An Bord Pleanála Inspector's Report

Cork County Council

An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

File Reference: 04HA0025 / 04KA0014.

Proposed Development: N22 Baile Bhuirne - Macroom (Baile Bhuirne to Coolcour) Road Development

Inspector: Daniel O’Connor.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 246 Cork County Council

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION p 03

2.0 COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER p 04

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - Non Technical Summary p 05

4.0 REPORT ON ORAL HEARING p 12

5.0 ASSESSMENT p 168

6.0 RECOMMENDATION – Proposed Road Development p 178

7.0 RECOMMENDATION– Compulsory Purchase Order p 179

8.0 Appendices – I List of Objectors p 180 II List of Items handed in at hearing p 186 III Environmental Impact Statement p 191

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 246 Cork County Council

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The proposal is for the construction of a total of approximately 22 kilometres of Type 2 Dual Carriageway road in the administrative area of County Cork. It is described as including three Number Compact Grade Separated Junctions, one Online and five Offline Roundabouts and over 20 bridges plus other structures together with ancillary works.

1.2 Application was made to An Bord Pleanála by Cork County Council for approval under section 51 of the Roads Act 1993 (as amended by section 9(1) (e) of the Roads Act 2007) by letter received on 27th October 2009. Three copies of an Environmental Impact Statement were submitted with the application and copies of newspaper advertisements of 31 st October 2009 (The Southern Star) and 29 th October (Irish Examiner) were also submitted. Details of notification of prescribed bodies were also included. Correspondence regarding the Compulsory Purchase Order was submitted separately.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 246 Cork County Council

2.0 COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER

2.1 The Compulsory Purchase Order was made by Cork County Council on 16 th October 2009 and is entitled “Cork County Council N22 Baile Bhuirne Macroom (Baile Bhuirne to Coolcour) Compulsory Purchase Order 2009”

2.2 The owners or reputed owners, lessees or reputed lessees and the occupiers of the land re set out in Schedule Part I

2.3 The description of public rights of way proposed to be extinguished is set out in Schedule Part II.

2.4 Cork County Council applied for confirmation of the Compulsory Purchase Order by letter dated 4th November 2009 and enclosed supporting documentation.

2.5 The land take which is subject of the CPO is 189 hectares as indicated on day 1 of oral hearing –transcript p49.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 246 Cork County Council

3.0 IMPACTS IDENTIFIED

3.0 Introduction and Background

The Environmental Impact Statement is in five volumes, consisting of: -

• Volume 1 - Non-Technical Summary • Volume 2 - Environmental Impact Statement main report and Appendices. • Volume 3 - Figures. • Volume 4A – Appendices 3 to 7 • Volume 4B - Appendices 8 to 12

The document is dated October 2009 and the authors are given as Mc Carthy Hyder Consulting engineers in association with P. J. Tobin & Co.

Tá leagan Gaeilge ar fáil de Imleabhair 1 agus 2. (Volumes 1 and 2 are also available in the Irish language)

3.1 Non – Technical - Summary.

The NTS sets out the objectives of the Road Development Project as follows:

• Provide a high quality road for the N22 strategic route. • Provide a national route with adequate capacity and required level of service. • Remove traffic congestion. • Reduce capacity deficiencies. • Maintain existing roads for local traffic. • Improve safety at junctions and accesses and along the existing roads. • Regulate and reduce journey times. • Minimise environmental and social impacts on the local residents and communities along the existing N22.

The NTS also states that the road development would provide adequate transport infrastructure to support trade industry and economic growth, enhance the reliability of the road transport system, remove national traffic from the roadside towns and villages and reduce road accidents fatalities.

3.2 Project Description

The preliminary design is stated to consist of: -

• Four bridge crossings over the Bohill, Foherish, Laney and Sullane Rivers. A diversion of the River Owengarve is also proposed. • Crossing of the proposed road development to be provided by road bridges and accommodation bridges.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 246 Cork County Council

• Accommodation works to be provided to link access points with the local road network. • Provision for drainage, traffic signs and road lighting in line with national guidelines. • Four junctions to be provided along a total length of approximately 22 kilometres of dual carriageway.

3.3 Traffic

Traffic flow projections for 2012 indicate the flows to the west of Macroom at 15,500 AADT . The NTS describes the increase in traffic delays, increased accidents and increased noise which would result.

The prediction is that the majority of traffic on the existing N22 would divert to the new route. It predicts that through-traffic flows would significantly decrease in Baile Bhuirne and Baile Mhic Íre. This is described as creating a more pleasant environment in those villages. Reduction in traffic in Macroom is stated to improve the setting of the town and remove congestion along the main street.

3.4 Construction Impacts

Construction period anticipated to be two years and based on a start in 2010. Construction impacts are stated to involve temporary disruption on local communities on a noise and vibration impacts and these would be covered by an environmental operating plan. It states that the EOP would be put in place by the contractor before the start of the construction phase.

3.5 Plans and Policies

The NTS states that the road development is in line with the NDP 2007-2013 (Transforming Ireland, A Better Quality of Life for All). The National Spatial Strategy, Department of Transport – Statement of Strategy 2005-2007 and Transport 21. It states that the road development would have a positive impact on plans and policies.

3.6 Socio-Economics

The NTS states the overall benefit would be increased accessibility which would significantly increased accessibility which would significantly increase the potential for further economic development, including tourism. It states the reduction in congestion would significantly improve residential and environmental amenity.

The NTS states that however, the road development is likely to have a negative impact on existing businesses, such as filling stations and restaurants, which rely significantly on passing trade. Mitigation measures such as road signage are proposed.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 246 Cork County Council

It notes there would some land take from a haulage yard at the Gurteenroe Junction which would have a slight negative impact on the business.

The NTS states that overall there would be moderate positive socio-economic impact as a result of the road development.

3.7 Agricultural Land

The proposed road development would affect 72 farms of which 12 are dairy farms, 54 are other grazing livestock farms, one is mixed crop and livestock and four are categorised as other farms (forestry, equestrian or dog rearing enterprises).

The agricultural land take required for the construction and operation of the road is approximately 182 hectares. The NTS states this would not be significant at a national or county level. It states that 40 farms are affected by severance. The NTS notes temporary impacts during construction including dust generation and that mitigation measures be carried out for surface water, alternative water supplies where necessary and measures to prevent the spread of dust.

It states that access tracks would be provided necessary and the small parcels of severed; land-lock land would be acquired through the CPO process.

It notes that overall there would be a significant negative impact on farms affected.

3.8 Landscape and Aesthetics

The NTS states that the road development would pass through a rural landscape with numbers of local hills, enclosed by hedges, rocky outcrops and woodland clumps and the Sullane River. It states the majority of areas are of good and very attractive landscape value with also an area designated as scenic landscape.

The NTS states that the road development would improve the general environmental quality of the town of Macroom and the settlements of Baile Mhic Íre and Baile Bhuirne by reducing traffic volumes passing through those areas.

The NTS refers to 66 residential group receptors that would experience a significant adverse visual effect. It states the majority of property groups namely 249 would be considered to receive only minor or no impacts as a result of the road development on opening.

The NTS states that as a result of the proposed road development, lighting and vehicle headlights along the road development, there would be an impact on 68 property groups when the road was opened. It states the impact would be reduced as the proposed landscape planting became established.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 246 Cork County Council

3.9 Surface Water Quality and Drainage

The NTS lists the Rivers Foherish, Laney, Sullane, Bohill and Owengarve as the main watercourses to be affected. It states impacts during construction would generally be temporary and these could be mitigated such that the residual impact would be of low significance.

It states there would be an overall minor beneficial impact on water quality as a result of the proposed road development. It states that this is because there are currently no measures to treat run-off from the existing N22 road. Flood risk studies were undertaken for the rivers and the NTS states that road development would not significantly change the current flooding situation in the area. It states there would be no additional flood risk to any properties or infrastructure.

3.10 Ecology (Flora, Fauna and Fisheries)

It notes there are no designated sites directly impacted by the road development.

The NTS notes there are 25 sites of ecological interest ranging from local to national importance and of low, moderate and high value. It states that natural importance is the Sullane, Laney and the Foherish Rivers with important bankside vegetation. It lists local importance, moderate value for the Sullane Delta Wetland Area with habitats for waterfowl and also local importance with high value including the Glananarig Woodlands the semi-natural habitats of Sessile Oak.

It notes that there is potential for indirect impacts outside the land take area rising from air pollution impacts and hydrological impacts. The NTS states there is one bat roost with five round long-eared bats at chainage 1+900 which would be demolished. It notes the study area is of considerable importance for a lesser horseshoe bats and seven other species. It states that measures would be implemented to safeguard any bats roosting within trees and would include compensatory planting of hedgerows and treelines as well as bat roosting boxes.

The NTS refers also to badger, otter, red deer, red squirrel, Sika deer, hedgehog, pigmy shrew and Irish mountain hare. It notes that mitigation measures for three badger setts would include exclusion of impacted setts, provision of underpasses.

The NTS refers to the hen harrier, barn owl, Merlin, lapwing, curlew, black- headed gull and kingfisher. It states that where birds are present, suitable mitigation measures would be implemented.

The NTS states that Cascade Wood supports a large number of Kerry slug and there were mitigation measures to be undertaken.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 246 Cork County Council

The NTS states there would be a direct loss or impact on aquatic and riparian habitat at watercourse crossing points. It states the water quality of the area is very high and supports salmon, trout and also the freshwater pearl mussel.

The NTS states that the contractor would prepare and maintain and EOP (Environmental Operating Plan) in line with NRA Guidelines in consultation Inland Fisheries.

3.11 Cultural Heritage

In relation to cultural heritage, the NTS notes that 12 RMP sites with direct impacts on a possible ringfort (AH8) and fullach fiadh (AH12).

It also lists a stone row at Bealick and Carrigaphooca Castle (AH21) and stone circle (AH22). The NTS states that the impact on the setting of those sites would be minimised as far as possible with appropriate landscape planting. It states appropriate mitigation measures have been proposed for areas of archaeological potential and sites of archaeological potential.

The NTS refers to the IRA Ambush Site at Cúil na Cathrach and states it occupies a position either side of the existing N22. It states the site consists for the most part of rocky outcrops looking down onto the existing N22. The NTS states the proposed route would impact on the western edge of the site passing to the west of the monument that was erected to commemorate the battle and would have avoided the main area of engagement. It states that a metal detector survey should be carried out in consultation with the National Museum of Ireland and the Project Archaeologist.

The NTS states there are 35 built heritage sites either on or partially within the proposed CPO of the route. It states mitigation measures to be undertaken as directed by the Architectural Advisory Unit of the DoEHLG.

3.12 Air Quality

The NTS states the construction activities would be classified as major and that there are 211 properties identified within 100 metres of the road development that could have significant dust impacts, in the absence of mitigation measures. It states that the proposed road development would not result in any significant air quality impacts and that all levels would be within the standard set by Air Quality Standards Regulations. It states that there would be an overall improvement in air quality following the development of the road development.

3.13 Noise and Vibration

The NTS states properties on the existing N22 are exposed to high traffic noise levels. It states that all construction noise would comply with appropriate guidelines and that there could be some explosives used during the ground excavation and construction process. It states at total of 16 residential properties would require noise mitigation and that two properties would

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 246 Cork County Council

exceed the noise levels set out by the NRA for National Road Schemes. It states that of the 162 properties assessed, 98 would experience a positive impact in terms of a quieter noise environment.

3.14 Non-Agricultural Land Use and Amenities

The preliminary design is stated to have minimised the requirement to demolish property. It states that one derelict property and one non-residential agricultural property would be acquired and that two inhabited properties would be acquired and would result in a severe adverse impact.

The NTS states there would be a moderate adverse impact on six residential properties, with 35 residential properties experiencing minor adverse impacts. It states that one yard used by a haulage company would be impacted and that community, recreation and amenity areas are unaffected.

It notes that four local roads are to be severed and that alternative routes would be provided. It states that overall there would be a minor adverse impact for non-agricultural land use and amenities.

3.15 Geology

The NTS states that there are no known sites of potential geological heritage or protected geological areas in the vicinity of the route. It notes possible sources of contamination being the former Shanakill landfill and Macroom Iron Foundry located behind Bealick Mill.

It states that the overall environmental value or sensitivity of the various geological attributes within the study area was considered low and the magnitude of impact due to the road development would be considered to be negligible. It states the overall significance of the road development on geology is considered to be neutral.

3.16 Hydrogeology

The NTS states that the proposed road development would have a negative impact on the local groundwater conditions. It said construction of road cuttings and temporary dewatering works as well as contamination were potential impacts. It states that the bedrock aquifer was not a principle aquifer unit and small local impacts could be tolerated assuming the residual impacts on groundwater receptors were minimised.

It states that although groundwater quality can be adversely impacted by many aspects of road development, it can be mitigated by the use of appropriate pollution control measures.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 246 Cork County Council

3.17 Inter-Relationships and Mitigation

The NTS states that the interactions between elements had been incorporated into the mitigation measures which range from further investigation during the detailed design stage, to ecological checks immediately prior to construction phase and also encompassed fencing requirements, dust control measures mitigation in the form of landscape and drainage. The NTS in summary states that the road development would not have a major adverse impact on the existing environment. It states where potential impacts had been identified as significant, appropriate mitigation measures would be employed in order to eliminate or minimise adverse affects. It states that mitigation measures would be developed further and finalised as part of the detailed design stage.

______

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 246 Cork County Council

4.0 REPORT ON ORAL HEARING

4.1 Introduction

The hearing commenced at 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, 18 th May 2010 in the Castle Hotel Macroom, County Cork. It ran for four days and concluded on Friday 21 st May 2010.

The summary of the proposed scheme, as taken from the EIS was noted by the inspector as comprising 22 kilometres of dual carriageway, all within the administrative area of Cork County Council.

Appearances were taken. The Local Authority was asked to set out their case and then questions were to be invited. (Transcript, Day 1, Pages 4-11).

4.2 Local Authority Case

Mr Dermot Flanagan S.C. outlined the Local Authority case and gave a brief overview on legal and legislative issues which was followed by direct evidence of 11 witnesses. Mr. Flanagan said he wished to draw attention to a number of points on behalf of the Local Authority in respect of whom the proposal was being promoted.

Mr. Flanagan made points in relation to Environmental Impact Assessment and referred to the Roads Act. He noted the EIS was the start of the application process.

He referred to mitigation measures and referred to Chapter 19 of the EIS in that regard.1

4.2.1 Direct Evidence of Mr Matt Cunningham (Transcript Day 1, Pages 24-77)

Mr. Cunningham stated that he had been the Project Manager for McCarthy Hyder on the N22 Baile Bhuirne to Macroom proposed road development since 2005. He stated his involvement in the road development commenced in 2001. He stated his brief of evidence would cover the elements of the road development: -

• The need for the road development. • Progression of preferred route. • Proposed road development. • Construction issues.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 246 Cork County Council

Mr. Cunningham stated the N22 was the National Primary Route running from Cork City to Killarney/Tralee. The existing N22 over the length of the proposed development comprises a single carriageway of varying width with hard shoulders along some its length. He stated overtaking opportunities along the route were limited because of topography, traffic volumes and poor alignment of the road. He said NRA traffic accident statistics indicated four fatalities, 19 serious injuries and 91 minor injuries on the length of road in the period 2000-2008. He said accident rates remain very high along the corridor since then.

Mr. Cunningham stated that most notably west of Macroom, the N22 did not meet the requirement set out in the National Spatial Strategy and the National Development Plan. He stated there were limited public transport alternatives connecting Killarney to Cork with an indirect train service with connections in Mallow.

Mr. Cunningham said the proposed road was a type 2 dual carriageway described in Figure 5.2 of Volume 3 of the EIS. He referred to the removal of traffic from the urban centres, including heavy goods vehicles along the route and stated that the current journey time was between 28 and 38 minutes. He stated that in 2027, the forecast was for this journey to be 42 minutes and with the proposed scheme in place, it would be 16 minutes which would indicate a saving of up to 26 minutes along that section of the route. He stated the proposed road development would improve driving conditions by providing improved vertical and horizontal route alignment, safer access and the advantages of having a divided carriageway which would reduce the risk of head-on collisions.

Mr. Cunningham stated that Macroom was the largest population currently trying to do business on a national route with a number less than 50 and that did not have a bypass.

Mr. Cunningham set out the main stages of the choice of the prepared route and described the constraint study which had its first non-statutory public consultation in January 2001. He noted that at that stage the route was from Baile Bhuirne to Ovens.

Referring to the design stage and the land requirements for a CPO, Mr. Cunningham stated that a public exhibition was held in July 2006 at Macroom and a public display was held in January 2008 which modified the preferred route which avoided the Cascade Wood (south of chainage 1+800).

Mr. Cunningham outlined the process of compilation of the EIS and in relation to alternatives, he referred to Figure 4.2 of the EIS where three routes were assessed: -

• Yellow Route. • Green Route. • Green Link Yellow.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 246 Cork County Council

He said the preferred route was the green route from the start to Baile Bhuirne and the yellow route Baile Bhuirne to Macroom. He said the selection of the green route for the first two kilometres at the western end of the scheme was based on the inefficiencies associated with the required roundabout connection immediately west of Baile Bhuirne with all other factors being considered neutral. He said the yellow route from Baile Bhuirne to Macroom was preferred despite having the greatest impacts on cultural heritage and this was because of its low capital cost, high benefit cost ratio, lesser ecological impact and that the majority of properties affected already experienced impacts from the existing N22. He said it had a fewer A-Class river crossings and the lowest agricultural impact with a lesser impact on the rural setting.

Mr. Cunningham said that over 30 alternative route alignments were considered both within and outside the emerging preferred route corridor. He said most alternatives were entirely incorporated within the published preferred route corridor, but he noted that four key deviations which were shown in the Appendix to his brief were located outside the corridor: -

• Deviation A – from the west end of the scheme for 4.5 kilometres involving six options to avoid Cascade Wood. This followed the designation of the wood as a cSAC as part of St. Gobnet’s Wood in September 2007. • Deviation B – from chainage 6+700 to 7+060 which is 200 metres south and west of the emerging preferred route which resulted from assessing 10 options for reducing or avoiding impacts on the 1921 IRA ambush site at Cúil na Cathrach. • Deviation C – from chainage 15+240 to 15+500 is at the Gurteenroe or Mill Street junction and this was to reduce property, landscape and ecological impacts. • Deviation D – at the end of the scheme from chainage 21+280 to the east end of the project. This is indicated to be required to reduce the cultural heritage, agricultural and socio-economic impacts.

Mr. Cunningham described the traffic volumes and summarised as follows: -

• West of Macroom on the N22 as 9,750 vehicles per day. • R582 to Mill Street at the intersection with the N22 as in excess of 5,000 AADT. • Traffic volume on the N22 east of Macroom is 13,200 vehicles. • Daily traffic volume on the R618 Coachford Road east of Newbridge is over 3,000 vehicles.

Daily average HGV proportion is given as 11.4%.

Mr. Cunningham described the current situation involving congestion, poor journey times and poor environment for shopping.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 246 Cork County Council

day by 2027 with the existing N22 carrying between 9,500 and 11,500 vehicles per day. He said the new road would carry about half the traffic in the corridor throughout its design life.

In relation to the Baile Bhuirne and Baile Mhic Íre part of the scheme that traffic demand would increase to 11,200 vehicles per day by 2027 and the majority of through traffic would be removed and would leave only predominantly local traffic movements within the village. Mr. Cunningham referred to Appendix B of the evidence which gives the traffic model forecast.

Mr. Cunningham said that the traffic model was prepared prior to the downturn and he noted that the permanent NRA traffic counter at Baile Bhuirne had increased between 2005 and 2007 but decreased in 2008 and 2009. He said the overall growth on the corridor between 2005 and 2009 had been around 10%. He said a sensitivity test on the scheme showed that the recent traffic reduction between 2007 and 2009 would have an insignificant effect on the overall traffic volumes forecast over the medium term. He stated that February 2010 indicated a growth of 6% over February 2009. (Noted that the reverse is true of January 2010) .

Mr. Cunningham stated that the cross-section for the proposed road was based on a number of factors including: -

• Type 2 dual carriageway virtually eliminates head-on collisions and it was predicted over a 30-year period 137 fewer accidents would occur and would save an additional 12 lives over and above a single carriageway bypass.

• Cross-section widths are similar for both single and dual carriageway. (Single at 18.3 metres and dual at 21.5 metres). He noted climbing lanes would be required on a single carriageway for about 10 kilometres.

• Incremental environmental impacts and disproportionate financial costs are involved in retro respectively upgrading a single carriageway to a dual carriageway.

• Dual carriageway cross-section provides improved journey times compared to a single carriageway.

• Dual carriageway cross-section manages access to the scheme safely in the format of compact grade separated junctions.

Mr. Cunningham said a cost benefit analysis was carried out for different scenarios and he said under a high growth sensitivity test, the benefits of having a dual carriageway cross-section over a do-nothing scenario would save around 674 accidents over a 30-year assessment period. He said under high growth scenario, the benefit to cost ratio would be 3.19 over a 30-year assessment period. He said a low growth scenario was examined and the incremental benefit would drop to 2.9. He said a further test involved a conservative “low-low” traffic road profile assuming a zero growth between

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 246 Cork County Council

2009 and 2014 and this resulted in a benefit to cost ratio 2.5 and would therefore represent good value for money. He noted that this issue was raised by An Bord Pleanála and by a third party submission.

Mr. Cunningham said that where existing routes would be severed by the proposed road, alternative routes had been incorporated into the design to maintain community links. He said two intermediate junctions along the development would improve accessibility to the population and employment opportunities within the Gaeltacht providing better links with the rest of Cork and beyond. He said a journey from Killarney to Cork is currently expected to take around one hour and 20 minutes and this would likely increase over time to one hour 30 minutes and that the new road could improve the journey through the strategic corridor of national importance by around 25 minutes.

Mr. Cunningham said the junction strategy would enable the separation of non-regional traffic from the strategic or through traffic. He stated that the development was consistent with the aims of the National Spatial Strategy and would directly influence regional growth and development.

He said the Cork CDP aimed to support initiatives to provide greater accessibility by bus between rural towns and villages with their hinterland. He said an hourly frequency of Route 40A bus operated through Macroom between Cork and Killarney. He noted that higher frequency service with the Route 40A and 233 combined operates during the morning to serve commuters from Macroom to Cork. Mr. Cunningham said there were no rail services through Macroom and the road development would benefit the Bus Eireann Services to and from the towns and villages on the corridor. He said the new road would enhance economic competitiveness. He referred again to the benefits of the dual carriageway and noted that the land take was a 1% difference and the costs a 10% difference between a dual carriageway over a single carriageway.

