective.
2.12.4. James Reeves, 8a Elton Drive, Dunboyne:- This observation requires additional noise reduction measures. CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ enclose a letter to Mr. Reeves dated 1/12/07 stating that noise screening will be provided to a height of 2.5m for the full length of Millfarm, that a house condition survey will be undertaken and that there will be no construction access from Millfarm.
Inspector’s Comment: I have no objection to the proposed additional measures from a planning perspective.
2.12.5. James & Adrienne McGrath, 9 Elton Drive, Dunboyne:- This observation concerns noise, vibration, air quality, visual impact, flooding and property issues. It is summarised in section 1.5.4 of this report.
CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ enclose a letter to Mr. & Mrs McGrath dated 3/12/07 clarifying issues and proposing acoustic screening as per agreement with Millfarm Residents Association.
Inspector’s Comment: I have no objection to the proposed additional measures from a planning perspective.
2.12.6. Thomas & Maud Potterton, Rathcormick, Ballivor:- The observers object to the location of the proposed temporary service road for the construction compound at Hilltown as it would bisect their farm (Plot 003.T.21). They have indicated an alternative access point and route.
CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ have agreed to an alternative access arrangement and enclose a letter of acceptance from the observer dated 10/12/07. Property Plan No.P003 has been amended accordingly.
Inspector’s Comment: I consider that this amendment to the draft Railway Order is acceptable from a planning perspective. During the Oral Hearing I raised a question as to whether this temporary access would have any impact on a recently constructed trunk water main. CIE/IE have clarified that there will be no impact and this was agreed by Meath County Council (see transcript day 5 page 21).
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 66 of 66 2.12.7. John Connaughton Ltd:- Most of this observation refers to the proposed quantum of car parking and the access arrangements to Dunboyne Station. These issues have been discussed in section 2.8 of this report. The observation also says that the EIS does not take cognisance of the existing sewage connection on the observer’s lands. The location of the pipes is not indicated on Alignment Plan A006. The train station and car park is located on and above the observer’s surface water and sewage pipes. This impacts on the lands and future development potential. It restricts freedom to upgrade these facilities in the future. Confirmation is sought that the line of these pipes and their use will be maintained. The RO should confirm that there is no change of ownership or use of these pipes.
CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ say there are foul and surface water sewer crossings from Millfarm to collector sewers running parallel to the proposed rail alignment and currently run within the proposed reservation. The foul sewer crossings are at a suitable depth which will not require any adjustments. However, the surface water crossings are too close to existing ground level and at an unacceptable depth in relation to the proposed vertical rail alignment. Therefore, the surface water sewer crossings will have to be lowered. Also, both the foul and surface water main collector sewers will have to be relocated east of their current position and the surface water will be lowered. The ownership of these sewers is unaffected by these changes in level and the relocated sewers are proposed within Mr. Connaughton’s lands. The future development will benefit from the lower invert levels. In terms of capacity, the rail project does not propose to connect to the surface water sewer. However, a connection to the foul sewer is required. The volume required is to cater for a staff WC and kitchen which is approximately 0.05l/sec.
In the presentation of evidence to the Oral Hearing by RPS on behalf of John Connaughton Ltd, it is stated at page 13 that the confirmation by the project team that the continued use and control of the existing services running through the area is acknowledged.
Inspector’s Comment: I have no objection to the proposed additional measures from a planning perspective.
2.12.8. Hilltown Partnership. The issues of additional park and ride facilities in the future and electrification of the line have been previously dealt with. It should be noted that CIE/IE and the Thomas Brennan, owner of plots 003.P.18, 003.T.18, 003.T.18A, 003.T.18B and 003.T.18C, entered into an agreement dated 13/12/07, a copy of which is enclosed in the document ‘Responses to Submissions’ (see Report Attachment 5 folder 7). This agreement does not alter the permanent or temporary land take in the draft Railway Order but alters the alignment plans by increasing the width of the deck of the proposed Hilltown Accommodation over-bridge and by provision of ducting for services in the over-bridge and under the railway line. These changes are shown on revised alignment plan B004 received 14/12/07.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 67 of 67 Inspector’s Comment: I have no objection to the proposed alterations from a planning perspective.
2.12.9. SIAC Construction Ltd. This is a property issue regarding reference 007.P.42. The observers require a revision of the property take with CIE as shown on attached drawing SK-CIE- 01.
CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ have agreed to the revision and enclose drawings illustrating the new property take. SIAC Construction Ltd. in letter received by the Board on 10/12/07 has confirmed agreement.
Inspector’s Comment: I consider that this minor amendment to the draft Railway Order is acceptable from a planning perspective.
2.12.10. Virginia Kerr. This observation refers to boundary issues and property refs 004.P.23, 004.T.23, and 004.T100A.
CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ propose a number of mitigation measures and the following is my summary of the main provisions: The boundary with the railway will consist of a 2.4m high steel black coated palisade fence (type 3) as indicated on drawing No. D 001. Outside this fence and on Ms Kerr’s land, a 3m wide strip will be a temporary land take to facilitate construction and will be reinstated by planting (type of planting specified). A timber rail stud fence shall be erected to separate horses from the screen planting. During construction, a 2.5m high solid timber hoarding shall be erected to enclose all construction work as shown on drawing no. 011506-49-SK0404. The construction of containment barriers at the approaches to the bridge may necessitate the removal of trees and vegetation growing on the embankment. The extent of the regarding of the slope will be minimised and will not extend closer than 7m to the root protection area of the cherry trees as per drawing no. 011506-49-SK0404. The trees will be protected during construction. In the event of removal of vegetation from the embankment, reinstatement planting will be implemented (type of planting specified). Regarding security and visual intrusion, a 2m high temporary timber fence will be erected on CIE land at the top of the embankment to remain in place until planting on the embankment slope is well established. Mitigation measures for construction nuisance will be written into the construction contract and the planting specification shall provide for maintenance and defects for 18 months. Additional mitigation measures in the form of local noise screening at the works site or through scheduling of works for non-sensitive periods may be required by agreement with Ms Kerr. In this regard it is noted that Ms Kerr has a studio on the premises.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 68 of 68 Working hours will be 08.00 to 18.00 Monday to Friday and 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturday or otherwise by prior agreement. The programming of the demolition of the bridge will be discussed. During relocation of the Eircom telephone line an uninterrupted service will be maintained.
It is noted that CIE/IE has submitted a copy of its letter dated 12/12/07 to Ms Kerr and she has signed this.
Inspector’s Comment: I consider that these localised additional measures are acceptable from a planning perspective.
2.12.11. Sean Boylan, Castlefarm, Dunboyne. The concerns of Mr. Boylan are summarised in section 1.5.13 of this report. Mr. Boylan was represented at the oral hearing by Mr. Brendan Kilty S.C. Throughout the hearing Mr. Kilty presented updates of negotiations with CIE/IE and confirmed agreement on day 4 (see transcript page 4).
CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ propose a number of amendments and mitigation measures and the following is my summary of the main provisions: The permanent land take at plot 005.P.32 has been modified to minimise the extent of the land take required (drawing 005.P.32 attached). In the event that works are required to the embankment, substitute car parking will be provided. Access to Mr. Boylan’s property shall be modified as shown on drawing no. 011506-49-SK408. This involves an agreed additional land take. IE undertake to replace an existing well with a new well on Mr. Boylan’s property. The location selected in the RO drawing is based on reasonable professional assumption but if not suitable, an alternative location will be agreed. Installation of the new well shall be carried out in advance of removal of the existing well. Report on Hydrological Issues in relation to well relocation at Sean Boylan’s property attached. A 2.5m high acoustic barrier will be installed along the railway line adjacent to the clinic as shown on plan A006. IE undertake to divert a foul drain from the clinic across the railway line and make a new connection to the existing foul sewer to the west of the railway line adjacent to Larchfield Estate (specification provided). IE will provide a wayleave to Mr. Boylan for this crossing. IE agrees to construct a 2nd ditch with new outfall to the south of Castle Stream – plan 005.T.32 and drawing no. 011506-49-DR-2405 refers. IE agrees to a local diversion of existing gas main within Mr. Boylan’s property including his private connection.
It is noted that Mr. Boylan has accepted these terms by signing the letter dated 12/12/07 from IE to O’Connor Sutton Cronin.
Inspector’s Comment: I consider that the amendments to the draft Railway Order and the additional localised measures are acceptable from a planning perspective.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 69 of 69 2.12.12. Ian Pringle, Barnhill. This observation consists of a strong objection to temporary possession of plots 003.T.12 and 003.T.100A as these lands are within 20m of his home and are in an area of mature woodland providing a shield from road noise.
Mr. Pringle made a presentation to the Oral Hearing (see transcript day 4 pages 5-8 and cross examination by CIE/IE pages 8-12). Following this, Mr. Pringle entered into discussions with CIE/IE. He later confirmed that agreement had been reached (see transcript day 4 pages 34 & 35).
CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ propose to install a 2.4m high permanent timber fence behind the length of the safety barrier. They have clarified that the temporary land take is necessary due to possible instability in the embankment, that no trees will be taken down in the area of the temporary land take, that a protective hoarding will be erected around trees in close proximity to the works if necessary, that the temporary land take will not be used as construction access, and that where vegetation is removed these areas will be landscaped. Drawing 011506-49-SK-0126 refers.
Inspector’s Comment: I have no objection to these measures from a planning perspective.
2.12.13. Tony Murray & Michael Degan, Lucan. This issue concerns the proposed boundary treatment for plots 007.P.40, 007.T.40 and 007.T.40A. The observers require that the proposed boundary detail should be amended to a high quality timber fence of 3m minimum incorporating noise mitigation. They refer to the zoning of the lands for residential uses in the IAAP as the rationale.
The draft Railway Order proposes a post and wire fencing.
CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ say the zoning of the lands does not in itself demand the boundary treatment requested and that the appropriate boundary treatment for a planned development should be installed as part of that development. They say that if the lands are developed in the future, CIE will not withhold its consent to a change in boundary treatment subject to there being no adverse effect on engineering or operational requirements.
It is noted that there is no response from the observers.
Inspector’s Comment: As the lands currently form part of a field in agricultural use, I agree with the response from CIE/IE.
2.12.14. Mrs Betty Larkin, Station Road, Dunboyne. This is a property issue concerning plot 006.P.35. Mrs Larkin says the acquisition of portion of her property would render the remaining portion totally unviable. Accordingly, the entire holding should be incorporated in the CPO.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 70 of 70 CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ agree to acquire the whole of the property if requested to do so.
Letter dated 12/12/07 to the Board from O’Donnell Property Consultants confirms that agreement has been reached. It requests that the ‘Order’ be amended to include the entire property.
Inspector’s Comment: CIE/IE have agreed in writing to acquire the property if so requested and I consider that this resolves the issue. However, the entire property boundary has not been identified and the compulsory acquisition of the entire property is not strictly necessary for the purposes of the constructing the proposed railway. Therefore I consider that it is more appropriate for this agreement to be noted in Schedule 11 of the Railway Order.
2.12.15. Gerty Gregan, Lands at Bennettstown, Dunboyne. The original written submission received by the Board on 24/10/07 is summarised in section 1.5.19 of this report. It is to be noted that the representatives of Ms Gregan did not make a presentation to the Oral Hearing.
CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ propose the following: A 2.7m high block wall, faced with real stone on the retained side, will be built along the CPO boundary line between the property and the car park at the commencement of the works, the remaining boundary will be palisade. Proposed landscaping is specified. The L-shaped outbuilding being demolished will be rebuilt to a similar size within the boundaries of the retained lands. Compensation will be paid for the relocation of a well and Bio-unit. If required, CIE will acquire a lesser interest in the lands subject to the provision in perpetuity of the same number of parking spaces as shown in the draft RO.
CIE/IE has also clarified that the drainage to the retained property will be unaffected, that continuous access to the Gregan property will be maintained at all times, and any damage to lands not acquired will be reinstated and made good. Other issues refer to compensation.
Inspector’s Comment: I consider that these localised measures are acceptable from a planning perspective. CIE/IE include Gerty Gregan in the schedule of ‘Agreements reached with Iarnrod Eireann’ that was submitted to the Oral Hearing. In the absence of information to the contrary, I have no reason to doubt that an agreement has been reached.
2.12.16. NRA. This observation refers to Plots 007.P.102, 008.P.102, 008.T.101A, 008.T.102, 008.T.102A, and 008.T.102B as owned by Meath Co.Co. and occupied by NRA and Eurolink. A summary of this observation is contained in section 1.5.21 of this report and is repeated here, viz:
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 71 of 71 The Order should not interfere with or prejudice the availability of the lands for the M3 and should state that they will not be made available until after construction of the M3 is completed and written approval is given by the NRA. A condition is requested that the design for the railway line takes into account the conditions attached to the Board’s approval of the M3 Clonee to North of Kells Scheme applicable to the area. A condition should be attached requiring detailed design of the access/junction arrangements for the Park and Ride facility to be subject to the approval of the Authority. The NRA requests that a ‘Traffic Liaison Group’ be established to assess and approve traffic management proposals during the railway construction period.
CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ have submitted a copy of a signed agreement between CIE/IE, the NRA and Meath County Council containing the following provisions (my summary) CIE/IE will not compulsorily acquire the lands required for the railway works that are owned by Meath County Council (MCC) and occupied by Eurolink and NRA. These lands will be transferred to CIE/IE under the terms of the agreement dated 16 August 2007 between MCC and CIE/IE. Modification 4I(b) of ABP approval of the M3 scheme requires MCC/NRA to procure a footpath/cycleway. CIE/IE agree to make available to the NRA and MCC for the purpose of providing the footpath such lands that may be considered excessive to their operational needs. If this footpath/cycleway cannot be constructed by NRA as a direct result of the railway works, CIE/IE will include the footpath/cycleway in the railway construction contract. CIE/IE will ensure that the roundabout giving access into the Pace park and ride facility will be designed and constructed in accordance with NRA DMRB so as to allow future dual carriageway operation. The design and construction shall be subject to prior approval of MCC/NRA. If IE works consequent to the Rail Order result in an adverse affect on landscaping measures required under the M3 Scheme, CIE/IE shall use their reasonable endeavours to mitigate the adverse effects.
Inspector’s Comment: Condition 4 I(b) of the Board’s decision dated 25/8/03 for the M3 Clonee – North of Kells Motorway Scheme 2002 (17.ER2014) stated that Footpaths incorporating cycle-lanes shall be provided within the existing or proposed verges along the following roads :- (b) From the end of the pathway being provided off the Pace Interchange at the southern end of Woodpark road northwards along its eastern verge to join with the pathway being provided off Blackbull Roundabout, as generally shown on Drawing OH CPO 5003 Rev.D01 submitted by Meath County Council at the oral hearing.
A copy of this drawing is enclosed with the submission made by Meath County Council to the oral hearing for the subject Railway Order. It is noted
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 72 of 72 that the condition refers to the area to the north and northwest of the proposed M3 Pace Interchange.
It is to be noted that this agreement satisfies not only the observation of the NRA but also the same issues identified by Meath County Council. In my view it is sufficient to note this agreement Schedule 11.
2.12.17. Barina Construction Ltd. This property issue concerns plots 003.T.13 and 003.T.13A. There is no objection in principle to temporary acquisition. In written submission to the Board received on 11/12/07 during the hearing (see Report Attachment 3), the observers requested that the RO be amended in the following way: The boundary treatment should be changed from post and wire fence to palisade to protect the safety of livestock and prevent trespass. Future development of lands to the north and south of the railway may require that drainage infrastructure and services traverse the line. Ducting should be provided adjacent to the proposed culvert – drawings submitted.
In ‘Responses to submissions’, CIE/IE noted the requirement for under-track crossings and expect to be able to facilitate the observer. They say that post and wire fencing will be utilised and will be cattle proof in keeping with all standard fencing at agricultural boundaries to the railway.
Inspector’s Comments:- I consider that the boundary treatment proposed by CIE/IE is reasonable for agricultural lands.
2.12.18. Gerard & Moira McGrath, Stirling Bridge. This observation relates to Plots 004.P.20, 004.T.20 and 004.T.100. Mr. McGrath has a bloodstock business and according to his equine expert the land holding contains somewhere between 20 and 30 thoroughbred horses of high value, so-called black type horses.
My summary of the written submission made prior to the oral hearing is contained in section 1.5.24 of this report. The submission challenges the scheme in legal terms and argues that it is defective in many respects, including various aspects of the EIS. It identifies issues relating to the bloodstock interest, the impact on the house and questions not covered by the EIS. It requires a set of four pre-conditions as a minimum. These cover replacement of trees, minimising noise, dust and vibration, providing suitable accommodation for the McGraths and their livestock (specified as four horses requiring relocation) during construction, and carrying out a pre- construction condition survey and identifying suitable works in mitigation.
At the oral hearing, Dr. Kevin Dodd presented evidence on behalf of CIE/IE on Bloodstock Impact and responded to the written observation (see Report Attachment 1). In summary, the following points were made: Construction Phase. During construction it is proposed to secure the site with a timber close boarding fence about 2m high to guarantee that the animals will be
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 73 of 73 unable to gain access to the work in progress. A temporary stud post and rail fence will be erected outside the hoarding to keep the horses from contact with the hoarding. During the removal of the existing hedgerows and erection of the temporary hoarding it would be essential for the horses not to be in the immediate vicinity for the duration of the work but the horses could be returned as soon as the boundaries were secure. Noise levels during construction will not affect the health and wellbeing of the horses. However, during demolition of Sterling Bridge there may be short periods when the noise level will be high. It would be prudent to remove the horses from the field during such activity and timely notice to the owners would facilitate this. The loss of the screening and shelter effect of the existing hedgerow can be replaced by the erection of open fronted wooden shelters. In time the replacement hedge will recreate the lost hedgerows. The exhausts generated by passing trains will be rapidly dispersed and will not have any effect on the horses. Disturbance of rats can be dealt with by bait points. Any pheasants in the area will relocate. Operational Phase. Horses vary in temperament but quickly adapt to changes in their environment (e.g. horses travel by road and air). Horses quickly become habituated to the passing of trains with no ill effects. The final boundary fence is to be triple tiered and consist of a 2.4m high metal palisade, a planted hedgerow interspersed with trees and a standard timber post and rail fence.
At the oral hearing, Mr. McGrath was represented by Mr. Raymond O’Malley (of Kieran O’Malley & Co. Ltd.) and Mr. Des Laydon, head of Clinical Pathology at the Irish Equine Centre. The evidence of Mr. O’Malley is contained in the transcript for day 3 of the hearing (pages 11-18) and a copy of the submission was handed in at the hearing (see Report Attachment 3). The main points may be summarised as follows: Loss of privacy from public road due to removal and non-replacement of current mature and somewhat scattered landscaping consisting of trees and shrubs. The noise and vibration of the EIS is defective. The criterion of 60 decibels is unreasonably high and does not accord with the EPA Guidelines that advise 55 decibels by day and 45 by night. The criterion in the EIS proposes a noise limit that is 15 decibels higher between 06.00 and 08.00 hours and between 10.00 at night and midnight. The noise assessment does not consider that worst-case scenario of 256 trains per day. It does not include any noise level at the McGrath’s house between midnight and 06.00. The calculated noise level of 52 decibels in table 11.5 is based on the McGrath’s house being 40m from the line. The actual distance is 25m so the 52 decibels is incorrect. The methodology is incorrect. The noise impact during construction is understated as 60-65 decibels; it could be as high as 69 to 72 decibels.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 74 of 74 The EIS does not properly consider the direct, indirect, punitive and long- term impacts from extending the line to Navan. The true impact of electrification has not been presented and the impact of criss-crossing the lands with underground electricity cables is not mentioned.
The evidence of Mr. Laydon is contained in the transcript for day 3 of the hearing (pages 21-27). Mr. Laydon outlined the temperament of thoroughbred horses and their reactions. The main points of evidence may be summarised as follows: A significant portion of the stud farm is going to be compromised by the activities which need to be carried out. It will involve a greater management load and the movement and placing of mares on other farms is expensive. It has been accepted that creating this division through the farm is disruptive and causes management issues. Landscaping of thoroughbred stud farms provides shelter and affects private sales. The loss of maturity of the tree lines is significant for this farm and it will take many years to be in any way restored. Palisade fencing is no substitute for tree loss. Proposed field shelters tend not to be availed of by horses except to escape from biting flies during summer. Returning horses after periods of absence is a fraught undertaking. In addition, the population of a stud farm is dynamic and new horses need to be accommodated to sudden and unfamiliar noises.
CIE/IE in ‘Clarifications & responses to points raised during oral hearing’ responded to these issues. The issues concerning the adequacy of the EIS raised by Mr. O’Malley, particularly in relation to noise, were considered above in section 2.4 of this report. In relation to overlooking from the public road, boundary treatments and bloodstock matters, the following is my summary of the main points made by CIE/IE: Recent studies have determined that works will only be required at the top of the embankment on IE property except in unforeseen circumstances. During construction a 2.5m solid timber hoarding will be installed. Once the roadside protection barriers are installed, the cleared portion of the embankment will be replanted with hedgerows and until maturity a 2m timber screen fence will be erected behind the protection barriers thus screening the McGrath’s house from the road. As previously described by Dr. Dodd, on the railway line the permanent boundary will consist of a 2.4m palisade fence, a 3m strip of dense planing including standard and extra heavy trees (species specified) and a timber rail stud fence. In Dr. Dodd’s opinion, the horse enterprise will remain viable with good management and private sales would be based on the animals themselves. On the issue of temporary shelters, horses will suit themselves and these shelters are to replace the effect of removal of hedgerows. Dr. Dodd could find no documented evidence that the sight and sound of passing trains would panic horses and his personal experience confirms this. Mr. Laydon did not produce any evidence of this. In discussions, Mr. Laydon expressed the opinion that the ideal boundary would consist of a solid stone wall together with planted hedgerows and a safety fencing of wire mesh and wood that would cut off all sight of the
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 75 of 75 trains. Dr. Dodd accepted that some animals may be startled but not the generality of horses; such horses would adapt with no ill effects. Dr. Dodd sees no necessity for a solid wall. The key element to the continued success of this horse enterprise is forward planning of each step during construction and operation so as to minimise disruption to daily routine. During specific construction stages, it is accepted by CIE/IE that horses will have to be removed from the field currently under work and specific arrangements put in place to ensure the health and welfare of the animals. It was explained to Mr. McGrath that his recent communication from the ESB regarding undergrounding of 10KV line only applies at the crossing of the proposed railway line and that no disturbance of the remainder of his lands will occur. The statement by Mr. Laydon that 75% of Mr. McGrath’s farm will be sterilised by the works is therefore incorrect. In further discussions, Mr. McGrath rejected additional mitigation measures consisting of locating the temporary construction hoarding so that planting would take place from the start of construction and remain in place until the planting reached maturity and that an acoustic fence could be erected on the boundary of the railway line which faces the McGrath residence.