Mr. Cunningham said the economic downturn had impacted the completion of one development considered in Macroom and he said by testing the scheme against NRA growth rates, the analysis demonstrates that the developments in Macroom do not alter the conclusions drawn in the EIS. At this point Mr. Flanagan noted that the CPO land-take was 189 hectares. He noted also that in the brief of evidence at 5.2 there were two junctions at Baile Bhuirne and Coolcour and two compact grade-separated junctions at Tonn Láin and Gurteenroe. He noted that the junctions were spaced at five kilometres, 11 kilometres and 5.5 kilometres along the route. It was noted that the brief of evidence included the description of the route which was divided up into 5.4 kilometres section from Baile Bhuirne to Tonn Láin, and eight kilometres from Tonn Láin to Carrigaphooca and 8.7 kilometres to Coolcour. In relation to Section 2 between Tonn Láin and Carrigaphooca, Mr. Cunningham said there were key elements as follows: -

• Grade separated junction at Tonn Láin with the N22 and L3409 providing access to Baile Mhic Íre and Cill na Martra.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 246 Cork County Council

• The route crosses the 1921 IRA ambush site and the existing N22 at Cúil na Cathrach. • The route crosses the Sullane floodplain near Lynch’s Cross on a shallow embankment and flood compensation land is included as part of the road development. • The road passing Carrigaphooca House and Castle at an elevation and proximity similar to the existing N22.

Mr. Cunningham stated that a number of landowners were concerned that the road in a new area would give the possibility of vehicles stopping and accessing the back gardens of houses. He said the key is that there is no hard shoulder for waiting traffic. He stated that the barrier being used was a wire rope.

In relation to road surfacing, Mr. Cunningham stated that the road surfacing would be designed in accordance with the NRA DMRB and that accommodation access tracks would be surfaced in accordance with the NRA road construction detail/700/6. He said low noise surface would be provided throughout the entire mainline carriageway as part of the noise mitigation provision.

Mr. Cunningham described road lighting and stated that this would be provided in the region of the grade-separated junctions and roundabouts. Mr. Cunningham said there were 18 road bridges including four river bridges and 24 accommodation underpasses, one accommodation overbridge and 12 culvert structures. He said boundary fencing would comprise a timber post and rail in general and mammal fencing would be provided where required. He said the road development crossed a number of watercourses mainly the Sullane together with a number of smaller watercourses. He listed the four main proposed crossings: -

• Bohill River at Cappagh Bridge. • Foherish River Carrigaphooca. • The River Laney its confluence with the Sullane River at Macroom. • Sullane River at Hartnett’s Cross.

Mr. Cunningham gave an outline of the drainage proposals and stated that the maximum rate of outflow into the receiving waters would be at most equivalent to the existing greenfield run-off rate. He said balancing ponds would retain run-off for a short period and slowly release it as a designated rate of flow. He said the drainage networks for the mainline and the junctions would flow into petrol/oil interceptors prior to entering receiving watercourses.

In relation to disturbances to existing services such as electricity, drinking water, wastewater and telecommunications, he said where such supplies are permanently affected if they would be restored or alternative supplies provided.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 246 Cork County Council

Mr. Cunningham said that in relation to material assets, fencing would be erected to delineate site boundaries and prevent disturbance to adjacent lands. He said the CPO process included agreement on accommodation works as part of the statutory code for compensation for land acquisition.

Mr. Cunningham said there would three residential proposed required as part of the scheme and one occupied property at Gurteenroe (chainage 16+100) would be acquired and demolished while another occupied property would acquired but not demolished at the Bohill River (chainage 1+800). He said one unoccupied property at chainage 1+850 is scheduled to be acquired and demolished. Mr. Cunningham said 35 residential properties would have their property access and/or boundary permanently changed as a result of the road development. He said a total of 189 hectares or 467 acres are included in the CPO for the construction, operation and maintenance of the road development. He said one commercial property at Gurteenroe is impacted by the proposed road development.

Mr. Cunningham set out the position in relation to rights of way and confirmed that of 30 rights of ways to be extinguished, 18 would be restored. He said of the 12 to be removed, seven would be facilitated by access tracks with small deviations and the other five were dead-ends. He said the five rights of way that are permanently closed are at: -

• Cluain Droichead Road – road realigned through the junction. • Tonn Láin local road – road is being diverted. • Two rights of way at one location in the townlands of Killaclug and Carrigaphooca. He said the existing public road was being taken through and under the dual carriageway to a roundabout. At that point there were two rights of way and the existing local road and there is the former N22. • Ballyveerane local road is a case where there are two roads combined with 500 metres between them.

Section 8 of Mr. Cunningham’s brief dealt with the construction phase and he said the earliest projected start would be quarter one of 2012 with a construction of 24 months expected. He said a liaison officer would be appointed by Cork County Council to liaise with landowners, householders and the public. He said an Environmental Operating Plan (EOP) would be in place before the start of the construction and all works would be required to be undertaken in accordance with the EOP. He said normal working hours would be 0700 am to 0700 pm in the evening from Monday to Friday and 0800 am to 0430 pm on a Saturday. He said any changes to the working practices would require prior agreement with Cork County Council. Mr. Cunningham said independent checks and audits would be undertaken by Cork County Council and other statutory bodies to ensure compliance with the environmental operating plan.

Mr. Cunningham referred to construction traffic management and said there would a requirement for the temporary control of traffic at plant crossings. He listed these as follows: -

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 246 Cork County Council

• Slievereagh. • Cúil na Cathrach. • Carrigaphooca. • Coolcour.

He referred to Figure F in Appendix A of his brief of evidence to show the location of the plant crossings.

Mr. Cunningham noted the main traffic movements during the construction phase and noted that the haulage of materials to and from the site would create a temporary impact to both road users and to residents living along the access roads. He said only roads suitable for use by construction vehicles are permitted for hauling road and bridge building materials. He listed these in Figure F of the brief of evidence and these comprised the existing N22, the regional roads at Gurteenroe and Coachford and Lynch’s Cross at the Sullane Junction midway through the scheme. He said the use of the selected local road will result in a maximum distance of 5.3 kilometres along the scheme between access points.

Mr. Cunningham referred to the haulage materials and gave a summary: -

• Concrete – 3,500 loads. • Pavement – 23,000 loads. • Drainage stone – 8,200 loads. • Embankment – 11,900 loads.

He said the more relevant is the estimated increase in HGV traffic and he gave an example of the worse-case scenario for the Coolcour or eastern end of the scheme. He said at that section, it is forecast to carry an additional 135 HGVs per weekday over a core construction period of approximately nine months. He said this carries 1,265 HGVs a day at present. He said this represented a 1.2% increase in volume and 10.7% increase in HGV content and it would have a short-term construction period impact.

Mr. Cunningham said the earthworks operation would be a major activity and he outlined some of the issues in relation to embankments and noted that filling operations would involve using bulldozers and vibrating rollers. He said suitable excavated materials are generally classified as being either rock or non-rock depending on the method of excavation required for the cuttings. He said approximately 165,000 m 3 of topsoil is required to be excavated of which 94,000 m 3 can be reused on the grass verges, side slopes and bunds. He said 2.4 million 3 of fill material is required to form the road embankments. He said of the 2.7 million 3 of materials to be excavated from the site, 2.3 million 3 would be available for use to form road embankments. He said approximately 500,000 m 3 of unsuitable material is being generated by the earthworks.

Mr. Cunningham referred to blasting and said to minimise the impact, a public awareness campaign would be undertaken before any work commenced, to explain what has been done and why. He said significant volumes of rock excavation required blasting and would be likely to be required over 13% of

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 246 Cork County Council

the route at locations identified in the appendix to the brief of evidence in Figure G.

Mr. Cunningham gave the scheme cost as €213 million including VAT. He said the summary of the conclusions related to safety and the potential saving of 15 lives over 30 years, the removal of traffic from urban centres and journey times of 16 minutes indicating a savings of up to 26 minutes.

Also by way of summary, Mr. Cunningham said public transport would be improved between the gateway of Cork and the linked hub of Tralee- Killarney. He said the scheme was economically robust and an environmental operating plan would be developed to successfully implement the mitigation measures. He said the lands included in the CPO are necessary, sufficient and suitable for the construction, operation and maintenance of the scheme.

4.2.1 Mr. Matt Cunningham presented his brief of evidence. Mr. Cunningham’s brief of evidence is tabbed LA01 (Transcript, Day 1, Pages 24-77)

Mr. Cunningham stated that he had been the project manager for McCarthy Hyder on the N22 Baile Bhuirne to Macroom proposed road development since 2005. He stated his involvement in the road development commenced in 2001. He stated his brief of evidence would cover the elements of the road development: -

• The need for the road development. • Progression of preferred route. • Proposed road development. • Construction issues.

Mr. Cunningham stated the N22 was the National Primary Route running from Cork City to Killarney/Tralee. The existing N22 over the length of the proposed development comprises a single carriageway of varying width with hard shoulders along some of its length. He stated overtaking opportunities along the route were limited because of topography, traffic volumes and poor alignment of the road. He said NRA traffic accident statistics indicated four fatalities, 19 serious injuries and 91 minor injuries on the length of road in the period 2000 – 2008. He said accident rates remain very high along the corridor since then.

Mr. Cunningham stated that most notably west of Macroom, the N22 did not meet the requirements set out in the National Spatial Strategy and the National Development Plan. He stated there were limited public transport alternatives connecting Killarney to Cork with an indirect train service with connections in Mallow.

Mr. Cunningham said the proposed road was a type 2 dual carriageway described in Figure 5.2 of Volume 3 of the EIS. He referred to the removal of traffic from the urban centres including heavy goods vehicles along the route and stated that the current time was between 28 and 38 minutes. He stated that

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 246 Cork County Council

in 2027 the forecast was for this journey to be 42 minutes and with the proposed scheme in place, it would be 16 minutes which would indicate a saving of up to 26 minutes along that section of the route. He stated the proposed road development would improve driving conditions by providing improved vertical and horizontal route alignment, safer access and the advantages of having a divided carriageway which would reduce the risk of head-on collisions.

Mr. Cunningham stated that Macroom was the largest population currently trying to do business on a national route with a number less than 50 and that did not have a bypass.

Mr. Cunningham set out the main stages of the choice of the preferred route and described the constraints study which had its first non-statutory public consultation in January 2001. He noted that at that stage, the route was from Baile Bhuirne to Ovens.

Referring to the design stage and the land requirements for a CPO, Mr. Cunningham stated that a public exhibition was held in July 2006 in Macroom and a public display was held in January 2008 which modified the preferred route which avoided the Cascade Wood (south of chainage 1+800).

Mr. Cunningham outlined the processes of compilation of the EIS and in relation to alternatives, he referred to Figure 4.2 of the EIS where three routes were assessed: -

• Yellow Route. • Green Route. • Green Link Yellow.

He said the preferred route was the green route from the start to Baile Bhuirne and the yellow route from Baile Bhuirne to Macroom. He said the selection of the green route for the first two kilometres at the western end of the scheme was based on the inefficiencies associated with the required roundabout connection immediately west of Baile Bhuirne with all other factors being considered neutral. He said the yellow route from Baile Bhuirne to Macroom was preferred despite having greatest impacts on cultural heritage and this was because of its local capital cost, high benefit to cost ratio, lesser ecological impact and that the majority of properties affected already experienced impacts from the existing N22. He said it had a fewer A-Class river crossings and the lowest agricultural impact with a lesser impact on the rural setting.

Mr. Cunningham said that over 30 alternative route alignments were considered both within and outside the emerging preferred route corridor. He said most alternatives were entirely incorporated within the published preferred route corridor, but he noted that four key deviations which were shown in the appendix to his brief were located outside the corridor: -

• Deviation A – from the west end of the scheme for 4.5 kilometres involving six options to avoid Cascade Wood. This followed the

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 246 Cork County Council

designation of the wood as a cSAC as part of St. Gobnet’s Wood in September 2007.

• Deviation B – from chainage 6+700 to 7+060 which is 200 metres south and west of the emerging preferred route which resulted from assessing 10 options were reducing or avoiding impacts on the 1921 IRA Ambush Site at Cúil na Cathrach.

• Deviation C from chainage 15+240 to 15+500 is at the Gurteenroe or Mill Street Junction and this was to reduce property, landscape and ecological impacts.

• Deviation D at the end of the scheme from chainage 21+280 to the east end of the project. This is indicated to be required to reduce the cultural heritage, agricultural and socio-economic impacts.

Mr. Cunningham described the traffic volumes and summarised as follows: -

• West of Macroom on the N22 as 9,750 vehicles per day.

• R582 to Mill Street at the intersection with the N22 as in excess of 5,000 AADT.

• Traffic volumes on the N22 east of Macroom is 13,200 vehicles.

• Daily traffic volumes on the R618 Coachford Road east of Newbridge is over 3,000 vehicles.

• Daily average HGV proportion is given as 11.4%.

Mr. Cunningham described the current situation involving congestion, poor journey times and poor environment for shopping.

Mr. Cunningham stated the proposed road development would result in a large proportion of the forecast traffic transferring to the new road. He said the proposed road was forecast to carry between 11,100 and 11,500 vehicles per day by 2027 with the existing N22 carrying between 9,500 and 11,500 vehicles per day. He said the new road would carry about half the traffic in the corridor throughout its design life.

Mr. Cunningham said that traffic model was prepared prior to the downturn and he noted that the permanent NRA traffic counter at Baile Bhuirne had increased between 2005 and 2007, but decreased in 2008 and 2009. He said the overall growth on the corridor between 2005 and 2009 had been around

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 246 Cork County Council

10%. He said a sensitivity test on the scheme showed that the recent traffic reduction between 2007 and 2009 would have an insignificant affect on the overall traffic volumes forecast over the medium term. He stated that February 2010 indicated a growth of 6% over February 2009. (Noted that the reverse is true of January 2010).

Mr. Cunningham stated that the cross-section for the proposed road was based on a number of factors including: -

• Type 2 dual carriageway virtually eliminates head-on collisions and it was predicted over a 30-year period 137 fewer accidents would occur and would save additional lives over and above a single carriageway bypass.

• Cross-section widths are similar for both single and dual carriageway. (Single at 18.3 metres and dual at 21.5 metres). He noted climbing lanes would be required and a single carriageway for about 10 kilometres.

• Incremental environmental impacts and disproportionate at financial costs are involved in retrospectively upgrading a single carriageway to a dual carriageway.

• Dual carriageway cross-section provides improved journey times compared to a single carriageway.

• Dual carriageway cross-section manages access to the scheme safely in the format of compact grade-separated junctions.

Mr. Cunningham said a cost benefit analysis was carried out for different scenarios and he said under a high growth sensitivity test the benefits of having a dual carriageway cross-section over a do-nothing scenario would save around 674 accidents over a 30-year assessment period. He said under high growth scenario the benefit to cost ratio would be 3.19 over a 30-year assessment period. He said a low growth scenario was examined and the incremental benefit would drop to 2.9. He said a further test involved a conservation “low-low” traffic growth profile assuming a zero growth between 2009 and 2014 and this resulted in a benefit to cost ratio of 2.5 and would therefore represent good value for money. He noted that this issue was raised by An Bord Pleanála and by a third party submission.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 246 Cork County Council

He said the Cork CDP aimed to support initiatives to provide greater accessibility by bus between rural towns and villages with their hinterland. He said an hourly frequency route 40A bus operated through Macroom between Cork and Killarney. He noted that a higher frequency service with the route 40A and 233 combined operates during the morning to serve commuters from Macroom to Cork. Mr. Cunningham said there were no rail services through Macroom and the road development would benefit the Bus Eireann services to and from the towns and villages on the corridor. He said the new road would enhance economic competitiveness. He referred again to the benefits of the dual carriageway and noted that the land-take was a 1% difference and the costs at 10% difference between a dual carriageway over a single carriageway.

Mr. Cunningham said the economic downturn had impacted the completion of one development considered in Macroom and he said by testing the scheme against NRA growth rates, the analyses demonstrate that the developments in Macroom do not alter the conclusions drawn in the EIS. At this point Mr. Flanagan noted that the CPO land-take was 189 hectares. He noted also that in the brief of evidence at 5.2, there were two junctions at Baile Bhuirne and Coolcour and two compact grade-separated junctions at Tonn Láin and at Gurteenroe. He noted that the junctions were spaced at five kilometres, 11 kilometres and 5.5 kilometres along the route. It was noted that the brief of evidence included the description of the route which was divided up into 5.4 kilometres section from Baile Bhuirne to Tonn Láin, and eight kilometres from Tonn Láin to Carrigaphooca at 8.7 kilometres to Coolcour. In relation to Section 2 between Tonn Láin and Carrigaphooca, Mr. Cunningham said there were key elements as follows: -

• Grade-separated junction at Tonn Láin with the N22 and L3409 providing access to Baile Mhic Íre and Cill na Martra.

• The route crosses the 1921 IRA Ambush site and the existing N22 at the Cúil na Cathrach.

• The route crosses the Sullane Floodplain near Lynch’s Cross and a shallow embankment and flood compensation land is included as part of the road development.

• The road passing Carrigaphooca House and Castle is at an elevation and proximity similar to the existing N22.

Mr. Cunningham stated that a number of landowners were concerned that the road in a new area would give the possibility of vehicles stopping and accessing the back gardens of houses. He said the key point is that there is no hard shoulder for waiting traffic. He stated that the barrier that had been used was a wire rope.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 24 of 246 Cork County Council

In relation to road surfacing, Mr. Cunningham stated that the road surfacing would be designed in accordance with the NRA DMRB and that accommodation access tracks would be surfaced in accordance with the NRA Road Construction Detail/700/6. He said low noise surfacing would be provided throughout the entire mainline carriageway as part of the mitigation provision.

Mr. Cunningham described road lighting and stated this would be provided in the region of the grade-separated junctions and roundabouts. Mr. Cunningham said there were 18 road bridges including four river bridges and 24 accommodation underpasses, one accommodation overbridge and 12 culvert structures. He said boundary fencing would comprise a timber post and rail in general and mammal fencing would be provided where required. He said the road development crossed a number of watercourses, mainly the Sullane together with a number of smaller watercourses. He listed the four main proposed crossing: -

• Bohill River at Cappagh Bridge. • Foherish River at Carrigaphooca. • The River Laney its confluence with the Sullane River at Macroom. • Sullane River at Hartnett’s Cross.

In relation to disturbances to existing services, such as electricity, drinking water, wastewater and telecommunications, he said where such supplies were permanently affected if they would be restored or alternative supplies provided.

Mr. Cunningham said that in relation to material assets, fencing would be erected to delineate the site boundaries and prevent disturbance to adjacent lands. He said the CPO process included agreement on accommodation works as part of the statutory code for compensation for land acquisition.

Mr. Cunningham said that there would three residential properties acquired as part of the scheme and one occupied property at Gurteenroe (chainage 16+100) would be acquired and demolished while another occupied property would be acquired but not demolished at the Bohill River (chainage 1+800). He said one unoccupied property at chainage 1+850 is scheduled to be acquired and demolished. Mr. Cunningham said 35 residential properties would have their property access and/or boundary permanently changed as a result of the road development. He said a total of 189 hectares or 467 acres are included in the CPO for the construction, operation and maintenance of the

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 25 of 246 Cork County Council

road development. He said one commercial property at Gurteenroe is impacted by the proposed road development.

• Cluain Droichead Road – road realigned through the junction. • Tonn Láin Local Road – road is being diverted. • Two rights of way at one location in the townlands of Killaclug and Carrigaphooca. He said the existing public road was been taken through and under the dual carriage to a roundabout. At that point there were two rights of way and the existing local road and the former N22. • Ballyveerane local road is a case where there are two roads combined with 500 metres between them.

He said an Environmental Operating Plan (EOP) would be in place before the start of the construction and all works would be required to be undertaken in accordance with the EOP. He said normal working hours would be 0700 am to 0700 pm in the evening from Monday to Friday and 0800 am to 0430 pm on a Saturday. He said any changes to the working practices would require prior agreement with Cork County Council. Mr. Cunningham said independent checks and audits would be undertaken by Cork County Council and other statutory bodies to ensure compliance with the environmental operating plan.

Mr. Cunningham referred to construction traffic management and said there would be a requirement for the temporary control of traffic at plant crossings. He listed these as follows: -

• Slievereagh. • Cúil na Cathrach. • Carrigaphooca. • Coolcour.

He referred to Figure F in Appendix A of his brief of evidence to show the location of the plant crossings.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 26 of 246 Cork County Council

roads. He said only roads suitable for use by construction vehicles are permitted for hauling road and bridge building materials. He listed these in Figure F of the brief of evidence and these comprised the existing N22, the regional roads at Gurteenroe and Coachford and Lynch’s Cross at the Sullane Junction midway through the scheme. He said the use of the selected local road will result in a maximum distance of 5.3 kilometres along the scheme between access points.

Mr. Cunningham referred to the haulage materials and gave a summary: -

• Concrete – 3,500 loads. • Pavement – 23,000 loads. • Drainage stone – 8,200 loads. • Embankment – 11,900 loads.

Mr. Cunningham said the earthworks operation would be a major activity and he outlined some of the issues in relation to embankments and noted that filling operations would involve using bulldozers and vibrating rollers. He said suitable excavated materials are generally classified as being either rock or non-rock depending on the method of excavation required for the cuttings. He said approximately 165,000 m 3 of topsoil is required to be excavated of which 94,000 m 3 can be reused on the grass verges, side slopes and bunds. He said 2.4 m million 3 of fill material is required to form the road embankments. He said of the 2.7 million 3 of materials to be excavated from the site, 2.3 million m 3 would be available for use to form road embankments. He said approximately 500,000 m 3 of unsuitable material is being generated by the earthworks.

Also by way of summary, Mr. Cunningham said public transport would be improved between the gateway of Cork and the linked hub of Tralee-

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 27 of 246 Cork County Council

Killarney. He said the scheme was economically robust and an environmental operating plan would be developed to successfully implement the mitigation measures. He said the lands included in the CPO are necessary, sufficient and suitable for the construction, operation and maintenance of the scheme.