On day 5 of the hearing (transcript pages 17 & 18), Mr. McGrath said there were 3 points at issue (a) That negotiations with CIE/IE ceased because they refused to talk about relocation of horses. Such relocation is essential as evidenced by Mr. Laydon and appendix K of the EIS. (b) A permanent solid wall is essential because a palisade fence will have a strobe lighting effect per Mr. Laydon. (c) The noise assessment for the house is defective because it does not take account of the extension completed in 2006.
In his closing comments, Mr. Gaffney for CIE/IE said that interference and damage to the McGrath’s horses and residence will be minimal and will be minimised and mitigated to the best possible degree (transcript day 5 page 9). He said that if it were necessary to remove horses at times, Mr. McGrath’s expenses would have to be met by IE (transcript day 5 page 22).
Inspector’s comments: I consider that the mitigation measures proposed by CIE/IE are reasonable. Issues regarding boundary treatment and farm management can be dealt with during accommodation works and by means of compensation.
2.12.19. Overall conclusion regarding land take. I consider that the proposed land take, as revised, has been kept to the minimum. It would seem necessary that all the lands identified in the Schedules (as amended) are required for the construction of the railway. There does not appear to be any opportunity for varying the alignment or reducing the proposed land take.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 76 of 76 2.13. Other Issues.
2.13.1. Water and drainage matters. Mr. Tim O’Leary of Meath County Council in section 2 of evidence to the oral hearing (see Report Attachment 2) recommended a set of 12 conditions concerning water and drainage matters. The first five conditions specifically refer to alterations to existing foul and surface water drains serving estates bordering the line in Dunboyne and condition 15 of the Schedule of Conditions requested by MCC refers. In addition, condition 16 of the Schedule refers to maintaining embankments for the flood relief scheme of the River Tolka.
2.13.2. CIE/IE in document ‘Conditions Requested’ received 14/12/07 accepted these conditions. Regarding condition 16, they confirm that the proposed works will not damage or negatively affect any of the flood alleviation works.
2.13.3. In my opinion it is not necessary to set out all the matters contained in Mr. O’Leary’s recommendation, as most are standard type conditions. Instead, I have included the standard type condition used by the Board and the content of Condition 16 of MCC.
2.13.4. Mr. Sean Boylan. It is to be noted that Mr. Kilty S.C, representing Mr. Boylan, formally applied for costs on day 4 of the oral hearing (see transcript page 4). This is a matter outside my remit and I refer this to the Board for the appropriate consideration.
2.13.5. Railway Order Schedules. There are 10 schedules in the draft Railway Order submitted by CIE/IE. In the Railway (Glounthaune to Midleton) Order 2007, article 4 contained sub-article (3) requiring the railway works to be executed and the railway to be operated in accordance with the understandings reached at the public enquiry as set out in schedule 11 (extracts of this RO are attached). I have added a similar Schedule 11 based on the document ‘Agreements reached with Iarnrod Eireann’ received by the Board on 14/12/07 and submitted to the oral hearing by CIE/IE. I have also added an additional Schedule 12 containing my recommended conditions.
2.13.6. Conditions generally. Under section 43(1)(h) of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001, the Board is empowered to consider the matters referred to in section 143 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 as inserted by section 26 of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006. This covers the policies and objectives of the Government, State authorities, the Minister, planning authorities, other bodies, the national interest and the NSS.
2.13.7. In most of the conditions that I have drafted, I have inserted a clause requiring the matters contained in the condition to be referred to the Board for determination in default of agreement with the relevant local authority. This is necessary, in my view, because I believe that the Board cannot delegate its
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 77 of 77 responsibility to another authority. Mr. Gaffney for CIE/IE expressed the same view in his closing statement (see transcript day 5 pages 38 and 39).
2.13.8. Plans attached to the Railway Order. Should the Board make the Railway Order, the accompanying plans will consist of those three volumes submitted by CIE/IE as the application, together with the amendments submitted to the oral hearing, and the further amendments required by the conditions in Schedule 12. The legislation does not appear to envisage the making of a consolidated set of such plans. I note that the Board included a consolidation condition in the Hansfield SDZ. However, such a condition would be inappropriate in the context of a Railway Order, in my opinion, as consolidated plans drawn up after the making of the Order would not form part of the Order.
2.13.9. In relation to the amendments made to the alignment and architectural/structure plans, I have referred to these in amendments to the draft Railway Order Schedule 1, but many of them are also referred to in the new Schedule 11. In relation to amendments to the property plans, I have inserted a reference to the revised plans in the ‘observations’ section of the relevant entry in Schedules 2 and 10. If the Board make further amendments, it would seem to me that they should be inserted into Schedule 12.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 78 of 78 Section 3. Recommendation.
Having examined the draft order, the documents accompanying the application, the Environmental Impact Statement, the written submissions, the submissions made to the oral hearing, and my site inspection, I recommend that the Board make a Railway Order for the reasons and considerations, and subject to the amendments to the articles and schedules to the draft order, and the addition of schedules 11 and 12, as set out hereunder:
Reasons and Considerations.
Having regard to (a) National policy contained in the provisions of Transport 21 (November 2005) and the National Development Plan 2007-2013, (b) Regional policy contained in the provisions of A Platform for Change – DTO Strategy 2000-2016 (November 2001), and the Regional Planning Guidelines – Greater Dublin Area 2004-2016 (July 2004), (c) The provisions of the Fingal County Development Plan 2005-2011 and the Meath County Development Plan 2007-2013, (d) The provisions of the Hansfield Strategic Development Zone (2006), and the Integrated Action Area Plan for Lands east of the Railway Line, Dunboyne (Meath County Council 2005), (e) The draft order and documents submitted with the application, including the content of the Environmental Impact Statement, and (f) The written and oral submissions made by the observers and the responses by the applicant,
It is considered that the re-opening of the railway line between Clonsilla and Pace would not have a significant effect on the environment and would be consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 79 of 79 Amendments to Articles of Draft Railway Order.
The original draft Railway Order was submitted with the application and is contained in four volumes. CIE/IE submitted a revised Volume 1 at the oral hearing. Taking the original draft as the starting point, the following changes were made to the revised draft Volume 1:
Part II - Works and Related Provisions, Article 4 - Construction of Railway and Railway Works: ‘the Minister’ was replaced by ‘the Board’ in sub-article 2, and sub-article 5 was deleted. Part II - Works and Related Provisions, Article 19 – Expenses of An Bord Pleanala: ‘a Bord Pleanala’ was replaced by ‘An Bord Pleanala’.
The following new typographical errors or corrections should be made to the original draft:
Arrangement of Articles – PART IV – MISCELLANEOUS and GENERAL, Article 19 – change ‘Expenses of Minister’ to ‘Expenses of An Bord Pleanala’, PART IV – MISCELLANEOUS AND GENERAL – ARTICLE 16 – Interference with Apparatus – there are two subsections ‘(a)’ in sub-article 1. Change the second one to ‘(b)’. SCHEDULE 1 – THE RAILWAY AND RAILWAY WORKS AUTHORISED BY THIS ORDER. The first bullet point should be amended to read as follows: The construction of 7.5km of dual track from Clonsilla to Pace along the existing discontinued alignment for 2900 Diesel Multiple Unit trains. The line will not be electrified but provision for future electrification has been made in space requirements and land take.
The following new amendment should be made to the original draft:
Part II - Works and Related Provisions, Article 4 - Construction of Railway and Railway Works: a new sub-article should be inserted as sub-article 3 with re-numbering of the remaining sub-articles. Sub-article 3 to read as follows:
3. The railway works authorised by this Order shall be executed, and the railway shall be operated, in accordance with the understandings reached at the oral hearing, as set out in Schedule 11, and in accordance with the conditions, as set out in Schedule 12.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 80 of 80 Amendments to SCHEDULE 1 THE RAILWAY AND RAILWAY WORKS AUTHORISED BY THIS ORDER.
The fourth bullet point should be amended to read as follows: The provision of car parking spaces for 300 cars at Dunboyne station on the east side of the rail.
The following should be added after the last bullet point:
The works described on the Alignment Plans and Architectural/Structural Plans submitted with the application shall be amended in accordance with the revisions described on the following plans:
1. Dunboyne Station Proposed Car Park Alternative Option – drawing number 011506-49-SK-0407
2. Proposed Dunboyne Footbridge (OB290A) – revised Structure Plan Number B009 received 11/12/2007.
3. Clonee Road, Dunboyne, - Revised Alignment Plan No. A006 received 14/12/2007. - Property No. 32 Accommodation Roads Sheet 1 of 2 drawing number 011506-49-DR-2405. - Signs, markings and setting out – drawing number 011506-49-SK-0408.
4. Property No. 23 Sterling Bridge – drawing number 011506-49-SK-0404.
5. Existing Barnhill Bridge Approach Road, Cross Sections – drawing number 011506-49-Sk-0126.
6. Pace Station Proposed Park and Ride – Existing and Proposed Services Sheet 2 – Drawing Number 011506-49-DR-0843.
7. Hilltown Accommodation over-bridge – revisions to Structure Plan 004 received 14/12/2007.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 81 of 81 Amendments to SCHEDULE 2. LAND TO BE ACQUIRED.
1. Property Plan 002, Property Number P.03. Replace quantity ‘19708’ by ‘19908’ In ‘Observations’ insert ‘Shape of plot to be in accordance with revision shown on drawing Plot ID No. 002.P.03. received 14/12/07’.
2. Property Plan 004, Property Number P.23. Replace ‘Virgina’ by ‘Virginia’.
3. Property Plan 005, Property Number P.32. Reduce quantity from ‘12053’ to ‘11935’. In ‘Observations’ insert ‘Shape of plot to be in accordance with revision shown on drawing Plot ID No. 005.P.32 received 14/12/07’.
4. Property Plan 005, Property Number P.101. Reduce quantity from ‘1461’ to ‘660’. In ‘Observations’ insert ‘Shape of plot to be in accordance with revision shown on drawing Plot ID No. 005.P.101 received 14/12/07’.
5. Add new Property Plan 005, Property Number P.120. Owner or Reputed Owner ‘Swanward Enterprises Ltd.’ Quantity ‘693’. In ‘Observations’ insert ‘Shape of plot to be in accordance with revision shown on drawing Plot ID No. 005.P.120 received 14/12/07’.
6. Property Plan 007, Property Number P.42. Increase quantity from ‘783’ to ‘921’. In ‘Observations’ insert ‘Shape of plot to be in accordance with revision shown on drawing Plot ID No. 007.P.42 Revision B dated 21/11/07 received 14/12/07’.
7. Property Plan 007, Property Number P.49. Remove Padraig Bermingham.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 82 of 82 Amendments to SCHEDULE 3. ROADS TO BE CLOSED PERMANENTLY.
No amendments.
Amendments to SCHEDULE 4. ROADS TO BE CLOSED TEMPORARILY.
No amendments.
Amendments to SCHEDULE 5. ROADS TO BE ALTERED.
No amendments.
Amendments to SCHEDULE 6. NEW ROADS TO BE CONSTRUCTED.
No amendments.
Amendments to SCHEDULE 7. LAND OVER WHICH RIGHTS INCLUDING RIGHTS OF WAY AND OTHER RIGHTS AND EASMENTS ARE TO BE ACQUIRED.
No amendments.
Amendments to SCHEDULE 8. PART 1. PUBLIC RIGHTS TO BE EXTINGUISHED.
No amendments.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 83 of 83 Amendments to SCHEDULE 8. PART 2. PRIVATE RIGHTS TO BE EXTINGUISHED.
1. Property Plan 006, Property Number E.32. Change ‘Sean Boylan, Castlefarm, Dunboyne, Co. Meath’ to ‘Meath County Council’.
2. Property Plan 006, Property Number E.32A. Change ‘Sean Boylan, Castlefarm, Dunboyne, Co. Meath’ to ‘Meath County Council’.
SCHEDULE 9. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RIGHTS OF WAY TO BE TEMPORARILY INTERRUPTED.
No amendments.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 84 of 84 Amendments to SCHEDULE 10. LAND OF WHICH TEMPORARY POSSESSION IS TO BE TAKEN.
1. Property Plan 003, Property Number T.21. Increase quantity from ‘1662’ to ‘ 2622’. In ‘Observations’ insert ‘Shape of plot to be in accordance with revision shown on drawing Plot ID No. 003.T.21 Revision B dated 21/11/07 received 14/12/07 and revised Property Plan No. P003 received 14/12/2007’.
2. Property Plan 004, Property Number T.23. Replace ‘Virgina’ by ‘Virginia’.
3. Property Plan 005, Property Number T.32. Increase quantity from ‘6024’ to ‘6890’. In ‘Observations’ insert ‘Shape of plot to be in accordance with revision shown on drawing Plot ID No. 005.T.32. Revision B dated 13/12/07 received 14/12/07’.
4. Property Plan 005, Property Number T.101. Reduce quantity from ‘1851’ to ‘955’. In ‘Observations’ insert ‘Shape of plot to be in accordance with revision shown on drawing Plot ID No. 005.T.101 received 14/12/07’.
5. Add new Property Plan 005, Property Number T.120. Owner or Reputed Owner ‘Swanward Enterprises Ltd.’ Quantity ‘835’ In ‘Observations’ insert ‘Shape of plot to be in accordance with revision shown on drawing Plot ID No. 005.T.120 received 14/12/07’.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 85 of 85 SCHEDULE 11. UNDERSTANDINGS REACHED AT THE ORAL HEARING. Agreements reached with Iarnród Éireann
Reference Name and Agreement Reached No. Address 1 James Reeves No signed agreement, see Millfarm Residents no. 5 8A Millfarm
2 Thomas Potterton Agreement reached to utilise the existing access into the Potterton field and locate the road as per revised plan no. P003 submitted to An Bord Pleanála.