4.2.2 Mr. Stephen Pyatt gave direct evidence in relation to air quality as follows: - (Transcript, Day 1, Pages 91 – 100)

Mr . Pyatt stated that the proposed scheme had been assessed in relation to air quality for both construction and operational phases. He said the assessment was undertaken in accordance with NRA for the treatment of air quality during the planning and construction of national road schemes and the UK DMRB Air Quality Screening Model was used to model pollutants during the operational phase of the proposed scheme.

Mr. Pyatt said the existing ambient air quality was quantified by means of an extensive baseline air quality survey and a review of EPA long-term monitoring data. He said the impact of the proposed scheme and exposure to NO 2, carbon monoxide, benzene and PM 10 was determined. Modelling was performed at 17 receptors along the route and he referred to Figure 13.1 of the EIS.

Mr. Pyatt said the impact of nitrogen oxides and nitrogen deposition from the proposed scheme was determined using the DMRB Air Quality Model in relation to: -

• St. Gobnet’s Wood. • Cascade Wood. • Prohus Wood. • Mullaghanish and Musheramore Mountains.

Mr. Pyatt stated that air quality monitoring for NO2 using diffusion tubes was undertaken at 13 locations for three months in 2005 and the locations are in Figure 13.1 of the EIS. He said air quality monitoring was also undertaken for PM 10 in May 2005 with Site 1 located at a background location away from any major sources of pollutants and Site 2 at the town hall in Macroom. He said trends in NO 2 monitoring from EPA data between 2002 and 2008 show that there are no discernible changes in levels during those years. He said the results show that NO 2 levels are low in rural areas. He said the monitoring data was collected and converted to an equivalent annual average. He illustrated this on a figure ( Reference Fig. 01 ) which indicated NO 2 concentrations would be well below the AQSR Annual Average Concentrations of 40 micrograms/m 3. He noted the highest concentrations of 3 NO 2 at 29 micrograms/m was measured at Site 2 located close to the existing N22 in Macroom Town. He noted that in Figure 2 that PM 10 concentration

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 28 of 246 Cork County Council

were much lower than the AQSR. He stated the DMRB – Air Quality Modelling at the 17 worst-case sensitive receptors indicated that there would be no exceedences of the AQSR limit values.

Mr. Pyatt stated that along the existing N22, air quality concentrations would be reduced with the operation of the scheme and there would be a net improvement for 1,483 properties with deterioration for 266 properties. He stated that sensitive ecological sites had been identified by the ecologists along part of the proposed scheme and an assessment of the contributions of nutrient deposition and NO x concentrations associated with the N22 had been calculated.

He stated there no exceedences of the NO x standard for the protection of vegetation and the nutrient nitrogen deposition rate was also calculated to be well below the corresponding critical load values. He stated the maximum predicted nitrogen deposition rate reaches only 27% of the critical load at St. Gobnet’s Wood, Cascade Wood and Prohus Wood and 19% at Mullaghanish to Musheramore Mountains at the point closest to the N22. He stated that the road contributes less than 1% to the lower critical load at St. Gobnet’s Wood, Cascade Wood and Prohus Wood and less than 2% of the lower critical load at Mullaghanish to Musheramore Mountains.

Mr. Pyatt said that carbon emissions from the N22 scheme were calculated to increase by 12% from the do-nothing situation which is equivalent to an increase of 1,029 tonnes in the opening year. Mr. Pyatt said at the national level, the Department of Transport Policy Document entitled “Smarter Travel – Sustainable Transport Future” have outlined some key policy goals which would help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions including a 10% target for renewable transport by 2020.

Mr. Pyatt stated the impact of construction activities was primarily associated with dust deposition in relation to air quality. He included earth-moving, excavation, stock piling, mobile crushing plants and traffic movements. He listed possible dust mitigation measures which would be incorporated in an EOP. Measures include spraying, sweeping, location of stock piles, wind breaks and barriers. He also listed the location of crushing plants away from sensitive areas and the sheeting of vehicles carrying dust-generating materials. He also stated that use of vehicle wheelwash washes prior to leaving the site and dust monitoring in areas close to sensitive receptors would be carried out during construction.

Mr. Pyatt gave conclusion and stated that construction dust could potentially have a major impact on sensitive receptors within 100 metres of the route. He stated the modelling assessment indicated no exceedences of any of the ASQR limits at any sensitive receptor for the base year or in the do-nothing or do- something scenario. He stated that the greatest benefits would be along the existing N22 in relation to air quality, while there would be deterioration at the properties close to the proposed scheme. Mr. Pyatt said there are no exceedences in the NOx Standard for the protection of vegetation in any of the identified Designated Sites and the nutrient nitrogen deposition rate is

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 29 of 246 Cork County Council

calculated to be well below the critical load value for each of the Designated Sites. He stated that the quality of life would be improved in the urban centres of Macroom, Baile Mhic Íre and Baile Bhuirne as a result of improved air quality and reduction in traffic. In answer to Mr. Flanagan, Mr. Pyatt stated that in Appendix 7 there was some text changed in the assessment, but the tables were not copied down correctly.

4.2.3 Mr. Mervyn Keegan gave direct evidence in relation to noise and vibration impact assessment as follows: - (Transcript, Day 1, Pages 101 – 122)

Mr. Keegan stated of the assessment included: -

• Baseline noise survey along the road development under consideration. • Assessment of the potential for construction noise and vibration impacts. • Assessment of the potential operational noise and vibration impacts. • Proposed mitigation measures.

He said the mitigation measures were in order to aim to achieve the NRA Design Goal and to avoid or mitigate the adverse construction and operational noise impacts identified.

Mr. Pyatt referred to various parts of the EIS including Section 3.10 of Volume 1, Chapter 14 in Volume 2 including Figure 14.1. He also referred to Technical Report No. 10 which is in Volume 4B of the EIS.

Mr. Keegan stated the assessment was carried in accordance with the methodology outlined in the NRA Guidelines for the treatment of noise and vibration in national road schemes dated October 2004. The baseline noise survey also followed the recommendations outlined in ISO 1996 Description and Measurement of Environment Noise. Construction noise was based on NRA Guidelines and BS 5228.

Mr. Keegan referred to the noise modelling software (Cadna_A) and the UK Department of Transport CRTN Calculation Methodology.

In relation to the baseline assessment, Mr. Keegan stated there was a series of attended 15-minute and unattended 24-hour baseline surveys at 50 locations in April 2005. He said these were repeated at 18 locations in March 2007 and additional noise monitoring was carried out at six locations on the western end of the road development in May 2008. In April 2010, baseline noise monitoring surveys were repeated. He referred to Figure 14.1 noise location maps 1-13 in Volume 3. It was clarified to the Inspector that the numbering on those maps ran firstly from east to west for numbers referenced 1-57 and later numbers arose from new locations chosen during the subsequent assessment.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 30 of 246 Cork County Council

Mr. Keegan set out the potential effects and mitigation proposals during construction and stated there would be an estimated maximum duration of impact of six to nine months at any one location. He said that varying degrees of overburden removal, including rock breaking would be required in a number of cut sections on the road development. He referred to the NRA Guidance Document which required a daytime noise limit of 70dB laeq and weekday evening noise limit of 60dB laeq . He said a pre-condition survey would be conducted at all properties within 250 metres of the proposed road development and that the public would be notified before any blasting started. Mr. Keegan said vibration limits would be limited to the guideline limit values outlined in Technical Report No. 10 which is specified in the NRA Document. He gave the locations where blasting is proposed as follows: -

• A – chainage 1+000 – 1+500 – Sliabh Riabhach Townland. • B – chainage 2+200 – 2+400 – Cheapach Thiar Townland. • C – chainage 3+600 – 3+700 – Cheapach Thior Townland. • D – chainage 12+500 – 12+680 – Carrigaphooca Townland. • E – chainage 14+400 – 14+700 – Clonfadda Townland. • F – chainage 15+450 – 15+700 – Teerbeg Townland. • G – chainage 16+180 – 17+200 – Gurteenroe Townland. • H – chainage 18+450 – 18+700 – Coolyhane Townland.

Mr. Keegan said property condition surveys would be undertaken in relation to all buildings located within 100 metres of the road development.

He explained the NRA Guidelines in relation to the L den noise parameter and the three criteria that required to be present before mitigation would be required.

Mr. Keegan said there would be a positive impact through the reduction in ambient noise levels in many locations. He said this would particularly be for locations in close proximity to the existing N22. He said noise level predictions were calculated at 162 receiver locations in the vicinity of the road development in the design year of 2027, a total of 98 properties would experience a reduction in noise levels as a result of the proposed road development.

Mr. Keegan said that based on the NRA criteria for mitigation, a total of 17 locations required noise reductive measures and in conjunction with the use of low noise road surfacing, this resulted in the requirement for 16 noise barriers to be placed along the road alignment. He said some of the proposed noise barriers along the road are slightly inaccurately represented in Table 14.2 in the Noise and Vibration Chapter of the EIS when compared with that in the noise model and correctly presented in Figure 14.1 Noise Location maps 1-13.

In relation to the difference between table and the drawing, Mr. Keegan stated that the difference was that in one case a barrier was given in the table as being 100 metres long, but in actual fact is was a 90 metre long barrier. He told Mr. Flanagan that there was no particular location where the barriers would be longer than previously anticipated.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 31 of 246 Cork County Council

Specific reference was made to property reference N9 at chainage 19+300 which is east of Macroom and in this case the noise level would be less than 3dB above the NRA design goal and could be described as barely perceptible and negligible in terms of a subjective response. He referred to property N48 at chainage 4+000 and he said this would be less than 1dB above the NRA design goal criteria. He told Mr. Flanagan that there was a balance between having high barriers at the locations and the benefit of the height of the barriers.

Mr. Keegan by way of conclusion stated that the potential for the road development to cause temporary construction phase noise and vibration impacts would be mitigated by implementing good construction practice. He said a significant positive impact would be a diversion of traffic away from the existing N22. He said an increase in noise level would be experienced at 64 of the 162 properties assessed in close proximity to the road development. He said appropriate mitigation would ensure compliance with the NRA design criteria where practicable. There are two properties where it is not practicable to meet the NRA design criteria. He said a total of 17 locations requiring noise reductive measures were identified and this resulted in a requirement for 16 noise barriers.

4.2.4 Mr. Paul McEwen gave direct evidence in relation to Geology and Hydrogeology as follows: - (Transcript, Day 1, Pages 123-138)

Mr. McEwen stated that the topographic elevation increases along the Sullane River from less than 70 m OD in the southeast at Coolcour to an excess of 170 m OD at the tie-in with existing N22 northwest of Baile Bhuirne. He said areas of high ground and steep slopes are generally characterised by the presence of rocky outcrops and where not visible, rock is expected to be close to the surface. He said the depth of overburden typically increases as elevation decreases.

Mr. McEwen described the drift deposits as being a light to dark brown, slightly sandy to sandy silt. He said that was overlying a loose to dense green, grey and purple sub-angular to rounded gravel with bands of sand with frequent angular and rounded cobbles and boulders.

In relation to Solid Geology, Mr. McEwen referred to Figures 16.1 and 16.2 of Volume 3 of the EIS which describes the various formations and he said the area was highly faulted and the route passes through 17 identified faults that run generally perpendicular to the route corridor. He said that the western end of the route the solid geology is of a Birdhill formation which comprises purple silt stone and fine sandstone. He described the changes from west to east and at the extremity he said it was Waulsortian limestone which comprises massive un-bedded limestone.

Mr. McEwen said the silt stone and sandstone in the western section of the corridor protrudes from the ground forming large rocky outcrops and towards

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 32 of 246 Cork County Council

the eastern end, the topography is increasingly characterised by undulating farmland, although outcropping is still visible.

Mr. McEwen made reference to aquifer designations in relation to hydrogeology and said the distribution of aquifer designations reflect the sub- surface solid geology with the area of poor aquifer correlating with surface outcrop of the Caha Mountain formation and Birdhill formation and the area of locally important aquifer correlating with the Gunpoint formation and Gortanimill formation. He noted the out layer of Waulsortian limestone forms a small area of regionally important aquifer.

Mr. McEwen said the water-table was likely to follow the topography with groundwater flow tending from high ground to valley bottoms. Mr. McEwen stated that he undertook a site walkover of the corridor in 2004 and 2007 and took records of rock outcrops and any significant in-situ ground exposures. He said ground investigations were undertaken in two phases in 2005 and 2008. He said phase 1 was along the entire length of the development and phase 2 was required due to alterations in route alignment in the area around Cascade Wood and the Ambush Site at Cúil na Cathrach. He said the work consisted of a total of 68 boreholes, progressed using cable percussion methods. He said 29 of the phase boreholes were progressed using rotary open hole and coring techniques as well as 19 of the phase 2 boreholes. He said 105 trial pits were excavated and sampled and logged in accordance with BS5930:1999 “Code of Practice for Site Investigation”.

Mr. McEwen said dynamic probe testing was undertaken at 40 locations and a total of 33 stand pipes were installed and monitored to determine the groundwater levels along the proposed route. He said scan line logging was undertaken to determine the characteristics of three prominent rock outcrops to enable assessment of the materials ability to be excavated. He said the geophysical survey of the route between chainage 0+320 and 1+400 metres and chainage 3+000 to 4+500 was undertaken to determine the depth of overburden and the interpreted strength of bedrock.

Mr. McEwen described the ground conditions identified in the boreholes and trial pits as follows: -

• Topsoil generally comprising dark brown slightly sandy to sandy silt. • Gravel generally comprising loose to dense green, grey and purple sub- angular to rounded gravel with bands of sand. • In-situ test results indicate loose to very dense conditions. He said standard penetration number (SPTN) ranged from 5 to an excess of 50. • Bedrock generally comprised grey-green, blue-green and yellow-brown sandstone and purple silt stone. Rock dipping at an angle of approximately 60 to 80 degrees and bedrock ranges in strength from moderately weak to strong.

Mr. McEwen said the preliminary ground investigation indicated a highly variable depth of overburden from less one metre to in excess of 12 metres along the floodplain of the River Sullane.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 33 of 246 Cork County Council

Mr. McEwen stated that the sandstone and silt stone deposits are overlain by dense sand and gravels, but there were areas of structurally poor soil associated with the watercourses. He said major structures would need to be constructed using a mixture of spread foundations and reinforced concrete bored piles. He said in general, 80-90% of the sand and gravel deposits would be suitable for use as a granular fill once suitably processed. He said the soft clays and peat deposits would not be acceptable for re-use as an embankment fill material.

Mr. McEwen said hydrogeological impacts could potentially affect the groundwater supplies where cuttings intercept the groundwater table. He said the maximum depth of the deepest cutting is 25 metres and the highest embankment is 12 metres. Mr. McEwen said the total cut volume from the scheme is 2.3 million m 3 and the total volume of fill is 2.4 million m 3. He said this equates to a potential shortfall of material of approximately 100,000 m 3. He said suitable material would need to be imported in order to make up the shortfall.

Mr. McEwen stated that in relation to structural geology, the composition of the bedrock where geological faults occur may have implications for slope stability. He said soil infill within structurally weak material within fractured zones may have occurred. He said the major influence of faulting within the bedrock has the potential for increased groundwater flow through secondary permeability from the connectivity of discontinuities. He noted that the former Shanakill landfill is outside the route corridor and as the road is on embankment at that point, the landfill site or the road development would not be affected. He noted the potential for contaminants from the former Macroom Iron Foundry being released from soils, but this was not anticipated as a result of the development as the road is to be constructed on embankment and the existing conditions would remain unchanged.

Mr. McEwen said that any material disposed of would be taken to the appropriate waste management facility and impacts on water supply could be mitigated by providing an alternative source of water. Mr. McEwen stated that pollutants deposited on the roadway from vehicle components are subsequently dispersed by air or spray to soils. He said soil pollutants associated with de-icing salt are principally sodium and chloride, but copper, chromium, manganese and nickel are found in de-icing salt in trace quantities. He said the highest concentrations of traffic-derived metals are generally found in the top layers of the soil but they would generally be contained within the road drainage system. He concluded that ground contamination from those sources would be considered to have a minor adverse impact on geology. He said the affects would be concentrated within the scheme boundary.

Mr. McEwen by way of conclusion stated the overall environmental value of the various geological attributes within the study area is considered low and the magnitude of impact or degree of change would be negligible. He said the overall significance of the scheme on geology is considered to be neutral.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 34 of 246 Cork County Council

He said if there was disruption to local groundwater supplies, there would be alternative supply arranged by way of deepening wells, replacement boreholes or connection to main supply. He said monitoring of water supplies would be carried out before, during, and after construction. He said there were no areas of known contamination within the route corridor. He noted the outlier of Waulsortian limestone forms a small area of regionally important aquifer (at the east end of the scheme). He said there would be no reduction in the depth of overburden in the area, as the route passes over on embankment.

In relation to the potential contamination of shallow surface soils, he said attenuation ponds would minimise or eliminate the impact. He said due to the slight adverse impact and taking mitigation into account, the significance of operational affects on the scheme in relation to geology and soils is assessed as neutral.

4.2.5 Mr. Neil Evans gave direct evidence in relation to Surface Water Quality and Drainage as follows: - (Transcript, Day 1, Pages 137 – 168)

Mr. Evans brief of evidence is tabbed LA05 . He listed the principal surface water bodies in the vicinity of the road development: -

• Sullane River and its tributaries. • River Laney. • Foherish River. • Bohill River. • Owengarve River. • Carrigadrohid Reservoir.

He said the proposed road development crossed the watercourses and four main crossings: -

• Sullane River at Hartnett’s Cross. • River Laney near its confluence with the Sullane River at Macroom. • Foherish River at Carrigaphooca. • Bohill River at Cappagh Bridge (north of Baile Bhuirne).

Mr. Evans said the proposed road development crosses the Sullane River floodplain near Carrigaphooca and between Laney Bridge and Hartnett’s Cross. He said it also crosses the Sullane Delta where it meets Carrigadrohid Reservoir.

Mr. Evans referred to water quality and the EPA data from 1994 – 2008. He stated biological water quality surveys were undertaken on the main watercourses between September 2004 and July 2008. He said the data was compared with criteria set out in the EC Freshwater Fisheries Directive and the Local Government Water Pollution Act. He said it was also reviewed

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 35 of 246 Cork County Council

against the requirements of the updated guidance document in HD45/09 of the UK DMRB.

Mr. Evans stated that HECRAS Models were constructed in relation to: -

• Sullane River from Macroom to Carrigadrohid Reservoir, including the River Laney.

• Sullane River from Inchinahoury to Inchibrackane, including the Foherish River.

• Bohill River in the vicinity of Cappagh Bridge.

• Owengarve River in the vicinity of Colthurst Bridge.

He said the models were used to identify baseline flooding during the one in one hundred design flood event. He said a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) was undertaken and a report produced. He said calibration of the models was achieved by a comprehensive assessment of the November 2009 flooding, including analysis and recorded catchment rainfall, recorded flood levels and anecdotal information on flood events. He said reference was also made to the 2010 Draft River Lee Catchment Flood Risk Assessment and Management Study.

In relation to water quality, Mr. Evans said none of the watercourses crossed by the proposed road development are designated as salmonid watercourses. He listed the characteristics of the rivers as follows: -

• Sullane River – recreational uses and potable water supply for Macroom, also a receiving watercourse for wastewater effluent. EPA monitoring indicated that it good to fair water quality and provides habitat for the freshwater pearl mussel. Rated as having high sensitivity to change.

• River Laney – supports good stocks of brown trout and provides habitat for the freshwater pearl mussel. No significant abstractions from or discharges to the river. High sensitivity to change and good to fair water quality.

• Foherish River – minor fishery for brown trout and provides habitat for the freshwater pearl mussel. It receives effluent discharges from the Clondrohid Wastewater Treatment Works and the Clondrohid Creamery. It records good to fair water quality and is considered to have high sensitivity to change.

• Bohill and Owengarve Rivers – not routinely monitored, but assumed to have favourable baseline water quality status as it drains into the Sullane River. Both rivers considered to be of medium sensitivity.

• Carrigadrohid Reservoir – commissioned in 1957 for electricity generation and used for potable water supply to Cork, for flood storage ______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 36 of 246 Cork County Council

and attenuation and for recreation. EPA monitoring is carried out regularly and in recent years it is stated that there has been a marked and progressive reduction in phosphorous concentrations and algal growth, leading to a general improvement in water quality.

• Smaller watercourses – biological water quality surveys indicate favourable baseline water quality. Noted that there is no existing formal road drainage system on the N22 between Baile Bhuirne and Coolcour.

Mr. Evans described the hydrology and hydraulics of the various rivers commencing with the Sullane River – catchment 320 km 2. Relatively extensive floodplain between Lynch’s Crossroads and Macroom. Mr. Evans said the significant flooding from the river had been experienced in 1986 and in November 2009. He said areas reported to be badly affected in both events include Baile Bhuirne to Baile Mhic Íre and the Massytown area of Macroom, with some properties and extensive of agricultural land inundated, as well as parts of the existing N22 and local roads made temporarily impassable in those areas and around Sullane Bridge.

Mr. Evans stated the studies identified the extent of baseline flooding from the Sullane River and he submitted three additional figures indicating the one in one hundred floodplain mapping which supersede the figures 10.2 (Sheets 1-3) of the EIS. Mr. Evans outlined on the maps the extent of the flooding and the impact. He said the floodplain was predominantly agricultural land, but commercial premises and residential properties in Massytown, close to Macroom Bridge are identified as being at risk of flooding one – in – one hundred year event as is the Macroom Wastewater Treatment Works.

Mr. Evans stated that the River Laney would be crossed by the proposed road development in its lower catchment where peak flood water levels were controlled by the water level in the Sullane River. He referred to the specific model and to Appendix 1, Figure 1 of his brief of evidence which confirmed that no properties or premises are considered to be at risk of fluvial flooding in a 1 –in - 100 year event.

Mr. Evans stated that the Foherish, Bohill and Owengarve Rivers would be crossed by the proposed road development. He said the crossings would be in steep sections of generally incised river channel where flood flows are largely retained in-bank and floodplain is limited. He referred to the models prepared and that this confirmed that no properties or premises were considered to be at risk of flooding in a one in one hundred year event. He said the sensitivity of the rivers in terms of hydrology and flood risk was considered to be low.

In relation to the smaller watercourses, he noted there were streams crossed by the proposed road development at Gurteenroe and Kilnagurteen.

Mr. Evans referred to the assessment of the potential affects and the mitigation proposals during the construction phase. He said construction works had potential to cause contamination of adjacent water bodies. He said if an

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 37 of 246 Cork County Council

incident were to occur, there would be potential for major adverse impact on the rivers. He listed a number of measures which would include: -

• Provision of spill kits. • Minimisation of sedimentation by timing and sequencing of construction activities. • Attenuation of surface water discharge using swales, filter drains and ponds. • Monitoring of water quality. • Appropriate positioning of fuel storage facilities and use of bunds.