3 James McGrath No signed agreement, see Millfarm Residents no. 5
4 John Connaughton It has been agreed with Meath County Council that Ltd a 300 space car park is to be provided at Dunboyne Station. This is revised from 420 spaces. See drawing 011506-49-SK-0407.
5 Millfarm Residents Boundary Treatments
End of cul-de-sacs The ends of the open cul-de-sacs will be closed off by joining the existing garden walls across the open space, at a height to match the existing (approximately 1.8m high). The wall construction will be 215mm solid block, rendered, dashed with brick capping, with brick piers at 4.5m centres.
End of open space at Willow Park The boundary with the railway line shall be closed off by the construction of 2.5m high block wall, construction as described above for the cul-de-sacs. No additional timber fence is required in this area as the acoustic properties of the block wall are equivalent to those of the timber fence.
Side walls to front gardens Subject to the agreement of the residents allowing Iarnród Éireann onto their property, it is agreed that the side walls to the front gardens will be raised to match the existing (approximately 1.8m). It was noted that the current construction of the side walls would not allow additional block courses to be added, and that it will be necessary to remove the existing side walls. The new raised wall will be constructed as per cul-de-sacs.
Planting and landscaping At the ends of the cul-de-sacs on the Millfarm Estate side, a mixture of shrubs and standard trees (2.4m high) at 5m centres will be planted in a matrix of whips (1.5m height) at 1.2m centres.
Any planting which is removed at Willow Park open
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 86 of 86 space to allow construction of the wall, will be replanted.
Noise Attenuation It is proposed to raise the existing and new boundary walls to a height of 2.5m with a proprietary timber acoustic fence along the full length of the Millfarm Estate, except at Willow Park where the new block wall will be 2.5m high. While the noise study only identified two of the houses at Millfarm as needing acoustic screening, this proposal is preferred to allay any perceived concerns of the residents and for visual consistency.
Potential light pollution The designers are investigating recessing the lighting on the bridge into the floor of the bridge, so that light pollution will not be an issue, i.e. the light source will not be visible from ground level. Lights which are to be mounted on the face of the lift shaft to further illuminate the bridge and stairs will be fitted with 'cut-off' devices to ensure light is directed to where it is required and not beyond. These lights will only be on during the hours of operation of the station.
Potential Impact from Public Address While customer information display (CIS) screens will announce arriving and departing trains, it is a requirement of Accessibility Legislation (for the visually impaired) to announce arrivals and departures on a public Address. These will be directed towards the station and will only be used during operating hours.
Impact of Pedestrian Bridge The bridge is sited on the southern limit of the middle third of the platform, which is the maximum distance away from the station exit. The siting of the station itself has been constrained by the existing old station building and could not be moved southwards. The side panels of the bridge will be 1.8m high and will be formed by a perforated metal screen which limits visibility. The bridge, lift and stairs are contemporary in design, using simple forms and a muted palette of materials. The choice of colours and materials is made bearing in mind issues in relation to safety, vandalism and maintenance. The lift shaft will be clad in dark grey brick in a 'stack bond' to tie in with the station building. The bridge and stairs design will express the structure, have infill perforated steel panels
Mitigation of Construction Impacts
The working hours The working hours will follow the general practice of 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday, and 08:00 to
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 87 of 87 13:00 on Saturday. Work outside these hours will be by agreement. Iarnród Éireann agrees to a start time of 9am on Saturday mornings in the vicinity of Millfarm Estate. Millfarm Residents Association has agreed to works proceeding later than 13.00 on Saturday afternoon.
Noise during construction Changes to the existing boundaries, which involve the construction of block walls, will be implemented as the first construction activity and form security to the site. This will also offer screening from the construction activities. Particular construction activities which exceed the permitted noise levels will be screened as explained in the EIS.
Rodent Control Details will be set out in the construction contract which the contractor must strictly adhere to in relation to rodent control. Iarnród Éireann will have supervisory staff on site to ensure adequate measures are in place in this regard. If any issues arise the appointed liaison officer can be contacted by residents and appropriate action will be taken.
Contingency during Realignment of the sewers The sewers serving existing dwellings will continue to be operational during the realignment of the outfalls sewers. This is usually achieved by carrying out works in sections and by the use of over pumping.
Vibration Impact Condition surveys of houses within 40m of the line will be carried out prior to the commencement of construction activities. These will be monitored for any detrimental effects during construction.
Community Liaison A liaison officer will be appointed for the project, who will be accessible by residents during operational hours.
6 The Hilltown It has been agreed that the accommodation bridge at Partnership Hilltown will be constructed in accordance with the revised Structural Plan No. B004.
7 SIAC Agreement reached as per revised plan no P007 as per:
- Toe of embankment edge to be 2m from existing northern boundary - Area of land take to be 921sqm - Road dimensions are 1m verge plus 4m roadway plus 1m verge, with fence at toe of verge - Lands to be fenced off
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 88 of 88 8 Menolly Homes Note agreement made 13th December 2007 between Menolly Homes, Manor Park and CIE/Iarnród Éireann. Submitted separately to An Bord Pleanálá for noting.
9 Virginia Kerr Boundary treatment along the railway line The boundary line between Ms. Kerr’s Property and the railway shall be secured by a 2.4m high steel powder coated black palisade fence, Type 3, as indicated on Drawing No. D 001. The palisade fence will run from Sterling Bridge to the northeast corner of the property and return approximately 20m along the northern boundary to close access to Ms Kerr’s property. Outside this fence, in Ms. Kerr’s land, a 3 metre wide strip which will be a temporary land take to facilitate construction, will be reinstated by planting. The planting shall consist of a protective hedgerow of hawthorn, blackthorn, hazel, field maple, guelde rose and holly, planted in a double staggered row with 3no. plants per metre per row. These will be interspersed with standard trees (2.4m high) comprising of Italian Alder at 5m centres. A timber rail stud fence shall be erected to separate the horses from the screen planting.
Road Embankment Slope The construction of containment barriers at the approaches to the bridge may necessitate the removal of trees and vegetation growing on the embankment and the re-grading of the embankment. There will be no permanent land-take required for the re-grading. The extent of the regrading of the slope will be minimised insofar as this is possible, but in no case will the slope works extend closer than 7 metres to the root protection area (RPA) of the cherry trees, as per drawings no. 011506-49-SK0404. While the cherry trees will remain outside of the construction hoarding, protective measures will be put in place in conformity with BS: 5837:2005 “Trees in Relation to Construction”. These include not allowing works within the root protection area of the trees and erecting a protective fence defining the crown spread, and within which no work will be permitted. In the event that vegetation is removed from the embankment, reinstatement planting as described below will be implemented. The proposed planting on the embankment consists of a mixture of shrubs, whips and standard trees. The whips will be 1.5metres high and planted at 1.2m centres, consisting of ash, willow, sycamore, elm and beech. These will be interspersed with standard trees planted into the matrix of whips at 5m centres and will be 2.5m high at planting. In response to concerns regarding security and visual intrusion, CIE/IE propose to install a 2 metre high temporary timber fence, comprising of rough
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 89 of 89 sawn planking, on CIE land, at the top of the embankment which will screen the house from the road. This fence will remain in place until the planting on the embankment slope is well established and provides screening. Methods for the mitigation of construction nuisance are detailed in the EIS and address noise, dirt, dust and general construction housekeeping. These requirements will be written into the construction contract. The planting contract specification shall provide for a maintenance and defects liability period of 18 months inclusive of one growing season during which the landscape contractor will be responsible for maintenance and defects. In the event of replacement planting exceeding 10% the contractor will maintain for a further 12 months. Access for maintenance will be through Ms Kerr’s lands, and times will be agreed in advance.