Mr. Evans stated that the implementation of mitigation measures would be in the EOP and regard would be given to guidance from the Inland Fisheries.

The impacts on hydrology and hydraulics were described as including: - • Potential exacerbation of flooding to areas adjacent to the construction site. • Potential increases in surface water runoff.

Mr. Evans said that all works carried out on or near watercourses would be undertaken in accordance with National Guidelines for Crossing Watercourses during road construction.

Mr. Evans referred to the assessment of potential affects and mitigation proposals during the operational phase. He said pollution impacts on receiving waters from road runoff appear to be primarily restricted to roads carrying more than 30,000 AADT. Mr. Evans said the predicted traffic flows on the proposed road development were considerably below that threshold and the proposed drainage would achieve a significant degree of runoff treatment. He said 17 attenuation ponds are located along the proposed road development and these would also serve to provide a primary treatment. He said the overall impact was expected to be beneficial. He said petrol and oil separators would be used at high risk accident locations such as junctions and roundabouts. He said attenuation ponds would be designed with an inherent component of storage for emergency spill containment.

Mr. Evans stated that where new in-stream structures were constructed, sufficient capacity would be provided to convey flood flows. In relation to culverts, he stated that OPW requirements required these to be sized for the 1- in-100 year flow. Where fish passage is required, the invert would be 500 millimetres below the elevation of the natural stream bed and if fish passage was not required, the invert would be at least 150 millimetres below the stream bed to encourage the re-establishment of stream bed ecology and to reduce the likelihood of scour under the culvert barrel. He said a minimum culvert size of 900 millimetres had been adopted and he said mammal passage facilities would be by either internal ledges or a second pipe installed adjacent to the main culvert with a minimum diameter of 600 millimetres.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 38 of 246 Cork County Council

Mr. Evans stated that road drainage discharges would be designed to contain the flow generated during a 1-in 50 year storm. He said on some of the route, attenuation in surface water flows would be achieved by providing low gradient swales.

Mr. Evans described the river and floodplain crossings on the four rivers and noted that in all cases, the abutments would be set back a minimum of five metres and a minimum clearance of 300 millimetres would exist between the predicted 1-in 100 hundred year flood level with the proposed road development in place and the underside of each bridge deck.

• Sullane River Crossing – two-span bridge with each span of 48 metres long. Approach embankment to be sized to provide a total additional waterway opening cross-section of 120 metres. The crossing of the Sullane floodplain between Laney Bridge and Hartnett’s Cross would result in a negligible increase in the 1-in-100 hundred year flood levels of up to six centimetres for 400 metres upstream of the new Sullane crossing. Mr. Evans said the increase is well within the OPW requirement of 30 cm for heading up at structures where no buildings are at risk. He said there was a localised and negligible increase of four centimetres in predicted flood levels immediately upstream of the existing Sullane Bridge (New Bridge) as a result of encroachment of the embankment down to the left hand floodplain. He said from that point upstream to the Laney confluence there was a negligible reduction in flood level of 3 cm.

• Carrigadrohid Reservoir Crossing – from Hartnett’s Cross to Coolcour the proposed road development crosses the Sullane Delta where it meets the Carrigadrohid Reservoir. Mr. Evans stated that it was only relatively infrequently that reservoir levels approach their maximum normal operating levels. He said two large culverts would be provided through the embankment at a location close to the roundabout to facilitate the passage of water in both directions. He said there would be no loss in storage in the reservoir and the embankment would displace approximately 18,000 m 3 out of a total capacity of around 10 million m 3 and this represented less than 0.2% of the volume. He said it would translate to an imperceptible increase in water level across the reservoir of just a few millimetres. Mr. Evans said this would have no affect on water supply or of any of the other uses of the reservoir. He said the Draft Lee Catchment Flood Risk Assessment recommended a range of flood alleviation options for the Lee Catchment including potential revision of the operating rules of the reservoir such to the reservoir levels are maintained lower than currently.

• River Laney Crossing – proposal to cross with a single 45-metre clear span bridge. Mr. Evans said as the bridge would be located immediately downstream of an existing and smaller capacity road bridge, the river floodplain of the area is constrained and there would be a negligible impact on flood levels which he put at three centimetres reducing to zero within 50 metres upstream of the bridge. The increase is described as

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 39 of 246 Cork County Council

being within the OPW requirement of 10 centimetres for heading up at structures in the vicinity of commercial property.

• Sullane River Floodplain – proposed road development impinges slightly on the Sullane River Floodplain at Inchinahoury where it runs closest to the river. Negligible increase in 1-in-100 year flood level of up to five centimetres predicted over 100 metre stretch immediately downstream of the Sullane Bridge. Mr. Evans had two compensation flood storage areas would be created and these would be located in CPO land that does not currently flood. This land would be lowered slightly from existing ground levels to provide additional flood storage at the same elevation at which it is lost. Mr. Evans said it was proposed to provide 50% more storage in that area and this would provide betterment by marginally lowering existing flood levels in the immediate area.

• Foherish River Crossing – proposal to cross by a single 43 metre clear span bridge. Mr. Evans said there would be a minor and very localised increase in flood levels immediately upstream of the crossing and within OPW requirements.

• Bohill River Crossing – proposal to cross by 106 metre two span bridge. Mr. Evans said the river had a double meander at the crossing location and the channel would be clear spanned, with a central pier located between the meanders and not in the channel. He said the floodplain is very limited at this location and the model had demonstrated that there would be no impact on flood levels as a result of the crossing.

• Owengarve River Diversio n – proposal is to divert a 200-metre length of the Owengarve River at Derrynasaggart. Mr. Evans said the new river alignment would be located approximately five to 15 metres to the south of the existing and would be designed to replicate the dimensions and hydraulic properties of the existing channel, with the same gradient, width, wet perimeter and velocities. Mr. Evans said due to the steep, incised nature of the channel, flooding is constrained and minor out-of-bank storage would remain within CPO lands.

Mr. Evans said that in line with OPW Guidance, a 20% allowance in peak flows and varying of time-to-peak and percentage runoff parameters as appropriate. Mr. Evans said that increases in flood levels as a result of climate change in the vicinity of all the bridge crossings were predicted to range between 0.2 and 0.5 metres and in all cases there was no change in the predicted impacts of zero or negligible water level increases predicted as a result of the development. He said bridge crossings would be provided with a minimum free board of 300 mm above predicted one-in-one hundred year plus climate change flood water levels.

Mr. Evans said that all culverts had been sized with sufficient capacity to pass the 1-in100 year design flow with additional 20% climate change allowance.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 40 of 246 Cork County Council

Mr. Evans said in conclusion there would be a minor beneficial impact on surface water quality during the operational phase and flood risk in receiving waters would not increase. He said flood risk impacts associated with culvert crossings were localised and minor and with OPW requirements and no properties or infrastructure would be affected. He said bridge crossings and encroachment of the road embankment on the floodplain would result in negligible impact in terms of flood risk and in some areas would result in betterment. He said there were allowances made for climate change and in his opinion, the design and mitigation of the proposed road development would result in an insignificant impact on the surface water environment.

Regarding his brief of evidence, Mr. Evans confirmed to Mr. Flanagan that following the flooding events of November 2009, a lot of information had been collected and consultation with local landowners had taken place. He said the information had improved the assessment and they now had a higher and more accurate assessment as a result of that. He confirmed that the sheets supplied with the brief now superseded those that were returned to An Bord Pleanála in March 2010. Mr. Evans confirmed to the Inspector that where there were differences in the maps, the areas were slightly bigger and there was not a lot of change on some of the maps and no change on one of them. In particular, Mr. Evans said that Sheet 2 of his maps had not a great deal of change and there was no change on the Foherish River.

At this point it was confirmed to Mr. Sweetman following a number of questions, that the information submitted by Cork County Council to the Board included the applications for a license for the disturbance of Kerry slugs and the drainage update maps. Mr. Flanagan confirmed that a request from the Board was the 20 th January which asked for clarification regarding derogation licenses.

4.2.6 Mr. Tim Carter gave direct evidence to the hearing in relation to landscape visual aspects as follows: - (Transcript, Day 1, Pages 222 – 248)

Mr. Carter read from his brief of evidence and this is tabbed LA06 . He said the method of assessment used are based on those described in the UK DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 5 covering landscape effects and also the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. He said baseline studies were undertaken: -

Landscape Character Appraisal – Visual receptors were considered using the results of a field survey. Mr. Carter said full details of the methodology and significance criteria are set out in Volume 4 of the EIS in Appendix 5.1. He said the landscape character for the scheme corridor is described in the landscape character assessment from the CDP 2009. He referenced Volume 1, Section 7.2 and the map within Volume 3, landscape character map of January 2009. He said that plan identified 16 distinct landscape types and 76 separate landscape character areas within Cork County.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 41 of 246 Cork County Council

He said essentially the road development passes through an agricultural landscape and distinct landscape types have been identified based upon changes in elevation and landform. He said landscape types and character areas are described and evaluated in detail in Volume 4 of the EIS, Appendix 5.2. In relation to the baseline assessment, he said the route passes through three different landscape character areas including: -

• Area 23 – Baile Bhuirne – composite middle valley of rugged scrub and marginal land. • Area 64 – Macroom – broad middle valley of semi-rugged mosaic hills and rock outcrop. • Area 56 – the Lee Reservoir – rolling patchwork hills and lake.

He said they were identified as being of the following landscape types: -

• Type 12 – rolling marginal middle ground. • Type 13 – valleyed marginal middle ground. • Type 8 – hilly river and reservoir valleys.

Mr. Carter said the road development passed through primarily an agricultural landscape with strong field patterns, and well developed hedgerows forming most field boundaries. He said most fields are used for livestock, grazing or dairy farming.

Mr. Carter said rock outcrops commonly occur throughout the western part of the route between Baile Bhuirne and Carrigaphooca which restricts agricultural operation. He said in places along the Sullane Valley, hedgerows have been removed to increase field size. He said small blocks of woodland and forestry plantations are commonly found on sloping or rocky ground. He said on the higher ground to the north of Baile Bhuirne the well-defined field pattern gives way to open pasture and upland grassland.

Mr. Carter said the corridor of the proposed road development was divided into its representative landscape types and character areas based upon the results of walkover survey, aerial photographs and visual analyses. He said the different local landscape character types are shown in Figure 9.1 of the EIS and described in detail in Volume 4. He said the existing night-time landscape is characterised by linear settlements with generally isolated point sources of light rather than significant areas of visible sky-glow with the exception of the town of Macroom. He said the general night-time character of the study corridor is of an intrinsically dark rural landscape.

Mr. Carter said an area west of Macroom between Codrum and Carrigaphooca and stretching north to Glebe and south of the Sullane River has been designated as scenic landscape. He said the hillside rising to the south of Macroom was also a scenic area.

He said the existing N22 passes close to the proposed NHA at Prohus Wood and encompasses natural woodland at Inchinahoury and the designations cover

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 42 of 246 Cork County Council

nationally important habitats, landforms, geo-morphologic features and wild plant and animal species or a combination of those attributes.

Mr. Carter said two designated scenic routes exist within the study corridor and these are the N22 (S23) leading between the Codrum Crossroads through to Baile Bhuirne and beyond and also the road that leads off the N22 at Lissacressig heading south (S26).

Mr. Carter referred to the assessment of potential affects and the nature of landscape character affects as follows: -

• Hedgerow/hedge banks – the proposed road development would cause severance of the enclosures patterns throughout its length. • Trees/woodland – trees in small areas of woodlands would need to be removed. • Landform – the most severe landscape impacts would result from sections of the road on major embankments or in deep cuttings. • Cultural heritage features – new road would have potential affect on the setting of the features. • Other features including watercourses, rock outcrops and stone walls – loss or potential impact upon each of the features would have some level of landscape impact.

He said the requirement for signs, lighting columns etc. would introduce urban elements into what is currently a rural landscape setting. At night he said lighting would impact upon the intrinsic qualities of landscape character areas. He noted the improvement resulting from the removal of traffic from the settlements on the route.

Mr. Carter described the nature of visual impacts which he said would occur as a result of changes in the nature of existing views. He described the mitigation proposals as including avoidance and minimisation of the height of embankments and also the depth of cuttings. He said landscape planting was used where it was not possible to remove an impact by horizontal or vertical alignment of the route. He referred to Figure 9.3 and Volume 4, Technical Report No. 5 for details of landscape mitigation. He referred also to Appendix 1 of his brief of evidence.

Mr. Carter said the proposed road development would have its most significant impact on landscape character where it passes through areas of good to highest landscape value and where it is in deep cutting or high embankment. He listed five key areas where there would be significant impact and these were as follows: -

1. Sliabh Riabhach enclosed pasture – chainage minus 500 to + 1+850. Reference aerial photo 1 – impact of new grade-separated junction. Ridge pasture is quite apparent in long-distance views and the depth of cutting across an Sliabh Riabhach ridge would form a large landscape feature which would create a significant change in the existing rural landscape character.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 43 of 246 Cork County Council

2. Chainage 1+850 – 2+ 910 – Baile Bhuirne open pasture. This is the area just to the north and west of Baile Bhuirne with Cascade Wood in the middle distance on the photo. Mr. Carter said the area was predominantly open pasture. He said it would be passing through a section of intrinsically small rural landscape of woodland pockets, rock outcrops and small pasture areas within parts of the character area. He said the scale of the road development at that point would be greater than existing elements within the area and it would be considered to be significantly detrimental to the rural quality of the area.

3. Chainage 5+500 – 9+500 – Cúil na Cathrach open pasture. Mr. Carter said this was the area of the ambush site and the road development would impact on an area of relatively undisturbed rocky outcrops and he noted the area between the two roads namely the existing N22 and the smaller local access, both of which were on the photograph.

4. Chainage 19+450 – 20+200 – Macroom lowland pasture. Mr. Carter described the River Sullane and the bridge in the foreground of the photograph and the floodplain area. He said through that the area the road development would impact upon narrow corridor of rural low-lying pasture immediately adjacent to the Sullane River, in close proximity to Bealick Mill.

5. Chainage 20+200 – 21+800 – Sullane River floodplain. Mr. Carter said this covers most of the eastern end of scheme and the road development would pass through local landscape character areas where the impact of the scale of the road development would be most detrimental. He said it was a very flat landscape.

Mr. Carter said that only five areas were potentially being affected to a significant degree. A further four areas would experience a moderate to significant impact. He listed these: -

1. Chainage 2+850 – 5+500 – Baile Mhic Íre pasture – road development would pass through a prominent ridgeline above Baile Mhic Íre on embankment and in deep cutting. 2. Chainage 13+000 – 13+780 (aerial photo 6). Mr. Carter said the image was of Carrigaphooca Ridge and was a view west along the existing N22. He indicated Carrigaphooca House where the road development would impact upon a distinctly vegetated rocky outcrop ridgeline in the foreground of the photograph. 3. Chainage 13+780 – 16+150 – Teerbeg and Codrum enclosed pasture where the road development would impact upon an area designated as scenic landscape. 4. Chainage 16+150 – 17+750 – Masseytown ridge pasture and Kilnagurteen open pasture – road development will impact upon the broad ridgeline and views of the ridge with a rural and historic farming landscape.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 44 of 246 Cork County Council

Mr. Carter said the proposed road development would also have a moderate adverse landscape impact upon the foothills of the Deerynasaggart and on Sliabh Riabhach ridges and the Inchilinane lowland pasture and the Macroom and Baileverran enclosed pasture.

Mr. Carter said the landscape setting of a list of sites shown on Figure 12.1 would be affected by the proposed road. He said in addition to the written and photographic recording, landscape planting would be provided at sites AH4 – Ringfort; AH21 – Carrigaphooca Castle; AH22 – Carrigaphooca Stone Circle; AH29 – Mount Massey House and BH28 – Carrigaphooca House with the planting to screen the road and preserve their landscape setting.

Mr. Carter referred to the photomontages covering year 1 and year 15 which were in Appendix 3 of his brief of evidence. He referred to the view from Carrigaphooca Castle and he said only a short section of the proposed road would be visible from the castle and it was important to note that the existing N22 can currently be seen in views from the door or top of the castle. He said views of the proposed road from Carrigaphooca House would not be available due to the screening provided by mature trees within the garden of the property and the relative position of the proposed road.

He said photomontages had been prepared to show the impact of the proposed road on the IRA Ambush Site (CH2) for years 1 and 15. He indicated one view from the location of the existing ambush memorial looking west towards the crossing of the new road and other view (Figure 4) showed the view from gun position no. 2 looking east. Copies of the photomontages were included and submitted to the hearing.

Mr. Carter referred to Section 4.20 of his brief of evidence and he stated the secondary landscape impacts from proposed noise mitigation have been minimised by the use of low noise road surfacing on the main line through which 16 additional noise barriers have been avoided. He said the height of barriers has been limited to 2.75 metres.

Mr. Carter said the proposed road development would have its highest levels of adverse visual impact on views from residential properties. He said it would be visible from properties on the hillside to the north of Macroom and from properties on the northern edge of the town. He there would also be available from properties around and within Baile Mhic Íre. He said more distant views would be seen from scattered and generally isolated properties and a number of relatively small settlements. He said new planting as mitigation would reduce the impact of proposals.

Mr. Carter said the visibility schedules in Volume 4A of the EIS (Appendix 5.3 and 5.4) were included in the visual assessments of the potential significance of visual impact on 318 individual properties. This indicated 66 individual properties or groups of properties were likely to experience a significant adverse visual affect due to the potential daytime affects of the road development. He said by year 15, the number of receptors incurring significant impacts decreases to 61. He said this figure drops to 43 in summer

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 45 of 246 Cork County Council

which would reflect the improved level of screening provided as planting becomes established.

Mr. Carter referred to Table 9.2 and stated a low number of receptors namely three would be moderately impacted by the road development in year 1. He said the majority of receptors namely 249 would receive only minor or no impacts as a result of the road development in year 1 increasing to 274 by the summer of year 15. H said there would be a significant night-time affect upon 68 receptor groups.

Mr. Carter said in relation to residual effects it would not be possible to mitigate all the impacts associated with the proposed road. He said there would be, and this was important to stress, a residual adverse landscape and visual impact at the local level in some areas and he said it was important to stress that it was at the local area.

He said the use of sensitive mitigation planting would make it possible to reduce impacts associated with the scheme. He said the road development would have a residual adverse affect on some areas of local landscape character; most areas within the scheme corridor would be unaffected.

Mr. Carter gave conclusions and stated that the road passed through an area of high landscape quality that is intrinsically rural. He said construction impacts would be temporary and short-term in nature. He said proposed mitigation in the form of woodland, scrub and hedgerow planting would reduce impacts and planting would ensure that in the medium term, the road would become integrated within the surrounding landscape. He said although the proposed road would have adverse impact on individual rural properties, most areas would be unaffected due to the screening effect of existing vegetation and landform. He said it was his opinion that the proposed scheme would significantly improve the amenity and quality of life for residents within the towns of Baile Bhuirne, Baile Mhic Íre and Macroom.

4.2.7 Mr. Con Curtin gave direct evidence in relation to agriculture to the hearing as follows: - (Transcript, Day 1, Pages 249 – 260)

Mr. Curtin presented his brief of evidence which is tabbed LA07 and noted that his sources of information including land registry mapping, CSO data, aerial photography, landowner interviews and reference to the general soil map of Ireland of 1980.

Mr. Curtin said he inspected each affected farm, visited and met 60 farmers and conducted telephone interviews with another four farmers. He said seven farms were visually inspected from the roadside. A total of 71 farms were involved along the route. He said the existing agricultural environment is described in detail in Section 4.2 of Technical Report No. 4 in Volume 4 of the EIS.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 46 of 246 Cork County Council

He said the average farm size along the development was 30 hectares compared with 37.5 hectares for County Cork as a whole. He said the enterprise mix on the 71 farms was as follows: -

• 12 farms predominantly dairying. • 53 farms non-dairy grazing livestock (mainly beef cattle and sheep). • One farm predominantly mixed cropping and livestock. • Five farms predominantly categorised as other enterprises. • One forestry plantation, three equine farms and one farm with a hunting pack of hounds as well as cattle and horses.

Mr. Curtin said the impacts during construction would be over a 24-month period and he noted the loss of land within the CPO is a permanent impact which commences when the land is fenced off. He described other impacts including severance, access difficulties and potential impacts from dust, construction traffic and construction noise sources.

Mr. Curtin referred to the 71 farms directly affected, but noted there would also be indirect impacts to farms who would not lose land to the development. He said one mitigation measure not mentioned specifically in Volume 4 of the EIS was the maintenance of access to severed land during the construction phase.

Section 6 of Mr. Curtin’s brief of evidence dealt with assessment of the potential affects and mitigation proposals during the operational phase. He described disturbance of livestock by traffic accidents and fire brigade sirens and he referred to the permanent removal of surface water sources, wells and connection to power as causing permanent disturbance to farm enterprises. He said the EPA Guidelines described a permanent impact as one which would occur over a 60-year period. Mr. Curtin said there would be positive impacts on agriculture including shorter travel times and safer transport of agricultural machinery on the existing N22.

Mr. Curtin said the road development would require 176 hectares of land . He said one farm building would be demolished and water sources and access roads would be removed. He said at least 20 under-bridges and one segregated access over-bridge would provide direct access to severed land on 22 farms. He said an additional cow-path lane would be provided on one public road over-bridge to allow a farmer move cattle to severed land. He said three under-bridges give access to six farms where existing accesses is via shared access roads. He said five farms would be provided with access tracks to access severed land. Mr. Curtin said the drainage system of the road development would intersect existing land drains and carry the drain water to a suitable outfall.

Mr. Curtin said the loss of 176 hectares represented 0.03% of the agricultural area of County Cork and it created 49 separated farm segments. He said 40 farms would be severed creating severed land parcels consisting of 430 hectares of land. He said the total area of farm land affected was 2,049 hectares over 71 farms and Mr. Curtin estimated this indicate that the farm

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 47 of 246 Cork County Council

would lose 8.5% of their land and that 21% of the land would be severed. He said there was a higher risk of disturbance to equine enterprises from noise and lighting, but this risk could be minimised by consultation with landowners.

Mr. Curtin set out the different impacts on farms as follows: -

• Seven farms would not have significant impacts. • Sixteen farms would have minor impacts. • Fifteen farms would have moderate impacts. • Twenty seven farms would have major impacts. • Five farms would have severe impacts and those farms occupy approximately 6% of the affected area.

4.2.8 Ms. Faith Bailey gave direct evidence in relation to cultural heritage as follows: - (Transcript, Day 2, Pages 4 - 47)

The brief of evidence of Ms. Bailey is tabbed LA08 and includes some drawings and photographs.

Ms. Bailey outlined her qualifications and experience and stated that her firm commenced work on the Environmental Impact Statement in August 2004. She said as part of the assessment carried out, detailed research was undertaken with regard to Cúil na Cathrach Ambush Site (CH2). She said this had been subject to validation by Dr. William Sheehan. She said Dr. Sheehan is a Military Historian and Lecturer in the MA in Military History and Strategic Studies Programme at NUI Maynooth. She listed the books he published: -

1. British Voices from the Irish War of Independence (2005). 2. Fighting for Dublin (2007). 3. Images of Sarsfield Barracks (2008). 4. Hearts and Mines: The British Fifth Division in Ireland 1919-1921 (2009).

Ms. Bailey stated that Dr. Sheehan’s Doctorial Thesis would be published in 2011 under the title “A Hard Local War: The British Army and the Guerrilla War in Cork 1919-1922”. She noted that Dr. Sheehan wrote the article on General Sir Peter Strickland, the British Commander in Cork for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. She noted that his current work was with the Defence Forces to create a commemorative pictorial history of the FCA.

She said he was one of the leading historians on the Irish War of Independence and an expert on the British Army Campaign in Cork from 1919 to 1921. Ms. Bailey said that an additional report was commissioned from John Cronin & Associates regarding an Impact Assessment on the Gaeltacht in relation to the proposed road development. This report was submitted to the Board prior to the oral hearing.

Ms. Bailey set out the methodology used by IAC Limited in compliance with the NRA Guidelines for the assessment of archaeological heritage impacts of

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 48 of 246 Cork County Council

national road schemes. She said the work was overseen by the project archaeologist Mr. Hanley as per the code of practice agreed between the NRA and the Ministry for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands in 2000.

In describing the methodology, Ms. Bailey referred to desktop studies, aerial survey, route walkover and an examination of the identified cultural heritage.

Section 3 of Ms. Bailey’s brief of evidence dealt with the assessment of potential impacts and she noted that a total of 39 archaeological heritage sites, 23 sites of archaeological potential and 6 other potential archaeological sites discovered by aerial survey had been identified as part of the impact assessment.

Ms. Bailey dealt with the various types of impact and their occurrence throughout the scheme as follows: -

• Profound negative impacts – no identified archaeological heritage sites predicted to be profoundly impacted. Ms. Bailey said five sites of archaeological potential (SAP) would be profoundly impacted which included four possible Fullachtaí Fiadh and SAP 1, 8, 15 and 17, together with a natural platform with potential for archaeological settlement at SAP 22.

• Significant negative impacts – two identified archaeological heritage sites predicted to be significantly impacted and these are a suspected ringfort at AH8 and a Fullacht Fiadh at AH 12. Two sites of archaeological potential are predicted to be significantly impacted at SAP 7 and SAP 16.

• Moderate negative impacts – Ms. Bailey said eight identified archaeological heritage would be moderately impacted including AH 9,19, 20 and 32, a Fullacht Fiadh at AH 27, stone row AH 35, a suspected souterrains of AH 36 and corn mill AH 39. She said two identified sites of archaeological potential would be moderately impacted including a mound at SAP 7 and a possible standing stone at SAP 11. She said AS 5 identified through aerial survey would be moderately impacted.

• Slight negative impacts-- Ms. Bailey said this was an impact causing changes to the character of the environment which are not significant or profound and do not directly impact or affect an archaeological feature or monument. She said five identified archaeological heritage sites would be slightly impacted and she listed AH 1, 4, 21, 22 and 29. She noted that the AH 21 was Carrigaphooca Tower House which is a National Monument in State Care and that AH 22 was a multiple stone circle, also a National Monument in State Care.

Ms. Bailey said six identified sites of archaeological potential would be slightly impacted including SAP 2, 6 and 10 and also a possible Megalithic tomb at SAP 9, possible enclosure at SAP 14 and a gravestone SAP 18.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 49 of 246 Cork County Council

• Imperceptible negative impac ts – predicted that 24 identified archaeological heritage sites would be imperceptibly impacted and also eight identified sites of archaeological potential and 31 areas of archaeological potential. She noted that 24 of the areas of archaeological potential involved were watercourses. She noted that one of the areas had also been designated as a possible battlefield site, with reference AAP 29 forming the potential location of the 10 th century battle close to Macroom at Bealick. (Chainage 19+400).

Ms. Bailey outlined the approach to be taken in relation to watercourses and noted that double-span bridges would occur at Coolcour and over the Bohill River.

Ms. Bailey referred to the appraisal of areas of particular archaeological sensitivity as follows: -

1. Stone Row – AH 35 – results of the geophysical survey suggested the row was not prehistoric but was erected sometime after the last major ploughing event within the field. Ms. Bailey said the stone row would be moderately impacted by the proposed scheme.

2. Carrigaphooca Castle – AH 21 – National Monument in State Care – located almost 200 metres to the south of the proposed route. Ms. Bailey said IAC Limited oversaw a geophysical survey in the general area between the castle and the proposed road alignment. She said the survey area measured c.350 metres northwest to southeast with an average width of c.100 metres. Ms. Bailey said that one small feature of archaeological potential was noted within the proposed CPO of the road development at approximately 250 metres north of Carrigaphooca Castle. She said the survey did not reveal any definitive evidence of enclosing earthworks around the castle, although a number of weak trends were noted and these could be the result of background geological interference. She said the impact on the monument was deemed to be a slight negative impact.

3. Multiple Stone Circle – AH 22 – National Monument in State Care – located 150 metres to the south of proposed route. Ms. Bailey said there was no evidence to suggest that the proposed road development would materially impact on archaeology relating to the multiple stone circle.

4. Ringfort at Baile Mhic Íre – AH 8 – a geophysical survey was carried out and Ms. Bailey said this failed to identify any features of archaeological significance and she noted that the site within the area survey had been extensively disturbed.

5. Reputed site of 10 th century battle involving Brian Boru – AAP 29 – Bealick / Sleveen East – Ms. Bailey said there was some uncertainty in the published accounts regarding the historic accuracy of Bealick been associated with the battle in the 10 th century. She said some historical accounts suggested the engagement took place at the confluence of the Rivers Laney and Sullane. She said at Bealick a stone row – AH 35,

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 50 of 246 Cork County Council

referred to locally as Lacht Mahon is reported that it had been erected to commemorate the battle. The geophysical survey and follow-up archaeological test trenching was carried out and Ms. Bailey said that neither investigation method revealed any material evidence to support the presence of the 978 AD battle site being fought within the area investigated.

Ms. Bailey stated in relation built or architectural heritage that a total of 60 sites had been identified as part of the impact assessment. She listed the impacts as follows: -

• Profound and negative impacts – no impacts on built heritage sites considered profound and negative.

• Significant negative impacts – 17 built heritage sites considered to be significant negative including six bridges, ruined cottage, a field enclosure, a demesne entrance and tunnel (BH 30 – Carrigaphooca House), vernacular gate and pillars BH 34 – Mount Massy, culvert, two wells and a demesne entrance at Firville (BH 52) and two old roads (BH 54 and 60).

It is noted that while the numbering system for built heritage runs from west to east, BH 60 is on the local road to the north Baile Bhuirne Village close to the proposed crossing of the Bohill River .

Ms. Bailey said of the 17 sites, two bridges are protected structures and are deemed to be of regional importance and she said a further 13 sites were deemed to be of local importance with two considered to warrant ‘record only’ status.

• Moderate negative impacts – 13 built heritage sites listed including a school house, concrete farm building, three vernacular houses, two vernacular farms, bridge, an old walled field system, possible dry way embankment, a lodge, disused railway (Coolcour) and a lodge and demesne entrance (Coolcour House). Ms. Bailey said of the 13 sites, the bridge at BH 31 is deemed to be of regional importance and the further 11 sites were deemed to be of local importance.

• Slight negative impacts – Ms. Bailey noted 21 built heritage sites considered to be slight negative. One, namely Carrigaphooca House (BH 28) is a protected structure and deemed to be of regional importance. She said a further 18 sites are deemed to be of local importance.

• Imperceptible negative impacts – Ms. Bailey said there were nine built heritage sites on which the impacts were considered to be imperceptible negative.

Ms. Bailey referred to the appraisal of areas of particular built heritage sensitivity. She listed the protected structures of the Laney Bridge (BH 55), Newbridge (BH 56) and Carrigaphooca House (BH 28). Ms. Bailey said that Carrigaphooca Castle (AH 21) and the Macroom Foundry (AH

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 51 of 246 Cork County Council

42) are also protected structures but are assessed with the archaeological section of the EIA. She said the Laney Bridge and the Newbridge were within the immediate vicinity of the proposed route. She said there would be significant negative impacts on both. She said Carrigaphooca House was located within its own demesne c.150 metres north of the proposed CPO and 290 metres north of the proposed road. She said the impact on the protected structure was deemed to slight negative.

Ms. Bailey referred to demesne landscapes and referred to Volume 3, Figure 12.1 of the EIS. She said of the six demesnes, none would be subject to a profound impact, but three would be subject to a significant impact due to the route passing through part of the original demesne extent. She said these belong to Mount Massy, Coolyhane and Firville. She said Carrigaphooca Demesne and Coolcour Demesnes would be subject to a slight impact due to the proximity of the proposed road development. In relation to Carrigaphooca House Demesne, Ms. Bailey said this would remain intact, although a secondary entrance could be impacted upon adjacent to the tunnel between the existing N22. Ms. Bailey said the proposed road development would not impact on the former demesne associated with Codrum House as the edge of the demesne is located between 50 and 100 metres to the south of the proposed scheme.

Ms. Bailey said a total of three cultural heritage sites had been identified as part of the impact assessment and she referred to Appendix 1 of her brief. She listed the likely impacts as follows: -

• Profound negative impacts – no identified cultural heritage sites predicted to be profoundly impacted. • Significant negative impacts – one identified cultural heritage site predicted to be significantly impacted. Ms. Bailey said this was the IRA War of Independence Ambush Site (CH2) at Cúil na Cathrach. She referred to Appendix 2 of the brief which includes a detailed research document on the site. • Moderate negative impact – Ms. Bailey said one identified cultural heritage site, CH3, would be moderately impacted. She said that was reputed site of the 10 th century battle (AAP 29) at Bealick, but spatially it includes a cluster of other archaeological heritage and built heritage sites, namely AH 34-38, BH 51-56 and AAP 30. • Slight negative impacts – Ms. Bailey said two identified cultural heritage sites would be slightly impacted and these were a roadside memorial (CH4) and a memorial to a civil war encounter (CH5). Photographs of the roadside memorial and the civil war memorial are included in an appendix to Ms. Bailey’s brief. • Imperceptible negative impacts – one identified cultural heritage site namely a wall niche with a statue of the Virgin Mary (CH1) which is An Chepach Thiar.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 52 of 246 Cork County Council

Ms. Bailey referred to the appraisal done of areas of particular cultural heritage sensitivity and this appraisal referred to the IRA War of Independence Ambush Site (CH2) and the cluster of sites at Bealick (CH3).

In relation to the IRA Ambush Site from February 1921, Ms. Bailey described this as one where IRA volunteers ambushed a convoy of British Auxiliary Cadets and succeeding in killing, amongst others, their commanding officer. (It is established that the word cadet refers in this instance to soldiers retired from the British Army from World War I and this grade of soldier also featured in the Kilmichael Ambush).

Ms. Bailey describes the ambush site as occupying a position either side of the existing N22 in the townland of Cúil na Cathrach. She said it consisted for the most part of rocky outcrops looking down on the existing N22. She said as part of the impact assessment, IAC Limited undertook detailed historical research to identify that the specifics of the engagement, in particular to identify the relative positions of those involved and to have traced their movements during the engagement. She said the study succeeded in providing some clarity regarding the mechanics of the ambush, and in terms of significance, IAC Limited concluded that the site is of regional importance and a key cultural heritage constraint. She said the proposed road development would have a significant negative impact on the site.

In relation to Site CH3 , Ms. Bailey said this was a cluster of sites at Bealick that included five sites on the RMP (AH34-38), two bridges and the record of protected structures at BH55 and 56 and the reputed 10 th century battlefield site (AAP 29). Ms. Bailey said the impact of the proposed development was deemed to be moderate at negative as the proposed development is not likely to have a significant impact on any individual site.

Ms. Bailey referred to a statement validation from Dr. William Sheehan in regard to the Ambush Site and said that the research contained in the evidence summary report (Appendix 2 of the brief of evidence) was in Dr. Sheehan’s considered opinion, a thorough and professional piece of research. She said the accounts had supported by various witness statements from the Bureau of Military History in Cathal Brugha Barracks, Dublin and from accounts of IRA Veterans contained in the O’Malley notebooks located in the UCD Archives. She said the material had been balanced by using the history of the 6 th Division from the Strickland Papers.

She said Dr. Sheehan noted that the UK National Archives at Kew and the National Army Museum at Chelsea were also consulted. She said that whilst contemporary newspaper reporting of the ambush could have been used, it was unlikely that they would have altered the conclusions of the research in any significant way. She said Dr. Sheehan regarded the research as being of a high academic standard.

Section 4 of Ms. Bailey’s brief refers to proposed mitigation measures which she said would be undertaken in compliance with the provisions of the National Monuments (Amendments) Act 1930-2004 and the Code of Practice

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 53 of 246 Cork County Council

agreed in 2000 between the National Roads Authority and the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. Ms. Bailey gave a list the sites to be targeted during archaeological investigations which included CH2 and 3, 11 of the archaeological heritage sites and all the areas of archaeological potential from numbers 1 – 31. Ten sites of archaeological potential were listed as was AS 5 and BH 4, 39, 54, 59 and 32.

Ms. Bailey said those sites whose settings would be altered as a result of the construction of the proposed route would have their current landscape context recorded prior to construction taking place. She said this include the main landscape.

In relation to underwater archaeological assessments or wade surveys where appropriate, Ms. Bailey said these would be carried out in consultation with the project archaeologist. She said it was proposed to establish natural screening to help preserve the setting of the sites of cultural heritage value. Ms. Bailey said an extensive programme of archaeologist site investigation work on the remainder of the scheme would be undertaken to identify any unknown or buried sites of cultural heritage value.

She said a programme of metal detecting would be carried out around the area of CH 2 (Ambush Site) along with a detailed topographical survey of the entire ambush area. She said any finds such as bullet cases would be mapped and the information made available to the public. She said any such finds would also help to map the engagement in more detail. Ms. Bailey said it was proposed to highlight CH 2 (Ambush Site) either on the mainline or along the existing section of the N22. She said this maybe achieved by the erection of art work or sculptor at the location or by means of a small lay-by and information plaque on the existing N22. He said that would ultimately bring more awareness of the site to people passing along the existing N22, both regionally and nationally.

Ms. Bailey said all known monuments in close proximity to the development, that would not be significantly or profoundly impacted upon would be cordoned off during all site works to the satisfaction of the appointed project archaeologist.

Ms. Bailey confirmed to Mr. Flanagan that Appendix 1 consisted of the roadside memorial and the civil war memorial.

Mr. Flanagan asked would Appendix 2 be read into the record and the Inspector that he would take the main text as read, but the conclusion should be read into the record at that point. Mr. Flanagan asked that An Bord Pleanála in their review would look at the facts that work was done in terms of the actual sources of information that are given. He said he would ask that the Board would look at the source of work from any party.

Ms. Bailey read the conclusions section of Appendix 2 of her brief of evidence which related to the IRA Ambush Site. She said that due to the varying nature of the accounts mentioned, it is very difficult to state for certain the exact

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 54 of 246 Cork County Council

progression of the battle. She said people remember events very differently and their own account can also be mixed with accounts from others. She said it was clear that once the initial engagement began, the men on the northern and southern side of the road firing on auxiliaries, who quickly retreated into the two cottages. Ms. Bailey stated that the initial engagement involved the No. 1 Lewis Gun with the third section and possibly part of No. 2 section. With reference to the map, she said eastern-most members of the 7 th Battalion were involved initially, although the remainder of the battalion was outside the field of fire. Once the ambush began, the ambush force moved further east which involved moving the No. 2 Gun.

She said the majority of the engagements seemed to have taken place while the cadets were in the cottages and the firing died down on both sides after approximately four hours. There was a suggestion that this may have been due to a lack of ammunition for both parties. She referred to Charlie Brown’s map in Figure 1 which gave a good indication of the starting position of the ambushes. She said the extent of the ambush area and the position of the forces and their possible movements were illustrated on Figure 3. She said it was likely that the map produced by Mr. O’Shea may have been drawn up after hearing an account of the battle, and possibly by somebody who was not actually there.

Ms. Bailey said the list of casualties differed greatly from those recorded to have died or thought to have died by the IRA. She said three British were acknowledged as killed during the battlefield including the commander, Major Seafield-Grant, Constable Kane (RIC) and a temporary cadet, Cadet Soudie was recorded as dying on 27 th February from wounds.

Ms. Bailey said it was thought that Constable Kane may have been the only Australian man to be killed during the Irish War of Independence, but a record stated that he was from London and that record made no mention of Australia. The record was that General Strickland stated that the commander was killed and eight wounded and the rebels succeeded in getting away.

Ms. Bailey said that the IRA account and the memorial plaque put the total dead from the battle at 14 with wounded up to 28. One account, by Edward Neville stated that the enemy casualties were very heavy during the engagement. Mr. Healy stated that a total of 16 were killed and 12 injured with one IRA man, Ger Lucey, shot in the leg during the retreat. She states that Brown estimated that between seven and fourteen were killed in his witness statement and fourteen dead and fourteen wounded in his publication. She said it was possible that the numbers of dead were greater on the British side as the event took place on a number of months after the ambush of Kilmichael and the British Government may not have wished to admit a greater number of deaths.

Ms. Bailey said there was however no evidence of British suppression of casualties in that instance and within other similar instances. She said the evidence examined declares the ambush had been a victory for the IRA. She said it was significant to note that during the time following the ambush, the

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 55 of 246 Cork County Council

IRA were critical about how the ambush proceeded and that the opinion was that the action could have been a disaster only for the bold and steady actions of small groups. It states that the ambush was more likely to have been a complete success if the auxiliaries had not been warned about the impending action, possibly by O’Connor who was manning the No. 1 Lewis Gun. She said General Strickland had been critical as to how that information was dealt with and states that the Cúil na Cathrach operation was a case where an excellent opportunity of defeating the enemy was missed owing to bad tactics and failure to work out a proper plan of operation based on the information received.

Ms. Bailey said as a result of the research carried out, the site could be defined as being of regional importance . She said the significance of the site was not defined in any of the academic texts used during the research as it was a relatively small event even compared with other ambushes such as Kilmichael. She said it did not appear to have played a vital role in the progression of the War of Independence, but it did contribute to the history of the region and the war when addressed as one of many similar events that took place. She referred to the possibility that it may have included the only Australian to be killed during the war might have further significance, but that would ultimately require further research to verify.

Ms. Bailey said to the men who took part in the ambush and the local population who still remember the event, it was a significant event made more so by the death of three members of the British Forces. She said the event was still remembered and celebrated by the local population. She said it was perhaps ironic that at the time of the ambush, both senior IRA and British Army members consider it to have been a badly executed attack. She said the 80 th anniversary of the event was celebrated in 2001 with a memorial service of site ambush. She said this was reported in the Southern Star in March 2001.

Ms. Bailey noted that the report was reviewed by William Sheehan who had stated that “from a historical perspective, the most interesting fact about the ambush was that it may have involved the only Australian casualty of the War of Independence”. She said he also stated that in relation to the historical significance of the ambush, the number of fatalities was quite small and he described it as a run of the mill ambush in the overall context of the campaign and showed no innovation or did not introduce any new tactic by either side. Ms. Bailey said this was not the assessment in McCarthy Hyder Consultants or sub-consultants IAC Limited. She said the ambush was acknowledged by MHC and IAC to be a locally and regionally important event during the War of Independence and in the history of the local area.

Ms. Bailey said the design of the proposed road development had given due recognition to the importance of the ambush site and the design had been modified several times to avoid the main area of engagement.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 56 of 246 Cork County Council

4.2.9 Mr. Paul Murphy gave direct evidence to the hearing in relation to Planning and Socio-Economic issues as follows: - (Transcript, Day 2, Pages 49-65 and 75-102)

Mr. Murphy read in the evidence from Mr. Geoff Webber of Hyder Consultants in relation to socio-economic issues as well as his own brief of evidence covering planning aspects. Mr. Murphy is Senior Planner with Cork County Council.

Mr. Murphy listed the various national, regional and local policy documents which had been taken into account in relation to the development of the scheme and these included the National Development Plan, Government Transport Plans, Regional Planning Guidelines and County and Town Development Plans. He said Chapter 7 of the EIS details the criteria used to assess the socio-economic impacts of the proposed scheme. He said that included the collection and analysis of data, multiple business surveys, and consultation with local planning authorities’ staff.

Mr. Murphy said the objectives behind the N22 included provision of a high quality road for the strategic route, the removal of traffic congestion, the maintenance of existing roads for local traffic and the minimisation of environmental and social impacts on the local residents and communities along the existing N22.

He listed the advantages of the new route from the point of view of improved standard, removal of national traffic from roadside town and to reduce traffic, noise and air pollution in those communities. He said at European level, the road development was in compliance with the broad objectives of the third report on economic and social cohesion (EC 2004) and would assist in the movement of persons and goods.

Mr. Murphy dealt with national, regional and local policy document and listed the National Development Plan 2007 – 2013 and the NSS 2000 – 2020. He said this identified Cork as one of eight gateways and the towns of Killarney – Tralee as one of nine hubs.

He referred to Transport 21 and the requirement to increase accessibility, ensure sustainability and to expand the capacity. He also referred to the requirement to enhance quality by improving safety, accessibility, integration, reliability, speed and comfort. He said the N22 scheme is compatible with many of the aims and objectives of Transport 21.