Boundary treatment during construction During construction, a 2.5 metre high solid timber hoarding shall be erected to enclose all construction work. This shall run along the railway alignment embankment to Sterling Bridge. The hoarding shall continue along the top of the embankment, as shown on Drawing no. 011506-49-SK0404. This arrangement supercedes that shown on the Railway Order alignment drawings. Protection for bloodstock will be provided by a timber rail stud fence outside the hoarding. The location of the construction hoarding adjacent to the cherry trees shall be finalised on site before erection. CIE / IE believe that these measures will make it unnecessary to relocate the horses during construction.
A Baseline Noise Survey Following the discussions with Ms Kerr, and a visit to her house, the special noise sensitivity of her music studio at the rear of her house was noted. If the incident construction noise levels are limited to less than 55dB(A) at Ms Kerr’s studio, it is believed that there will be negligible impact, as this is the level of existing traffic noise at the studio, which is reported to be acceptable. Taking account of the distance from the bridge, and the screening provided by buildings, preliminary calculations indicate that this noise level may be marginally exceeded for a relatively short period of time while the existing bridge is being taken down. Additional mitigation in the form of local noise screening at the works site, or through scheduling of the works for non-sensitive periods by agreement with Ms Kerr may be required.
The Working Hours The working hours will follow the general practice of 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday, and 08:00 to
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 90 of 90 13:00 on Saturday. Work outside these hours will be by prior agreement. Iarnród Éireann agree to discuss the programming of the demolition of the bridge with Virginia Kerr in advance of the works taking place. The contractor will also be made aware that the property is used as a place of work and is extremely sensitive to noise interference in general.
Eircom telephone line The location of the Eircom telephone line servicing the residence of Ms Kerr is noted, and relocation of this service during reconstruction of Sterling Bridge will be coordinated with Eircom to maintain an uninterrupted service.
10 Sean Reilly The landowner will have the option to require CIE to acquire less than the freehold interest in the lands concerned. If called upon to do so, CIE will acquire a lesser interest provided that the provision in perpetuity of the same number of parking spaces as shown in the Railway Order is secured, in which case the compensation payable will be appropriate to interest acquired. At the request of Meath County Council, IE have confirmed that it will operate the car park at Pace.
11 Sean Boylan Bridge Embankment The temporary land take on the bridge embankment along the north western boundary to Mr Boylan’s lands as included in the Railway Order submission is for any remedial works that may be required to the embankment as a result of the upgrade works to the bridge and approach roads containment system. It is intended to restrict works to the upper 3-4m of the embankments along Mr Boylan’s property and that no works are required to the lower embankments. Any vegetation that needs to be removed will be replaced.
Permanent Land Take The permanent land take at the castle stream crossing and at Dunboyne Bridge has been amended to minimise the extent of permanent land take required as shown on plan 005.P.32. In the event that works are required to the embankment substitute car parking will be provided in agreement with Mr Boylan.
Access The access to Mr Boylan’s property shall be modified as shown on drawing no. 011506-49- SK408. The junction of the station access and Mr Boylan’s access with Station Road shall have ducting provision for future traffic lights, if required. There is agreement to provide the additional land required for this modified scheme which is shown on a revised property drawing.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 91 of 91 Water Well Iarnród Éireann undertake to replace Mr Boylan’s existing well with a new well on his property that will provide a source of potable water equivalent to the existing supply in quantity and quality and in compliance with all best practice standards and legislation. The location selected on the Railway Order drawing is based on a reasonable professional assumption that a well of equivalent standard can be provided here due to its proximity to the existing well. Iarnród Éireann will carry out site testing to ensure this location is suitable. In the event that the location is not suitable, an alternative site will be agreed with Mr Boylan. Installation of the new well will be carried out in advance of removing the existing well to allow smooth changeover and therefore minimise the impact on the domestic residence and clinic.
A preliminary desk study carried out by specialist geotechnical Consulting Engineers on the project, indicate that a suitable supply of water would be available within the lands under the control of Mr Boylan.
Noise Barrier A 2.5m high acoustic barrier (Timber Buffalo type or similar) will be installed along the railway line adjacent to the clinic. The extent of this barrier is shown on the plan A006
Existing Services to be relocated/rerouted Iarnród Éireann undertake to carry out the following works: Foul drain from Clinic to be diverted across railway line and new connection made to the existing foul sewer to the west of the railway line, adjacent to Larchfield Estate. Iarnród Éireann will provide a wayleave to Mr. Boylan for this crossing. The foul drain shall be installed in a 300mm diameter pipe to accommodate future changes to the foul drainage system, provided such changes are agreed in advance with Iarnród Éireann. Local diversion of existing gas main within Mr Boylan’s property including his private connection to be agreed with Bord Gais. A new water supply well will be provided.
Drainage Ditch Iarnród Éireann agree to construct a second ditch to the south of Castle Stream along the private accommodation road with a new outfall to the Castle Stream, all within Mr Boylan’s property to facilitate drainage of his agricultural lands, subject to agreement with Meath County Council. Amended plan 005.T.32 refers together with drawing no. 011506-49-DR-2405 showing a cross section of the
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 92 of 92 accommodation, roads and ditches.
12 Ian Pringle The upper section of the embankment will be excavated to install the foundation for the concrete safety barrier. This will require removal of vegetation in this area (approximately the upper 3m). The majority of the trees fall outside this area and will remain. CIE/IE also agree to install a 2.4m high permanent timber fence behind the length of the proposed safety barrier.
The existing tree canopies may need to be cut back to erect temporary security fencing for the duration of the works. Any works to the trees will be carried out with advice from the tree specialist in order to ensure the continued growth of the trees. If considered necessary protective hoarding will be erected around trees which are in close proximity to the works. Where vegetation is removed these areas will be landscaped.
If localised areas of the embankment require works, this will be limited to works required to ensure the continued stability of the embankment. Such unforeseen works will not involve the removal of trees on the lands. As discussed on site, the temporary land take will not be used as a construction access road to the site.
13 Betty Larkin, CIE/Iarnród Éireann agree to acquire the whole of Stationhouse, Mrs Larkin’s property if requested to do so. Dunboyne, Co. Meath
14 Manor Home Builders Note agreement made 13th December 2007 Ltd between Menolly Homes, Manor Park and CIE/Iarnród Éireann. Submitted separately to An Bord Pleanálá for noting.
15 Gerty Gregan, A 2.7m high block wall, faced with real stone on the Bennetstown, Co. retained side, will be built along the CPO boundary Meath between the property and the car park at the commencement of the works. The remaining boundary will be palisade.
The proposed landscaping will consist of a mixture of the following, or similar suitable species; whitethorn, hazel, field maple and wild plum.
The L-shaped outbuilding being demolished will be rebuilt to a similar size, within the boundaries of the retained lands and in good and workmanlike manner, by CIE at its own expense.
CIE/IE will compensate Ms Gregan for the relocation of the Well and Bio unit that will be carried out by her in advance of the railway works.
The landowner will have the option to require CIE to acquire less than the freehold interest in the lands
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 93 of 93 concerned. If called upon to do so, CIE will acquire a lesser interest provided that the provision in perpetuity of the same number of parking spaces as shown in the Railway Order is secured, in which case the compensation payable will be appropriate to interest acquired. At the request of Meath County Council, IE have confirmed that it will operate the car park at Pace.