Mr. Murphy referred to the 2009 Policy Document called “Smarter Travel – A Sustainable Transport Future 2009 – 2020”. He said this document set out a number of key goals including the maximisation of the efficiency of the transport system, minimisation of the negative impacts of transport on local and global environment, provision of improved quality of life and accessibility

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 57 of 246 Cork County Council

to transport for all and in particular for people with reduced mobility and those who may experience isolation due to lack of transport. Mr. Murphy said that future population and employment growth would have to predominantly take place in sustainable compact urban areas or in rural areas which discouraged dispersed development and long commuting.

Mr. Murphy said this aim was in line with the CASP and Cork CDP that both identified Macroom as a Ring Town or a Growth Town to counter the growth of the metropolitan area of Cork by providing residential and employment opportunities in the town. He said the Smarter Travel Policy Document accepts that the €18 billion investment in roads as part of Transport 21 would help to remove bottlenecks, road congestion, and pressure in towns and villages to provide the necessary infrastructure links to support the NSS. He said the N22 scheme would assist the efficiency of the transport network by reducing congestion and providing a network suitable for its role and function as the strategic route.

Mr. Murphy referred to the Regional Planning Guidelines for the South-West Region of 2004 and noted that they included the administrative area of County Kerry along with County Cork. He said it saw the upgrade of the N22 as a particular priority as the major strategic regional link between the Cork gateway and the Tralee – Killarney hub. He said the Planning and Development Act of 2000 had given the Regional Planning Guidelines a statutory basis and this would differentiate them from the CASP and the North-West Strategic Plan.

Mr. Murphy referred to the Cork Area Strategic Plan (CASP) 2001 - 2020 and said it was a long-term plan and was the successor to the LUTS Studies for Cork which were jointly carried out by the County Council and the City Council. He said the CASP proposal was for balanced spatial development for Cork City and County with a strong metropolitan area around the city and having satellite towns like Carrigaline and Midleton. It said in order to counter the concentration of growth in the metropolitan area, a policy of “reinforced ring towns” was identified to act counter-growth areas in terms of employment, social, cultural and commercial facilities and population expansion. He said that six ring towns were Kinsale, Bandon, Macroom, Mallow, Fermoy and Youghal.

Mr. Murphy referred to the North and West Cork Strategic Plan 2002 – 2020 which related also to areas containing major towns like Millstreet, Newmarket and Kanturk. In relation to Macroom, it stated that steps should be taken to strengthen the Cork/Macroom/Killarney route as potential development corridor. Mr. Murphy stated that it should be emphasised that Macroom was a link between North Cork and West Cork and the regional road R582 from Millstreet to Macroom in particular. He said Macroom would be seen as a critical and strategic link between the rural areas and towns of North Cork and with West Cork.

Mr. Murphy said the Cork County Development Plan was adopted on the 9 th January 2009 and was a six-year Development Plan for the County of Cork

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 58 of 246 Cork County Council

but had a forward horizon to 2020. He said strategically Macroom was within the CASP Ring Towns and in the settlement chapter of the Development Plan. The objectives for Macroom were set out (SET 3-6). This objective states that it is an objective to promote the growth of Macroom as a district employment centre and to support the continued redevelopment of brownfield lands within the town centre and to promote its strategic location both within the county and within the South-West Region.

He said Chapter 5 of the Plan referred to economy and employment and identified Macroom as a district employment centre (paragraph 5.4.20). This explains that the town centre retail function should be improved by increasing the range and quantum of retail floor space. Mr. Murphy stated that proposed N22 road scheme, by removing through traffic and improving accessibility to the town, would assist with the implementation of the employment and retail policies. He referred to paragraph 3.3.19 of the County Development Plan which stated that the provision of the proposed N22 Bypass would help reduce through traffic and allow for environmental improvements in the town centre. He said that while the development plan identified the importance of improvements to public transport, it also acknowledged that the development of the road network was critical to the economic and social well-being of its citizens (paragraph 6.3.1).

(There was a break in the direct evidence from page 65 of the transcript, Day 1 and it resumed on page 75).

Mr. Murphy referred to policy INF 3-1 of the Development Plan which stated that it was an objective to safeguard the strategic role of the national road network in catering for the safe and efficient movement of major inter-urban and inter-regional traffic to allow effective delivery of public investment in those projects. He said 12 major road schemes were identified in the county plan one of which was the N22 from Ballincollig to Baile Bhuirne and to include the Macroom Bypass.

The Housing and Community Facilities Chapters of the Development Plan was referred to and this identified a high quality of living environment as an important element of sustaining communities. Mr. Murphy said a town centre or village centre is a key place in any community and changing the vehicle environment in Macroom, Baile Bhuirne and Baile Mhic Íre would significantly improve the living environment for residents, visitors and those working in the town. He said the approved development plan included policies related to cultural heritage, the built environment, landscape and environmental quality. He said that while there was a high level of mitigation in the proposal, it would like to stress that avoidance and minimisation was involved. He said there had been a lot work put into the scheme to avoid certain areas. He said they were up to 22 route changes involved during the drawing up of the design.

Mr. Murphy referred to the Macroom Electoral Area Local Area Plan for 2005 and this identified Macroom as a main town. He noted that Baile Bhuirne and Baile Mhic Íre were jointly identified as a key village. He said a key village

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 59 of 246 Cork County Council

would have the aim of being the primary focus for the development of rural areas and the provision of local services including facilitating infrastructure and public transport.

Mr. Murphy said the improvements to the N22 would assist the role and function of Macroom as defined in the local plan. He said Baile Bhuirne and Baile Mhic Íre are two largest settlements within the Mhuscrai Gaeltacht. He said the two villages suffer from adverse traffic impacts, particularly during peak holiday periods. He said there was reliance on street parking, which further exacerbates traffic congestion; there was no formal footpath for most of the community and the southern side of the main road. He said the two communities have a wealth of natural, built and cultural heritage which he said is not only important historically, but also important to the local economy. He said the aim of the plan was to protect the special character and setting of the village and to promote the key village. He said the N22 improvements would assist with the aim of protecting and enhancing the character of the communities.

Mr. Murphy referred to the Macroom Development Plan 2009 – 2015 and said that this was the town plan and he noted that there had been significant population growth in recent years and that the CASP anticipated that the population would grow to over 5,000 persons by 2020. He said at present it was 3,500. He said the Macroom Development Plan recognised the line of the proposed bypass would restrict the development potential of lands to the north of the town by creating a man-made feature and including a buffer zone approximately 800 metres wide which was proposed on either side of the new road.

Mr. Murphy said the aim of Macroom Town Council was to create character areas in Macroom which were attractive, vibrant and accessible and not overrun by vehicular traffic. He said the high volume of traffic passing through the town would restrict the attractiveness and safety of cycling and the opening of a bypass would offer the potential to introduce cycle lanes and traffic calming measures along the existing N22 through the town. He said the new road would lead to the creation of a safer pedestrian environment and might also help raise the profile and reliability of public transport as an alternative means of travel. He said the quality of retailing in the town could be considered to be average, but the comparison retail mix would require greater diversity and variety which would help reduce the leakage. He said if the shopping centre became more popular after the completion of an improved N22, there would be a need to consider parking locations and access routes from the new road to ensure the improved pedestrian environment was maintained.

Mr. Murphy said the town had a number of amenities providing opportunities to attract tourists including the Castle Demesne, Town Park, River Sullane Walks, Mount Massy House and others.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 60 of 246 Cork County Council

With regard to employment, Mr. Murphy said that 2006 census indicated that there were 8,586 jobs in the main towns of the Macroom Electoral Area which included Ballincollig.

Mr. Murphy said the Development Plan aims to strengthen Macroom’s potential to attract inward investment, diversify the employment base and develop as an employment/service centre.

Mr. Murphy referred to economic impacts. He said there were currently approximately 130 commercial outlets in the town centre, including convenience and comparison retailing. He said Baile Bhuirne and Baile Mhic Íre are the largest settlements in the Gaeltacht of Mhuscrai and are seen as key settlements in the area providing important local services and tourism related shops. He said the population growth over the period 2002 – 2006 in the urban area of Macroom exceeded the national average growth of 7.6% with a growth of 20.1% (CSO 2006). He said the wider Macroom rural area experienced an increase of 7.3% over the same period. He said figures for Baile Bhuirne and Baile Mhic Íre are not published individually.

Mr. Murphy gave details of the consultation with businesses. He said that with regard to Macroom, 38 business were surveyed in 2004 and 2005. He said the sample frame included businesses that were tourist related, were likely to receive some passing trade or were involved in manufacturing and/or processing. He said it did not include businesses whose customer base was unlikely to be influenced by passing trade. Responses from 18 business surveys said that 76% felt the current situation was having a negative affect on their business and 14% said it was a benefit. The same percentages applied in reverse in relation to the proposed road development and 76% felt the road development would have a positive affect on their business and 10% said it would have a negative affect. In respect of Baile Bhuirne and Baile Mhic Íre and results based on 20 businesses surveyed, 20% said that the current situation had a negative affect on their business while 53% believed that it was a benefit to their business. Regarding the proposed road development, 53% said it would have a negative affect and 29% felt it would have positive effect.

Mr. Murphy said the business interviews were all within the study area whereas the N22 improvement scheme would give significantly improved journey times to County Kerry. He said that letters of support from business interests had been received and these included the Cork Chamber. He said Cork Chamber is the leading organisation for the promotion, development and expansion of commercial life in the Cork region, representing over 1,000 businesses which employ over 82,000 people. The letter stated that traffic delays in Macroom and Baile Bhuirne present a significant cost to businesses reliant on using the N22 route for the transport of goods and services.

Mr. Murphy listed some of the local employers and noted that they all relied on road transport for the dispatch and delivery of goods.

Mr. Murphy referred to tourism and stated that data from Fáilte Ireland for 2004-2008 showed a steady increase up to 2007 with a dip in 2008 due to the

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 61 of 246 Cork County Council

economic recession. Mr. Murphy noted that the numbers of visitors in 2007 was almost four million. He said data at county level was only collected for overseas visitors and in 2005 County Cork received 1,006,000 with the majority from the UK.

Mr. Murphy stated that what was essential for tourist businesses is that when a new road could remove a proportion of passing trade, that the facilities offered in the town of rural communities are clearly signposted from that new road. He referred to a NRA policy document in relation to signing which is scheduled for completion by 2010. He noted that in relation to bypassed towns and villages, it would have up to four symbols indicating the main facilities and services available. He said services normally expected to be found in a typical town or village such as an ATM or a church would not be included. He said the symbols used at the junctions on the N22 would cover for example food, drink, fuel and accommodation. He said the text on the tourist signs would be in both Irish and English.

Mr. Murphy referred to community impacts and stated that the traffic on the current road affects a number of residential properties. He said once the N22 road development was operational, the traffic flows on the current N22 would be reduced especially with regard to HGVs. He said the proposed road would provide improved air quality for a total of 1,482 properties, while 267 would experience deterioration.

Mr. Murphy said the existing traffic volumes cause significant difficulties for pedestrians crossing the main road and he listed a particular location in Macroom town beside Murphy’s Jewellery Shop where there is no footpath and pedestrians have to step onto the carriageway to get around the corner. He said pedestrian facilities at Baile Bhuirne and Baile Mhic Íre are less than those in Macroom and the main carriageway is wider with traffic travels faster. He said Macroom town centre would have the opportunity to become more pedestrian friendly.

Mr. Murphy said in Macroom the location of the secondary school meant that a substantial number of pupils walked along the N22 across the River Sullane to and from the town centre. He said that observations, particularly at the end of the school day have shown high pedestrian flows with children having to step onto the carriageway which is sub-standard and difficult for two commercial vehicles to pass one and other. He said the N22 scheme would significantly improve the situation which is also important if the policy to encourage more children to walk or cycle to school was implemented.

Mr. Murphy stated that in the rural areas, there would be a requirement to realign a number of minor local roads, but that no significant diversion or additional mileage is likely for local residents or businesses.

In relation to construction impacts, Mr. Murphy said the majority of the route was off-line and works would require local diversions or temporary traffic control measures.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 62 of 246 Cork County Council

Mr. Murphy’s conclusions in relation to the proposed road development were:

1. The route would relieve the communities of Macroom, Baile Mhic Íre and Baile Bhuirne of through traffic. 2. The proposal is supported by strategic objectives of approved national policy documents, including NDP, NSS and Transport 21. 3. The route would enable a number of key aims and objectives of Policy Document Smarter Travel to be achieved. 4. The proposal is supported by the Regional Planning Guidelines for the South-West Region, the CSAP and the North and West Cork Strategic Plan. 5. The proposal is supported by the policies in the Cork County Development Plan 2009 and the Macroom Electoral Area LAP and the Macroom Development Plan. 6. The proposal would significantly improve safety, the pedestrian environment, cycling opportunities and would assist with public transport reliability while supporting a number of the development policies with regard to strengthening the local retail and employment opportunities. 7. The proposal would assist with achieving the role of Macroom as one of the Ring Towns in the region. 8. The proposal would improve linkages within communities because the severance caused by the current adverse traffic impacts would be significantly reduced.

Mr. Murphy restated what was written by him in the Compulsory Purchase Order that he hereby certified that the proposal was in conformity and facilitates the policies and objectives set out in the County Development Plan of 2009, the Macroom Electoral Area Local Area Plan 2005 and the Macroom Development Plan 2009.

4.2.10 Mr. Hague gave direct evidence in relation to ecology as follows: - (Transcript, Day 2, Pages 103 – 138)

Mr. Hague referred to the designated sites which he said were shown on Figure 11.1 of the EIS. He listed them as follows: -

• Mullaghanish to Musheramore Mountains SPA. • St. Gobnet’s Wood and Cascade Wood cSAC/pNHA. • Prohus Wood pNHA. • The Gearagh cSAC, SPA and pNHA. • Mullaghanish Bog cSAC/pNHA. • Killarney National Park. • Magillacuddy Reeks and Caher River Catchment cSAC/pNHA. • Lough Gal pNHA.

He said the sites were designated for a wide range of features including alluvial forest at The Gearagh, old oak woodland in St. Gobnet’s Wood, blanket bog (Mullaghanish Bog), lake and fen habitats and semi-natural woodland at Prohus Wood.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 63 of 246 Cork County Council

He said Mullaghanish to Musheramore Mountains SPA is designated for Hen Harrier and other bird species in upland habitats. The Gearagh is classified by Birdlife International as an important bird area, with nationally important numbers of several species.

Mr. Hague said that 26 areas of semi-natural habitat were identified on the road corridor and classified as Sites of Ecological Interest (SEI). He said they were on Figure 11.2 of the EIS and comprises scrub, wet grassland, wetlands, watercourses, wet heath, and pockets of peatland, rocky outcrops and several types of woodland. He said two of the SEIs namely Cascade Wood cSAC and Cappagh Uplands (part of Mullaghanish to Musheramore Mountains SPA) were rated as being of international importance for nature conservation.

Mr. Hague said four sites were of national importance namely the Rivers Sullane, Laney and Foherish and Prohus Wood pNHA. He said two sites were of county importance namely the Owengarve River and Glananarig Woods. He said 13 sites were rated of local importance or high value with the remaining five being of local importance, lower value. He said overall the hedgerows within the study area were of local importance, lower value. He said no rare or protected plants were recorded within the study area.

Mr. Hague referred to fauna and said there was a wide range of bat species recorded throughout the study area. He said a single roost of five brown long- eared bats was found in an agricultural shed at chainage 1+800 which is marked as BLE 11 on Figure 11.3 of the EIS. He said there were no known hibernation sites close to the proposed road and the bat population was considered to be of county importance.

Mr. Hague said that three active badger setts were recorded and assessed as being of local importance, higher value.

He said a strong population of otters is present and the red squirrel population at Cascade Wood and along the Bohill River corridor is of county importance. He said for other mammals including Sika deer, hedgehog, pigmy shrew and Irish hare, a study area was considered to be of local importance, low value.

Mr. Hague said that the diversity of breeding birds was typical of agricultural pasture areas and is of local importance, lower value. He said Barn Owls breed regularly at Mount Massy (chainage 17+300) and approximately 200 metres from the route of the proposed road. He said Barn Owls were also known to occur at Cappagh, in the north-west of the study area. He said there was also a reported former Barn Owl breeding site at Carrigaphooca Castle at 250 metres from the main carriageway at chainage 13+000 and no nest site has been located in that area.

Mr Hague said Peregrine Falcons had been recorded at Prohus Wood approximately 150 metres from the proposed road. He said that the Rivers Laney, Sullane and Foherish and the Bohill Stream have suitable breeding habitat for kingfisher and dipper but not at the crossing points of the proposed

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 64 of 246 Cork County Council

road development. He said the Sullane Delta at the south-eastern edge of the study area is a significant site for wintering waterfowl and is part of the Inishcarra Reservoir and the Gearagh. He said it was of county importance for waterfowl.

Referring to invertebrates, Mr. Hague said that the Kerry slug was a species listed under Annex II and Annex IV of the EU Habitats Directive and was widespread throughout the areas of sandstone geology in West Cork and Kerry. He said field surveys were undertaken at Cascade Wood (Dr. Roy Anderson) and the survey serves as a sample for the abundance of Kerry slug in the study area and could be applied to other potential areas of suitable habitats. He said studies had shown that the Kerry slug was locally abundant. He said the results of the survey show that approximately one-third of the wider study area through which the proposed road passes consists of habitat that is potentially suitable for the Kerry slug. (Refer to Appendices I and II of the brief of evidence). Mr. Hague said that the area along the road falls under the category of national importance as per the NRA Guidelines. He said the low percentage loss of habitat (3%) reduces the significance of the disturbance and loss and provides confidence that favourable conservation status will not be affected.

Mr. Hague referred to aquatic ecology . He said the Sullane River which along with its tributaries drains the western slopes of the Derrynasaggart Mountains and flows into the Carrigadrohid Reservoir and the River Lee. He said water quality in the Sullane and Foherish Rivers is high as per the EPA Biological Water Quality Monitoring Results. He said brook lamprey, freshwater pearl mussel and Atlantic salmon have been recorded in the rivers and the three rivers of the Sullane, Laney and Foherish are considered to be of national importance.

In relation to freshwater pearl mussel, Mr. Hague said that surveys were conducted by Dr. Evelyn Moorkens. He said a presence/absence survey found no evidence of species in the Owengarve, Bohill, Toonlane, Lissacresig, Inchinlinane, Gurteenroe and Ballyveerane Streams. He said a Stage 2 or estimate of population size study was carried out within the Sullane, Foherish and Laney Rivers. This indicated that the River Sullane population does not exceed 2,000 and the Foherish population does not exceed 200, while the Laney River is likely to be fewer than 150 individuals. (See Appendix III of the brief of evidence).

Mr. Hague said the survey results show that 35% of the total population of the Sullane River system occurs downstream of the confluence with the Bohill River or approximately three kilometres downstream of the proposed Owengarve realignment. He said in the Foherish River approximately 80% of the mussels are downstream of the proposed river crossing. Mr. Hague said mussel habitat in all three rivers was found to be in very poor condition, with large mats of filamentous algae indicating nutrient enrichment beyond the tolerance of the species and there was fine peat silt infiltration in upper catchment areas, with sewage fungus present in the case of the upper Sullane catchment. Mr. Hague said that large water weed is never associated with

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 65 of 246 Cork County Council

pearl mussel populations in good condition. He said it was associated with habitat where juvenile pearl mussels cannot survive and thus those populations are likely to become extinct when the current individual die of old age. He said the size profile of the Sullane population would indicate that conditions had been inimical to the species in the three rivers since around 1987. He said more detailed information was in Appendix III of the brief of evidence.

Mr. Hague referred to the assessment of potential effects of the proposed road development and he commenced with designated sites (Page 111 Transcript).

Mr. Hague said the NPWS was the statutory agency responsible for designated areas and he referred to the role of An Bord Pleanála in the assessment of impacts. He said that in accordance with the requirements of regulation 30 of the Habitats Regulations, screening for an appropriate assessment had been carried out. He said the assessment is presented in a report entitled “Habitats Directive Assessment Screening” and a finding of significant affects or FONSE Report (No. 5001-NE 02974-NER-01 ). This report is tabbed LA 19.

Mr. Hague said there would be no direct impacts on designated sites as a result of the proposed road development. He said the Cascade Wood section of St. Gobnet’s Wood cSAC is within 150 metres of the proposed road, but the existing N22 is directly adjacent to the cSAC as it runs between St. Gobnet’s Wood and Cascade Wood.

Mr. Hague said the Mullaghanish to Musheramore Mountains SPA is located adjacent to a side road associated with the proposed road and within 60 metres of the main road centreline as closest point. He said the SPA was designated on the basis of its breeding population of Hen Harrier. He noted that the boundary of the SPA was currently under revision at Slievereagh, west of Baile Bhuirne. He said the majority of the area within the land-take of the proposed road consist of agricultural fields and as such is not considered suitable for use by Hen Harriers. He said a small area of approximately 0.4 hectares consisting of juncus molinia dominated grassland would be removed as a result of the proposed road development. He said surveys for Hen Harrier and for Red Grouse, Merlin and Curlew during the 2008 breeding season that none of the species bred within 1.2 kilometres of the proposed road within the SPA. He said that the Hen Harrier could use a small area of molinia within the revised SPA boundary for feeding. He said if that was the case, mitigation measures would be implemented to replace the lost habitat where it was affected by the proposed road. He said construction or operation of the road would not reduce the quality of the feeding habitat within the SPA. He said it had been agreed in consultations with NPWS that there would be no significant impact to the bird species or the integrity of the designated site itself. He said three Natura 2000 sites were within five kilometres of the proposed road development but the reasons for the designations and the likely effects of the proposed road and deemed to be not likely to be affected by the proposed road development.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 66 of 246 Cork County Council

Mr. Hague stated that the NPWS was in agreement with the findings of the FONSE Report and in response stated “NPWS has examined this report and accept the conclusions of the report and agree that the findings of no significant affects on Natura 2000 sites in the vicinity is a reasonable conclusion of the report”.

Mr. Hague said a supplementary finding of no significant affects report has been prepared to deal specifically with proposed revisions to the SPA boundary. He said that report also concluded that there would be no impacts on the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites as a result of the proposed road development and he said this was presented in Appendix V of the brief of evidence.

Mr. Hague referred to impacts on terrestrial habitats. He said there would be habitat loss and fragmentation but the majority of the impacts on sites of ecological interest are considered not be significant and there would be no impacts that are significant at a national or international level. He listed impacts as follows: -

• SEI 9 – Glananarig Woodland – significant at county level. • SEI 3 – Sullane River – significant at county level.

He said impacts were assessed at significant at the local level on six sites and within the study area there were several plant communities potentially vulnerable to impacts from air pollution, for example, :-

• SEI 11 – heathland areas within Inchinlinane Woodlands. • SEI 14 – Lissacressig scrublands. • SEI 16 – Ceil na Cathrach East. • SEI 18 – Tonn Lane Woodlands. • SEI 22 – Slievereagh.

The assessment of the potential for nutrient nitrogen deposition was carried out in accordance with the NRA Air Quality Guidelines, NRA, 2006b. He said the assessment had confirmed that no significant impacts were anticipated. Mr. Hague said there would be no significant impacts on hedgerows or on rare or protected plant species listed.

Mr. Hague referred to impacts on fauna and in relation to bats he said that the roost at chainage 1+800 would be removed under license. He said there was potential for impacts on commuting and feeding bats at the following locations: -

• Chainage 1+800 – Bohill River crossing. • Chainage 2+700 – Cappagh. • Chainage 3+900 – Killeen. • Chainage 5+700 – Tonn Lane. • Chainage 8+700 – Lissacressig. • Chainage 14+400 – Clonfadda.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 67 of 246 Cork County Council

• Chainage 17+300 – Mount Massy. • Chainage 19+250 – Coolyhane.

In the absence of any mitigation measures, Mr. Hague said the majority of those potential impacts would be significant at the local or county level only. He said at Cappagh and Clonfadda, where individual Lesser Horseshoe Bats were recorded, there would be the potential for significant impact at the national level on that species. He said with the implementation of mitigation measures detailed in the EIS, those impacts would be very substantially reduced.

Mr. Hague said three badger setts would be directly impacted and these were shown in Figure 11.3 at chainage 11+700, 8+240 and 8+300. These were setts 12, 13 and 14. He said it would be important to note that badger activity and sett status change over time and a full pre-construction survey for badgers would be required. He said that any movement of badgers would be undertaken under an appropriate license.

In relation to other mammals, Mr. Hague said otters were known to be present on all the rivers but no otter holts or couches, or resting places would be impacted by the construction of the proposed road. Mr. Hague said the red squirrel is known to occur at SEI 21 in Cascade Wood and the severance of the riparian corridor associated with the Bohill River could have a significant impact on red squirrel.

In relation to birds, Mr. Hague said there was a risk of collision with road vehicles for barn owls. He said detailed mitigation in the EIS would ensure that the impacts on that species were minimised. He referred to the Sullane Delta as holding important wintering populations of waterfowl. He said the impact of habitat loss has been assessed as not significant.

Mr. Hague said there was no suitable breeding habitat for kingfisher or dipper at the crossing points of the proposed road development on the Rivers Laney, Sullane and Foherish or the Bohill Stream. He said the pre-construction survey for different kingfisher would be undertaken.

The Kerry Slug , is widespread throughout the study area. Mr. Hague said there would be a direct impact on that species as approximately 3% of the habitat in the study area would be impacted. He said there was also the potential for barrier affects on the species. He said the potential significant impact at national level would require mitigation measures to be implemented and he said these were detailed in the EIS and are further elaborated upon in the application documents for a derogation license for the disturbance of Kerry Slugs. He said this was made under Regulation 25 of the Habitat Regulations.

Mr. Hague said there was potential significant impact of construction operation on aquatic ecology . These would include: -

• Pollution with suspended solids. • Pollution with other substances such as fuels etc.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 68 of 246 Cork County Council

• Permanent loss of habitat. • Obstruction to upstream movement of fish due to construction. • Pollution of water bodies with contaminated water. • Changes in hydrology. • Impact of blasting.

Mr. Hague said the potential impacts were detailed in the EIS but with mitigation measures as set out in the EIS, this would ensure that the impacts on all watercourses would not be significant.

Mr. Hague made specific reference to the freshwater pearl mussel and stated that the potential impacts were directly related to siltation and pollution and that the mitigation measures would ensure that there are no significant impacts on the species as a result of the construction of the proposed road development.

In relation hydrological impacts, Mr. Hague said that there were few wetland habitats present within the study area. He said there was potential for minor hydrological impacts in some small sections of wet grassland. He said the fen area within Cúil na Cathrach east (SEI 16) is more than 110 metres from the land-take of the proposed road. He said it was also separated from the road by a high rocky ridge.

In the next part of his brief of evidence, Mr. Hague dealt with the assessment of mitigation for the proposed road development under the different headings. In relation to terrestrial habitats, he said some degree of local impact is inevitable. He said specific mitigation measures are presented within the EIS for each SEI impacted by the proposed road development. He said the number of trees planted would match the number removed for construction of the road development. He referred to Figure 9.3 in the EIS and Volume 4, Technical Report 5.0.

In relation to fauna, Mr. Hague said all proposed mitigation measures for bats follow the NRA Guidelines and a license for the disturbance of bats and their breeding or resting places under Regulation 25 of the Habitats Regulations had been received from the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. This would allow for the exclusion of bats from the roost of brown long-eared bats at a building adjacent to Cappagh Bridge over the Bohill River. He said a minimum of nine bat boxes of an appropriate design would be erected in the vicinity of the river to replace the roost loss.

He said lines of vegetation leading to under-bridges, underpasses, culverts and bridges would be established prior to the opening of the road. The features would encourage bats to cross beneath the road in safe locations.

Mr. Hague said a suitably sized underpass would be constructed at Clonfadda to allow the passage of bats and stream culverts at Mount Massy would be designed in consultation with a suitably qualified and experienced bat specialist. He said the farm underpass at Cappagh 2+700 and the bridge crossing at chainage 8+900 would be designed to allow bats to cross the

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 69 of 246 Cork County Council

carriageway. He said all overpasses and underpasses for bats would be un-lit. He said there would be no lighting in areas with important bat populations as was specified in the EIS.

In relation to badgers, Mr. Hague said there would be a full re-survey prior to the commencement of construction. He referred to Figure 11.5 of the EIS and noted that the mitigation measures presented in the drawings were provisional and subject to modification following pre-construction surveys and consultation with the NPWS. He said if required, removal of badger setts would be undertaken under a derogation license to be applied for under Section 23 of the Wildlife Act of 1976 as amended. He said the culverts and bridges would enable otters to continue to travel along watercourses under the proposed road.

Mr. Hague said the full details of otter-resistant fencing are shown on Figure 11.5 of the EIS. He said in relation to the Bohill River, a continuous riparian corridor of tall vegetation would be maintained beneath the bridge connecting the retained woodland to the north and south of the carriageway. He said this would also allow for passage of red squirrels across the road.

In relation to birds , he referred to SEI 1 where mitigation measures were proposed in relation to the Sullane Delta. He said there would dense planting and shrubs and/or banks or solid barriers on the eastern side of the road between the crossing of the River Sullane at chainage 20+720 and chainage 21+150 in particular. He said pre-construction surveys would be undertaken for kingfisher and dipper to confirm their continued absence. He if a kingfisher nest was discovered and had to be removed that an alternative artificial nest would be constructed in the vicinity. He said this would be carried out in accordance with mitigation identified in the Kingfisher Key Card presented in the NRA “Ecological Surveying Techniques for Protected Flora and Fauna during the Planning of National Road Schemes”.

Mr. Hague said that extensive consultations had taken place between Cork County Council, the consultants and NPWS in relation to the Kerry Slug. He said the Kerry Slug Key Card is in the NRA Kerry Slug Threat Response Plan which is currently a draft document published on the NPWS Website. Mr. Hague said a license for the disturbance of Kerry Slugs under Regulation 25 of the Habitats Regulations, had been received from the DoEHLG. He said a suite of mitigation measures were proposed designed to prevent the destruction of individual slugs, to remove only the bare minimum of suitable habitat and to replace any suitable habitat that is lost as a result of the proposed road. He said this would either be by trans-locating such habitat from within the proposed road development or creating new areas of habitats in suitable locations. He said there were measures which had been subject to agreement with NPWS as follows: -

1. All licensed site clearance to be under direct supervision of an experienced ecologist with close liaison with NPWS.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 70 of 246 Cork County Council

2. Any features of potential value for Kerry Slugs, such as large lichen- covered boulders would be relocated from the footprint of the works to areas that would be enhanced for the species. Any slugs found would be moved and placed in suitable habitat. 3. Protection of adjacent areas of suitable habitats to be addressed through the insulation of barrier fencing.

4. Habitat features potentially suitable for Kerry Slugs to be provided under the Bohill River Bridge to ensure a potential habitat link remained between suitable habitat to the north and south of the proposed road.

5. Habitat creation in landscape areas would include the provision of long piles and boulder piles.

6. Trees to be left following felling operations for several days before logging and removal.

7. Felled logs would be used as habitat piles.

8. Site clearance proposals to be reviewed to maintain existing conditions, in particular in terms of shade and humidity in the adjoining Kerry Slug Habitat.

9. New planting and other measures to be used to help maintain micro- climatic conditions in adjoining habitats.

10. Vigilant supervision and use of protective fencing to ensure impacts on adjoining Kerry Slug habitats are avoided entirely.

11. An assessment of likely risks of the Kerry Slug gaining access to working areas would be made.

In relation to aquatic ecology , Mr. Hague said the key factors in erosion and sediment control are to intercept and manage runoff to protect downstream habitats and he referred to Volume 4 of the EIS, Technical Report 7 on Ecology. He noted the need for the contractor to establish with Inland Fisheries and to maintain ongoing liaison. During construction, Mr. Hague said that the CIRIA 2001 publication on the control of water pollution from construction sites would be applied and the realignment of the Owengarve River would follow best practice and mitigation measures outlined in Volume 4 of the EIS – Technical Report 7 on Ecology. He said in the context of the proposed road development, the Inland Fisheries had requested compensatory works to be undertaken and these objectives had been agreed.

Mr. Hague referred to hydrological impacts and referred to SEI 8 – Teerbeg Wetland and SEI 17 – Cúil na Cathrach West. He said this required provision of culverts to allow free movement of water beneath the road development at wetland sites.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 71 of 246 Cork County Council

Mr. Hague said that given that there would be no direct impacts on the freshwater pearl mussel, the mitigation measures to be employed are designed to protect downstream habitats. He said the Owengarve realignment would include control of silt at source which would mean the earthworks being carried out in a dry channel before linking to the river. He said monitoring of turbidity levels would be undertaken on a regular basis.

Mr. Hague said the NPWS had requested further information in December 2009 with respect to details of assessment of air pollution and effects on Prohus Wood with further details on Kerry Slug habitat and mitigation measures and mitigation for bats. He said the response had been an assessment of air pollution affects which he said had been dealt with in the brief of evidence of Mr. Pyatt. He said the details on the Kerry Slug were provided in Appendix 01 of his brief of evidence. He said the information on bats was contained in Appendix 6 of the brief of evidence.

Mr. Hague said his conclusions were as follows: -

1. No significant impacts were predicted on any Natura 2000 site. None of the predicted impacts to be significant at an international or national level.

2. Mr. Hague said it was recognised the national resource of the Kerry Slug is of very high importance, given its very restricted distribution in the world. He said that favourable conservation status would not be affected.

3. Aquatic habitats, including those of the freshwater pearl mussel downstream of the proposed crossing points will be protected by the use of appropriate mitigation techniques as detailed in the Schedule of Commitments.

4. Other impacts had been avoided, reduced and/or remedied as far as possible through appropriate landscape planting and the provision of safe crossing points across the proposed road development.

Mr. Flanagan pointed out that Appendix 5 of the brief of evidence gives more information further to the supplementary report. This was in connection with the possible revision of the SPA at Slievereagh.

4.2.11 Mr. Cunningham gave a summary of the Council’s case as follows: - (Transcript, Day 2, Pages 145 – 156)

Mr. Cunningham said that by way of project overview key constraints in the area were Macroom and the twin villages of Baile Bhuirne and Baile Mhic Íre. He said there were 72 farms from which land need to be taken by way of Compulsory Purchase. He said there were two homes in the CPO and one that required to be demolished at Gurteenroe and one at the Bohill River which is in the CPO but is not required to be demolished.

Mr. Cunningham said topography was a challenge and the job with the change in elevation of more than 120 metres over the length of the job. He said

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 72 of 246 Cork County Council

existing roads and rivers had to be crossed and other constraints were the ambush site, Cascade Wood, Carrigaphooca Castle and Castle House and the standing stones at Carrigaphooca. He said there would be 5.2 million cubic metres of earth works required, but it was almost balanced with 100,000 m 3 required to be imported into the site. He said there were 189 hectares of total land-take and 48 bridges including four river crossings. He said the number of bridges was the greatest concentration per kilometre in a new road that he had seen in over 20 years. He said it was down to the combination of the topography, landownership boundaries and the need to keep the communities connected. He said there were four junctions, one at either end and interim junctions at Tonn Lain and one at Gurteenroe.

Mr. Cunningham said there were five key issues which came under the Department of Finance criteria for assessment of schemes, these were: -

• Economy. • Safety. • Environment. • Accessibility and social inclusion and integration.

Mr. Cunningham said that in relation to economy, the reduced journey times would be about 26 minutes in the design year 2027. In relation to safety he said the analysis over 30 years would be that 16 people’s lives would be lost because at present there is roughly one fatality on the N22 every two years.

In relation to the environment he said that mitigation by avoidance was preferred and in terms of the environment, there was a huge benefit from the scheme by taking traffic out of the towns. In relation to accessibility and social inclusion, he said the existing N22, the regional roads and the local roads would remain almost entirely intact in the current locations and junctions were provided. He said therefore the community connectivity and integrity was maintained. He said in relation to integration, the scheme had been stated to comply with local, regional and national planning policy. He said people’s feelings were that the road was long overdue. He said they were actually internet sites that were talking about how bad the road was.

Mr. Cunningham quoted previous statements by Government Ministers in relation to the significance of the route and gave an analysis of the ranking of Macroom in relation to its requirement for a bypass.

Mr. Cunningham said the question would be was the route in the right place and there would be opposition to that. He said there issues including the 1921 IRA Ambush Site. He said that in relation to Carrigaphooca Castle, they tried to put the road through the receiving environment of a high cultural standing and they had tried to put it through it at the same elevation as the existing N22 at almost the same location so that the two roads share the same corridor. He said they did impact on floodplains and they had assessed the impact. He said they believed that the scheme created business in the future. He said there were over 30 route modifications incorporated and four of then took the scheme outside the corridor and he referred to the appendix in the brief of

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 73 of 246 Cork County Council

evidence for this information. He said there was huge public support for the road.

Mr. Cunningham said the cross-section was appropriate and stated that in relation the requirement for a dual carriageway that a report done by the Road Safety Authority showed that lives were saved as you increase the number of lanes available to traffic. He said the Macroom bypass exceeds the single carriageway capacity at the year of opening and he noted examples of retro- fits of recent single carriageway bypasses. He said the two+two dual carriageway being proposed is the minimum cross-section width to deliver the maximum in accident savings. He showed additional slides to illustrate the point. He submitted that for an extra 3.2 metres in width, 12 lives could be saved over 30 years, if one compared a single carriageway to a dual carriageway.

Mr. Cunningham referred to the issues regarding ecology such as the freshwater pearl mussel and the Kerry Slug. He said that they had pictures from the flood of November 2009 and he noted that the new boxing club in Macroom flooded out and the streets became a river. He said the slides indicate the predicted areas and the impact of the road on the flooding. He said the flooding would be almost the same and they had accommodated land within the CPO to prevent flood compensation areas to bring that down to a zero and neutral effect. He said as the cross-section did not have a hard shoulder, people could not just be stopping on hard shoulder and having picnics, throwing rubbish over fence or into people’s back gardens without been seen. He said there was 1% more land than a single carriageway. He said the cost was 10% more than a single carriageway.

Mr. Cunningham stated that he had learnt the importance of access for business and he said there were 16 letters of support from local companies and regional firms. He said jobs depended on the road and he considered that the scheme was the right solution. He said it would also improve air quality in the towns and would give the towns back to the people and enhance the amenity value of the towns.

Mr. Sweetman submitted that the letters of support were not valid because they did not pay €50 to make a submission. He said he considered them out of order and inappropriate and that they were clearly solicited.

4.3.1 (Continued) Questions were put to Mr. Cunningham by Dr. De Burca as follows: - (Transcript Day 3, Pages 230 – 235). (CPO Reference 212, Dr. Mairead and James De Burca)

Dr. De Burca said she lived in Slievereagh and the new road was going to be on top of her house. She said they were not told individually but went to a meeting in the Abbey Hotel in Baile Mhic Íre and were shown the map with the house overshadowed by a four-lane dual carriageway. She said they were told that perhaps a model could be made and that did not materialise. Her question was about the lakes or attenuation pond and they had a reply which said it was a design mistake. Mr. Cunningham said there was a large

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 74 of 246 Cork County Council

embankment near the house and they could not take it away. He said the house was included in the CPO at Cappagh Bridge on the Bohill River. He said it was in the CPO but not to be demolished. Mr. Cunningham explained that the house was in the CPO to give Dr. DeBurca the option of living in the house or not. He said in terms of the question of ponds, there was an attenuation pond shown in the EIS, but that was a mistake because they had changed the design in that instance to give attenuation by way of storage in the drainage system. This was described as in-line attenuation where the larger pipes are used with a throttle installed upstream of the larger pipes. Dr. DeBurca said there was difficulty with trust when one is told one thing and then another. She said she had no objection to a pond or not a pond if she was not living there. She said it was nice to know and to hear the truth. (Dr. DeBurca was also represented by Mr. Crowley).

4.3.1 (Continued) Dr. Sheahan (Carrigaphooca House) asked Mr. Cunningham questions in relation to route selection documentation: - (Transcript Day 4, Pages 174 – 180)

Dr. Sheahan gave the background in that from Day 3 of the hearing he had stated that there was no assessment made of cultural heritage for either Carrigaphooca Castle or Carrigaphooca Stone Circle and no cultural assessment made of an alternative route called the Purple Route or Pink Route. He referred to a disagreement with Mr. Cunningham at the time and he said that Appendix 5 of the document showed all the assessments did not have that information. He said that on Page 10 of 21, referring to the yellow route, there was no mention of either of the two registered national monuments and on Page 20 of 21 for the purple route there was no assessment made of the cultural heritage of that route either. He confirmed that he had taken the complete Appendix 5 and the full 21 pages.

By way of reply, Mr. Cunningham said that regarding Volume 1 of the route selection report he would direct to the starting point to Appendix 3.1. He said Appendix 3.1 was entitled development of route options and on the 4 th April 2001 at a meeting in Gilford (because that was McCarthy Hyder offices in the UK there were 15 people in attendance) and he (Matt Cunningham) was there. He said the minutes of that meeting under archaeology was communicated by Mr. Julian Galloway. He said there were five sites or monuments and the minutes show that these included Carrigaphooca House and Carrigaphooca Multiple Stone Circle.

He said he thought that made it clear to everyone involved that Carrigaphooca Castle, Carrigaphooca Stone Circle was fully in the minds of the people designing the road scheme. He said they could put on record for everyone’s benefit, the drawing on the board at the hearing marked the key constraints as per the meeting of April 2001. He said in the decision matrix Appendix 3.2 on the 1 st May 2001 in Table 1 under the Yellow Route it states that there would be large adverse impact and included two sites in the ownership of the Minister namely Carrigaphooca Castle and Circle.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 75 of 246 Cork County Council

Mr. Cunningham said that Carrigaphooca Castle, Carrigaphooca Stone Circle and Carrigaphooca House were fully in the mind of the designers when selecting a route for the proposed road development.

Dr. Sheahan said he had been discussing it with the NRA Office for seven or eight years and he did get confirmation from the archaeologist at the time and Mr. Fay, as he could recall, that they omitted the two sites in error during the documentation. He said he accepted what Mr. Cunningham was saying that there were other references to it, but in the list that should be comprehensive for all the sites, it is not.

4.3.1 (Continued) Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Cunningham questions about errata: - (Transcript Day 4, Pages 180 – 182)

Mr. Sweetman said that on Page 3 of the Errata document there were mistakes relevant to Chapter 12, such as to make the information fundamentally flawed. He said the appreciation of the architecture and heritage was completely flawed by it. Mr. Flanagan said there was one hour in one location and Ms. Bailey had acknowledged these. He said there were two locations involved.

4.3.1 (Continued) Mr. Cunningham gave answers to questions raised during the hearing: - (Transcript Day 4, Pages 228 – 232)

Mr. Cunningham asked to address technical issues that were raised during the hearing and he referred firstly to the agreement or arrangement being made with Inland Fisheries . He showed a drawing which also had a building to the south which was the water supply for Macroom. Mr. Cunningham confirmed also that there was a river supply for Baile Bhuirne and Baile Mhic Íre which are from the River Sullane as well as for Macroom.

Mr. Cunningham referred to the question of safety barriers and that the wire rope was not used in Sweden. He said he understood there were actually retro-fitting roads with another form of barrier but were in the process of using wire rope safety barriers at present. He referred to the N4 Dromod Rooskey Scheme which was constructed as a 2+2 project and opened in 2007. He said he understood there were no fatalities since them on that scheme. Mr. Cunningham said other schemes including the N25, the N20 Cork to Mallow and the Clontibret to Castleblaney Route used wire rope barriers.

Mr. Cunningham said the junction design with reference to the ambush site said that the key point was that the existing N22 remains entirely intact. He said he could comment on the suggested alignment to the south of the ambush site and he said it would not be easy. The Inspector noted that the matter had been extensively discussed during the hearing.

Mr. Cunningham said that in relation to crushing plants, there would be a commitment not to locate them within 300 metres of properties. He submitted a drawing, tabbed LA23, showing the location of road building suppliers to

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 76 of 246 Cork County Council

the job between one and 22 kilometres away and also the four locations where crushing plants could be positioned.

4.3.2 Questions were put to Mr. Mian, Mr. Pyatt and Mr. Keegan in relation to traffic, air quality and noise and vibration as follows: - (Transcript Day 2, Pages 200 – 233 and 259 – 307)

Mr. Mian confirmed that the reference to traffic at Baile Bhuirne for 2010 was for February and it was taken from the NRA Traffic Counter. This figure was less that 6,000 AADT and in relation to requirement for a dual carriageway; Mr. Cunningham said that the accident analyses carried out indicated eight fatalities on the corridor of which seven were in the section west of Macroom. He said the seven fatalities took place west of the R582 (Mill Street Intersection) and he also confirmed that there was new road works done in 2009 between Carrigaphooca and Baile Mhic Íre which did not have a wide hard shoulder.