16 NRA CIÉ/Iarnród Éireann agrees that it will not compulsorily acquire the lands required for the railway works that are owned by Meath County Council [MCC] and occupied by Eurolink and NRA. These lands will be transferred to CIÉ/Iarnród Éireann under the terms of the agreement dated 16 August 2007 between MCC and CIÉ/Iarnród Éireann by or on 1 January 2009, or such later date as may be agreed between the parties and determined in accordance with the above agreement.
Modification 4I(b) of An Bord Pleanála approval of the M3 scheme requires MCC/NRA to procure a footpath/cycle way. CIE/Iarnród Éireann agree to make available to the NRA and MCC, for the purposes of providing the footpath such lands that may be considered excessive to their operational needs (Iarnród Éireann’s requirements are 4.5m to the bridge abutment and 3m to the fence boundary elsewhere)
If this footpath/cycle way cannot be constructed by NRA as a direct result of the railway works CIÉ/Iarnród Éireann will include the footpath/cycle way in the railway construction contract, in which event; CIÉ/Iarnród Éireann will agree the design of the footpath/cycleway with NRA and MCC in advance of tendering the construction contract. NRA and MCC will use their best endeavours including the use of Statutory powers to procure any additional lands that are required In the event that MCC/NRA cannot procure additional lands CIE/Iarnród Éireann shall have no liability with respect to the footpath/cycleway NRA will pay CIE/Iarnród Éireann the full costs associated with this additional work, such costs to be subject to independent third party assessment in default of agreement.
CIE/Iarnród Éireann will ensure that the roundabout giving access into the Pace park and ride facility will be designed and constructed in accordance with NRA DMRB so as to allow future dual carriageway operation. The design and construction shall be subject to the prior approval of MCC/NRA. If Irish Rail works consequent to the Rail Order
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 94 of 94 result in an adverse affect on landscaping measures required under the M3 Scheme CIE/Iarnród Éireann shall use their reasonable endeavours to mitigate the adverse affects.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 95 of 95 SCHEDULE 12. CONDITIONS.
1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with all mitigation measures contained in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Reason: To limit the environmental impact of the development.
2. Prior to commencement of construction of the park and ride facilities and the station buildings at Pace and Dunboyne, details of access arrangements for the mobility impaired and of walking routes for all pedestrians between the car parking spaces and the stations, and the avoidance of substandard footpaths immediately adjoining the station buildings, shall be submitted to Meath County Council for written consent, and in default of agreement, shall be submitted to the Board for determination. Such details shall be implemented as part of the railway works.
Reason: To provide safe and convenient pedestrian access to the station buildings and the park and ride facilities.
3. Prior to commencement of operation of the park and ride facility at Pace and in consultation with the NRA, a variable messaging system shall be provided at the entrance to the facility, to inform users about the quantity of car parking spaces available. Details shall be submitted to Meath County Council for written consent and, in default of agreement, shall be submitted to the Board for determination. Such variable messaging system shall be implemented as part of the railway works.
Reason: To avoid traffic congestion and in the interest of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
4. Prior to commencement of development, details of the following shall be submitted to Meath County Council for written consent and, in default of agreement, shall be submitted to the Board for determination: (a) Ducting to facilitate possible future traffic signals at the junction of R156 with Dunboyne Station access. (b) Reconstruction of ramped section of road at Dunboyne Railway Bridge. (c) Signage in accordance with Part 8 of the Traffic Signs Manuals and diversions advertised in local newspaper and radio. (d) Maintenance of pedestrian bridge/ cycle bridge at Dunboyne station and to ensure it remains open to the public at all times.
Such details shall be implemented as part of the railway works.
Reason: In the interest of orderly development and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
5. (a) Water supply and drainage arrangements, including the disposal of surface water, shall comply with the requirements of the planning authority for such works and services and shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 96 of 96 planning authority prior to commencement of development. In default of agreement, the matters shall be referred to the Board for determination. Such details shall be implemented as part of the railway works.
(b) Existing embankments provided as part of the River Tolka Flood Relief Scheme shall be maintained where possible and any breaches of flood defences shall be made good with appropriate temporary measures pending permanent repair.
Reason: In the interest of orderly development and the proper planning and development of the area.
6. Prior to demolition of the Bennetstown and the Sterling Farmer’s Accommodation over-bridges, the demolition of the damaged remains of an under-bridge just west of the Royal Canal crossing, the demolition of the two stone arched under-bridges spanning the Tolka River at Bracetown, the replacement of the arch of Sterling over-bridge, and alterations to the over- bridges at Barnhill and Dunboyne, (a) A record of the structures shall be made in the following manner:- (i) Photographs indicating the scale of the structure by inclusion of calibrated ranging rods within each photograph, (ii) A written description of each structure, (iii) An assessment of the architectural heritage merit of the structure, and (iv) A map identifying the location of the structure and the location of photographs taken of it,
and a copy of such records shall submitted to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Irish Architectural Archive and to the respective planning authorities of Meath County Council and Fingal County Council.
(b) The applicant shall prepare a conservation method statement and shall submit a copy of it to Meath County Council and Fingal County Council.
(c) All works to the heritage railway bridges shall be supervised by a conservation architect.
(d) All stonework from the demolished bridges and other structures shall be reused in the repair of the railway bridges to be retained.
Reason: To record the structures of architectural heritage value that will be demolished, to ensure that conservation principles will guide the alterations and repairs to other such structures, and to reuse materials in the interest of conservation.
7. Prior to commencement of works to the Dunboyne and Barnhill over-bridges, revised designs and finishes for the proposed replacement parapets and transition walls shall be submitted to Meath County Council and Fingal
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 97 of 97 County Council respectively for written consent, and in default of agreement shall be submitted to the Board for determination.
Reason:- In the interest of conserving the architectural heritage value of such structures as the proposed design and finishes would significantly affect the character of these structures.
8. The water tower located to the south of Dunboyne over-bridge shall be retained and repaired as necessary.
Reason:- In the interest of conserving the architectural heritage value of this structures conservation.
9. (a) The applicant shall engage the services of a suitably qualified archaeologist to monitor the construction of proposed stations, park and ride facilities, construction compounds, access roads and removal of topsoil along the horizontal clearance on both sides of the rail line. (b) Should archaeological material be found during the course of monitoring, the archaeologist may have the work on the site stopped pending a decision as to how best to deal with the archaeology. Advice shall be sought from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and all necessary mitigating action shall be implemented and the applicant shall facilitate the archaeologist in recording any material found. (c) A report describing the results of monitoring shall be submitted to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Meath County Council and Fingal County Council.
Reason: In order to conserve the archaeological heritage of the site and to secure the preservation of any remains which may exist within the site.
10. (a) The Royal Canal shall remain open to navigation from 1 March to 31 October with no canal closures between these dates. (b) During construction, the towpath, which is a public right of way, should be open to pedestrians. Where this is not feasible, a suitable diversion route shall be established. (c) During construction, the applicants shall provide an access route for maintenance vehicles to Waterways Ireland. (d) The steel bridge shall be painted in a subdued colour in keeping with the canal setting. Any retaining walls facing the canal shall be clad in a stone in keeping with the stone on the existing abutments.
Reason: To limit the impact of construction on the use of the Royal Canal and in the interest of visual amenity.
______David Dunne, DPO. 4th February 2008.
NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála Page 98 of 98