Dr. Ó Gráda referred to the heritage site CH2 and to the width of the road which was of the order of 51 metres at the base of the embankment. Mr. Cunningham explained that the difference between a dual carriageway and single carriage was small. Mr. Cunningham stated that in relation to the route corridor, it was originally 200 metres nearer to the cottages and was developed by the incorporation of a roundabout. He said the design it was originally envisaged was single carriageway with a roundabout. He said they had agreed that there was too big an impact and he noted that the roundabout with a lower alignment would have small earth works associated with it. He said the raised alignment was dictated by the topography of the area and had not so much to do with the single versus dual carriageway.

Dr. Ó Gráda stated that there would be 15 kilometres of roadway on embankment or 68% of the route. He said there was only 2% or 0.5 kilometres at grade. He said his opinion was that this would have enormous environmental implications and it was the fateful flaw at the heart of the project that nearly 70% of the roadway was an embankment.

Mr. Cunningham responded that there were 30 route deviations and many vertical deviations throughout the development. He said the last three kilometres of the scheme at the Macroom end had to be on embankment because crossing the reservoir in potential flood areas. He said the need to maintain access also caused embankments because there was a risk of flooding of the road or need to dewater if one tried to keep the alignment lower.

Dr. Ó Gráda raised the question of the scheme in County Mayo at Boholla which was refused by An Bord Pleanála. He asked could they have details of the environmental operating plan.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 77 of 246 Cork County Council

Mr. Sweetman commented that the road that Dr. Ó Gráda was referring to was the N26 Ballina to Bohola Stage 2 Road Scheme of 18.9 kilometres in length which was a dual carriageway and the refusal had relevance to the status of the River Moy as a salmonid angling resource of major international importance and also the existing and future predicted traffic volumes of the N26 and the recent upgrade of the N26 near Ballina. He suggested what the Board had said was that it be redesigned as a single carriage.

Mr. Sweetman stated he wished to asked similar questions to the NPWS in relation to air quality and he also asked a question about cost benefit analysis. The time saving mentioned in the EIS was raised and Mr. Cunningham said that the time for the new route would be 16 minutes and the maximum in the future with a do-nothing situation would be 46 minutes and locals had told them that delays in Macroom could be far longer than had been projected. It was clarified that the time savings were from a location on either end of the scheme where there was no current congestion and that the congestion in fact was in the middle namely at Macroom.

Mr. Sweetman asked about the high growth sensitivity test where the COBA and the split in traffic. Mr. Cunningham said that there would be a balance of traffic between the new corridor and the existing corridor and the traffic modelling report had been based on surveys and projections of zero growth for the next four years. Mr. Meehan confirmed that the original surveys were in 2001 and further surveys in 2005.

Mr. Connolly asked a question in relation to noise and what monitoring would be carried out. Mr. Keegan said that he had experience of post-opening road noise monitoring on the N8 and that this monitoring had indicated that the modelling had been accurate in its predictions. He said it was a condition of the contract with the contractor that they required to do the monitoring post- opening of the road. Mr. Cunningham stated that he believed there was now a requirement that County Councils have to do noise mapping of the existing roads.

Mr. Connolly said he presumed the Board could fit in a condition in relation to monitoring and he asked was there a commitment to do that. It was explained that in relation to enforcement, An Bord Pleanála was not enforcement agency. He asked was there a mechanism by which a wrong would be righted and Mr. Cunningham stated that the County Council had confirmed that they actually have an obligation to do noise action plans every five years, so any exceedences would be taken to bring it back within the limits. He said that was being done by Cork County Council and he agreed with Mr. Connolly that there was a commitment to carry out mitigation if required in the future.

Mr. Meehan confirmed to Mr. Sweetman that the traffic surveys were taken in May.

In relation to the fatalities, Mr. Sweetman asked in relation to the COBA assessment were there four fatalities in Macroom. Mr. Sweetman said he was asking about pedestrians in the street, rather than people in cars.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 78 of 246 Cork County Council

Mr. Meehan confirmed (Transcript Day 2, Page 261) that the origin destination accounts were taken on May 23 rd and 24 th in 2001. He said these were at three sites close to Macroom over 12 hours between 0700 hours and 1900 hours. The days were Wednesday and Thursday. Mr. Meehan said that the accident data was for up to 2005 and that Mr. Sweetman was referring to more recent fatalities.

During further questioning, the estimate of saving of 16 fatalities over a 30 year assessment period was challenged by Mr. Sweetman and Mr. Meehan he had been looking at the N22 corridor between 1996 and 2008. Mr. Cunningham added that he had been talking about the Dublin – Belfast M1 and basically the number of fatalities on the M1 had reduced. Mr. Sweetman suggested this might have to do with trucks dodging the M1 and going through Slane where they were having more accidents. Mr. Cunningham said that the NRA had noted that where an increased number of divided lanes accidents continually tend to drop.

Mr. Sweetman said that on the N3 he could not find where the wire rope barrier was ever approved. He suggested it in Sweden where the system had originated, they had all been removed.

In response to a question from the Inspector, Mr. Cunningham said that the wire rope was used on the N20 from Cork to Mallow in a retro-fitted situation and it had been used on the N25 between Cork and Waterford and on a 2 + 2 section, it was used on the N4. The use of the wire rope on the Naas Road and its subsequent removal was also referred to. Mr. Cunningham said that north of Kells was a dual carriageway and that was a 2 + 2 dual carriageway with wire rope.

Mr. Sweetman asked about the environmental operating plan and asked what thickness of black top would be on the road. Mr. Cunningham said it would be approximately 300 millimetres and following discussion on sources, Mr. Cunningham said they had identified the number of vehicle trips that would be required and this was doubled on the assumption that trucks would come full and go away empty. Therefore he said the impact was doubled. He said it was fortunate that the existing N22 could be used as the major artery to feed the road. He stated that sources were within reasonable distances of the scheme. Mr. Cunningham said that for an environmental impact point of view, he thought Mr. Sweetman should prefer that the material was sourced and manufactured on site and the disruption kept on-site.

Mr. Sweetman asked about minimisation and control of generation of dust. Mr. Flanagan said this was in Chapter 19 which outlined mitigation measures. Mr. Sweetman said the EIS had stated that suitable control measures would be identified in the EOP prior to work commencing. He asked where these measures had been identified.

There was a discussion on covering of trucks carrying stone and Mr. Cunningham said that covering of these vehicles would be very difficult to

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 79 of 246 Cork County Council

enforce. He suggested that the dust separation measures need to be a wheelwash with the use of a bowser in terms of all roads and care in relation to the storage of materials.

Mr. Pyatt said in relation to the sheeting of vehicles, that it was not intended to be everyday and every vehicle, but only vehicles carrying dusty materials through urban areas.

There was a discussion between Mr. Sweetman and Mr. Cunningham in relation to enforcement of a situation where a sub-contractor used an unlicensed quarry on a previous motorway job and the length of time that was required to close down the operation. Mr. Sweetman and Mr. Cunningham disagreed on the length of time taken.

Mr. Sweetman raised the question of granular material for road embankments and referred to Section 8.16 of the brief of evidence. He asked a question about processing of materials, and Mr. Cunningham said if it was rock it would have to be crushed. He said they did know where they were going to be excavating rock and crushers need to be set a minimum distance away from sensitive receptors. They said they had thought of 500 metres and they realised that this could mean they may never have a crusher on the whole site. He said they were looking at a reasonable balance between keeping the noise, nuisance and dust away from sensitive receptors and also being able to physically construct the work with the minimum impact on the receiving environment. He said by the end of the oral hearing they would have it in their schedule of environmental commitments and they would have a figure they could commit to. It was noted that there was a high number of different locations for blasting.

In response to a question from Mr. Sweetman, Mr. Cunningham said there was a very small peat content in the excavated material. In relation to possible conversion to a motorway, Mr. Cunningham said it was not the right cross- section because it had no hard shoulders. He said in relation to other roads which were not a motorway as per the EIS, the noise mitigation measures were based on a 120 kilometres per hour design speed.

Dr. Ó Gráda asked Mr. Cunningham questions about route lighting at Carrigaphooca. Mr. Cunningham said the lighting was proposed on the immediate approach to junctions and that the lighting at Carrigaphooca was where the regional road went under the proposed N22. Dr. Ó Gráda asked did this reveal a widespread that night time disturbance in the rural area and combined with the excessive use of high embankments would be a design flaw in the entire scheme.

In relation to noise, Dr. Ó Gráda said that from experience of the general area, that a dog would cross a valley, would start barking a mile away if you close the door in a house. He said the change that would be brought about to the rural area had not been adequately explained to the ordinary people.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 80 of 246 Cork County Council

Mr. Keegan said they carried out assessments at 162 locations and found that 98 of the properties there would be a reduction in noise level as a result of the road development. He said the NRA Guidelines had a requirement to assess against a specific design goal. He said in the technical report at Table 10.3, these were rated.

Dr. Ó Gráda said that at the moment the N22 was in a fairly winding alignment between rocks and trees and that drowned out a lot of the noise generated by passing traffic. He said a lot of people who live surprisingly close to the road would not be affected by the noise because they are shielded or screened from it by solid rock or trees or buildings or whatever. He said it was a total new scenario with the new roadway. Mr. Keegan said that trees and vegetation in a linear fashion along a roadside would effectively have no impact on the perceived noise level at a property and it would take dense area of planting of hundreds of metres to effectively reduce those levels. Mr. Sweetman suggested that trees lessened the noise and Mr. Flanagan said they did not. Mr. Keegan said each tree is effectively porous with 90% air and that barriers which were constructed were solid and do not give opportunity for noise to penetrate them.

Dr. Ó Gráda asked about the visual intrusion because of the embankment design and he thought it followed that it would also impact on the line of noise and the line of light pollution. Mr. Cunningham said he would not agree with Dr. Ó Gráda. He said he would relate to the journey from Dublin to Cork and since 2000 he appreciated the scenic beauty of the area more now on the new road system because it has opened up new vistas. He said the new road did open up the vistas and it highlights the beauty of the country. He said at the moment because of the bendy, single carriageway roads and watching for traffic in front, you could not enjoy the drive or the countryside. He said the whole road was not an embankment and it was as low as level as could be achieved. Mr. Cunningham said in relation to light pollution he told Dr. Ó Gráda that timber fencing was used as part of the landscape mitigation. He said they used headlight mitigation effectively where it could affect property. He said they had locations where they had realigned the side road where headlights faced towards properties.

Dr. Ó Gráda raised the question of a photomontage for Cúil na Cathrach and Viewpoint No. 5. The photomontage was shown as a slide and Mr. Cunningham said that from that viewpoint he did not feel that the road would be seen as there might be high ground in between. He said there had been noise mitigation through low noise surfacing and this gave 3.5 decibels of mitigation.

Dr. Ó Gráda asked questions about the prevalence of rock and Mr. Cunningham said the rock vary along the site sometimes being prominent above ground and sometimes 12 metres below ground. He said it did not all need blasting and blasting was resorted to when it was too difficult to mechanically excavate it.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 81 of 246 Cork County Council

Mr. Brian Smyth asked a question on behalf of Mr. Sweetman in relation to blasting and Mr. Cunningham stated that blasting was not undertaken by the general contractor building the road, but by specialist sub-contractors.

4.3.3 Mr. McEwen was asked questions by Mr. Sweetman: - (Transcript Day 2, Pages 303 – 307)

Mr. Sweetman asked about borehole logs of which there were 68 boreholes carried out. Mr. McEwen referred to Section 4.14 and 4.15 of his brief of evidence which is tabbed LA04 in relation to landfills and the Macroom Iron Foundry.

Mr. Sweetman asked what was scan line logging and Mr. McEwen said it was system where a geologist looks at rock exposures and measures the discontinuities within the rock mass and from this he can see whether or not, using tables published, whether the rock is able to be ripped or needs to be blasted. He confirmed to Mr. Sweetman it was similar to the way measurements were carried out in a quarry.

In relation to the Macroom Iron Foundry, Mr. McEwen said it was raised a potential issue but the site was outside the route corridor. He said the likely contaminants would be heavy metals.

In relation to a question on monitoring of blasting, Mr. Cunningham said there was a commitment that within 250 metres of a proposed blast area there would be a pre and post blast survey of properties for vibration effects.

4.3.4 Questions were asked of Mr. Carter in relation to landscape and visual issues as follows: - (Transcript Day 3, Pages 4 – 62 and 68 – 133)

At the request of the Inspector, Mr. Carter gave a further overview of the route from a landscape and visual point of view and referred to his brief of evidence but more particularly to the aerial photographs in the appendix to his brief of evidence which is tabbed LA07.

Starting from west to east, Mr. Carter said that at Baile Bhuirne they were at rolling uplands and the route went over a high ridge and the area was quite an exposed upland area with little vegetation and it was necessary to cut through the area and tie in to the existing N22.

He described the high upland ridge north of Cascade Wood and he noted that that was the main constraint in the area that pushed the route to the north including the crossing of the river. He said from there, the route went into an enclosed landscape where in terms of accommodating a road; there was more capacity to blend it into the landscape. He said the aerial photographs showed the route to the north of the villages and down to the Tonn Láin Junction

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 82 of 246 Cork County Council

where there will be a tie in to the existing N22. (The Tonn Láin Junction is at approximately 5+100 chainage).

Mr. Carter noted that the Cúil na Cathrach townlands was next along the route and it was a different landscape character with a lot of rocky areas. He said having passed the ambush site at chainage 6+500, the land drops away into the river valley. He said at the ambush site there was a slight ridge which would have had connections with the historical reason for the ambush being at the site.

The dwelling on the ambush site, Mr. Carter referred to Viewpoint 5 where he noted in that in the foreground there was a large rock that obscures the cottages. Following questions from the Inspector, Mr. Carter stated that the view was limited of the proposed road from that location. He said it was basically restricted to the central portion of the view because of the rock outcrops in the foreground.

Mr. Carter gave a description of the area around Carrigaphooca House with reference to the aerial photograph (6) and his description was that Carrigaphooca House was at a quite raised elevation on the side of the river valley. He said it was important to note the large rock outcrops on the northern side of the river valley. He said the crossing point with the existing N22 next to the farmhouse would be at the same level as the existing N22. He said they had tried to respect the character of the area which was still part of the scenic route travelling west from Macroom. His description was that they tried threading the route basically through the gap and keeping the features that gives the local character.

Mr. Carter said that the river crossing for the Foherish River was the start of the rocky outcrops from about chainage 13+000 to the east. Following a question from the Inspector, Mr. Carter said the intention was to keep the road low at the location from the point of view of views. It was noted that one constraint was the crossing of the Sullane River which required raising the road at that point.

Mr. Carter indicated Mr. Healy’s house (View 15/16) where the key is obtained to go up to the castle. His description of the castle was that the stairs were very steep with the threads very narrow and he said it was quite a scary experience trying to climb up the castle.

He said in terms of the setting of the stone circle, the landscape screen was not going to change. He said the proposed road was going to be further to the north through the area and crossed over the N22 to the north of the agricultural sheds. In relation to the view from the west at the top of the castle, the only views are through a very narrow slit. He said the view to the west from the castle showed a very large prominent rock on the right-hand side and this was one of the rock features they were retaining in terms of route development.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 83 of 246 Cork County Council

The photographs submitted by Mr. Carter are tabbed LA15. Mr. Carter noted again that at the top level of the castle, there was a paved area with one narrow slit facing west and that was the only view one got when facing west.

Mr. Carter gave a description of the eastern end and aerial photograph no. 5 where he said the issues in terms of landscape were that they were very much constraint by high ground to the east of Newbridge where the River Laney came from the east and there was quite a restrained area of high ground to the west with the proposed crossing of the Sullane and across the floodplain to tie in just on the existing N22 by Coolcour House.

Dr. Ó Gráda asked Mr. Carter questions (Page 19-38). Dr. Ó Gráda raised the question about the representation of the roads on the drawing by the use of a single line whereas in the case of Cúil na Cathrach it would be fence to fence requirement of 70 metres in width. He asked was there a professional responsibility on the applicant to give a proper representation of the road.

Mr. Carter replied by saying the images he was using were clearly not intended to show the extent of the road, but to give an indication of where the route was going in the landscape. Dr. Ó Gráda said the people were entitled to a fair representation in the graphics that are presented. Mr. Cunningham replied and explaining that the public had been informed fully on the matter and he stated that all the drawings were scalable in the EIS and through public consultation they had never held back on the scale of the project. He said it was bigger than the existing road and he said it was safer than the existing road.

The Inspector asked where was the widest necessary land-take and Mr. Cunningham said this was on Slievereagh and he referred to Figure 14.1 and said the scalable width from fence to fence was about 150 metres. Mr. Cunningham explained that the disc of the aerial photography which he had shown was in three files and it was necessary to run it from start to finish on each file rather than trying to get a specific location. Mr. Cunningham showed the route coming from Baile Bhuirne through Slievereagh and he noted that the largest cut was about 25 metres deep and he said Cappagh Bridge on the Bohill River had large embankments of 12 metres in height and a bridge which would be 106 metres long. He noted the SPA in the area which was designated for Hen Harriers. He also noted the reputed famine grave site at Killeen.

Concentrating on the section of the file on the disc from Tonn Láin at chainage 5+100 to Gurteenroe at chainage 16+200. He indicated the situation at the Cúil na Cathrach site. Mr. Cunningham stated that in relation to the current memorial, he felt it could benefit from increased safety for visitors in terms of being on the side of a very busy sub-standard alignment of the N22. He said they had other designs that improved the alignment of the old N22, but this had gone into the key areas of the ambush and they changed it in developing the design.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 84 of 246 Cork County Council

Dr. Ó Gráda referred to Section 4.10 of Mr. Carter’s brief of evidence “the proposed road development would have its most significant impact on landscape character – where required earthworks are out of scale and context with the existing landscape”. Mr. Carter said it was not a tacit admission but a factual admission that there was an impact on the site. He said the solution was the right one for this section of the scheme at Cúil na Cathrach. He said the flexibility was not there to move a route independently of other areas of the route. He said if it was moved from that location it could have impacts to the east and west and affects could be had on houses, property and other constraints and potentially the river.

Dr. Ó Gráda referred to Section 4.7 which referred to the design of the alignment being to minimise the height of embankments and the depth of cuttings. Mr. Cunningham said from a landscape point of view, the desire would be to have the road hidden, but it is factual to say that the road has an impact on the landscape and this has not been hidden.

Mr. Carter said as an example, the western tie-in and the cutting to the north of Baile Bhuirne was a key example where they had been forced to move north of Cascade Wood. He said the original design followed the contours of the hill around further south and tied in earlier to the existing N22. He said because of the SAC designation for Cascade Wood, they had to move further north.

Dr. Ó Gráda said was it not unusual to nearly 70% of the road and embankment. Mr. Cunningham said he wished to correct the figure of 70% given earlier and he had scaled the drawings and there was a mistake in the tabular description of the cuts and fills. He said the actual figure for embankment was 59% with 1% at grade and the remaining 40% is in cutting. He said he could issue errata to correct that figure. Dr. Ó Gráda asked was this a material change and Mr. Cunningham said it did not change the alignment in terms of descriptions, but the table was wrong in terms of just describing lengths and the percentage of cut and fill with an overestimation of the percentage of embankment.

Dr. Ó Gráda said this was whole new characteristic of the road that was not previously in the public domain. He asked were the engineers aware of the scenic designation of the N22. Mr. Cunningham said that there was no revision to the design and the design was fixed in December 2008 when the EIS was done subsequently. He said the information about percentage embankment was an appendix to the EIS and it was wrong. Mr. Carter said the design had stayed the same and the extent of the cuttings were the same and in relation to the specific objective in the development plan (S23), he noted Section 7.2.32 of the plan which stated that while advocating the protection of scenic resources, the plan recognised that all landscapes are living and changing and therefore an objection in principle to development on or adjoining scenic routes was not proposed.

Dr. Sheehan asked questions of Mr. Carter and he referred to his brief of evidence Section 6.11 (page 14). He asked about the views from the castle.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 85 of 246 Cork County Council

He asked him why he did not document his opinion on the impact of the proposed development on the landscape setting from the castle. Mr. Carter referred to the photographs in the appendices and he said these included images of views from both the top and the doorway of the castle. He said he looked at four different views available from the castle, effectively the four compass points.

Mr. Carter said in terms of view to the south, these would be unchanged towards the river.

In terms of view to the east, he said the view goes basically up to the stone circle to the existing N22. He said there would be no change in the view towards the existing N22.

Mr. Carter said the views north were discussed in his brief of evidence and he made reference to the agricultural buildings in the foreground and these form quite a large proportion of the middle distance view in terms of the view north.

Mr. Carter said the view to the west would be acknowledged to have an element of the route that is seen within the view. He said that it was one of four views and the rest would not be significantly affected.

Dr. Sheehan stated that there was attempt to create a positive opinion and that what would be totally adverse and detrimental is the view from the castle to the road which would be discordant and adverse. Dr. Sheehan clarified it was the view to the north he was talking about and he stated that the carriageway was coming down from a high ridge and cutting diagonally across the present road heading west. He said the application also proposed to build a roundabout which is even higher up on the ridge which would be lit up. Mr. Carter referred to photos 15 and 16 and he said there was no changing of the boundary. He said with the agricultural buildings, the view of the proposed road was a very small proportion of the available view. Mr. Carter confirmed that the roundabout would be in this vista and he pointed out the approximate location of Carrigaphooca Bridge. He said the roundabout would be up to 500 metres from the castle.

Dr. Sheehan referred to the video link which was shown earlier and he said this demonstrated a massive impact which the development would have on the Carrigaphooca landscape. Mr. Cunningham said one of the key decision factors that they applied was to keep the existing N22 and new N22 as close as possible horizontally and vertically. He said the video was available from the Cork NRDO and he noted in passing that all the land near Sullane floodplain was being purchased as part of the scheme.

Mr. Carter said in terms of screening, the existing N22 would be retained. Dr. Sheehan said that the castle to the development, one must remember that the roundabout area was on a high ridge and would be lit up and this would be a really big impact on the whole landscape. He said the road development would dwarf the area and it could be up to 80 metres width where it is in deep

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 86 of 246 Cork County Council

banking and cutting. He said the Council were not really presenting a true picture of what the impact would be like.

Dr. Sheehan asked Mr. Carter about Section 6.20 of his brief of evidence and he said he did not think it was very fair to try to minimise the impact by saying it was one of the four possible views from the castle. Mr. Carter said that in terms of the view to the west, he was not underestimating the impact of the view. Dr. Sheehan said that the view north-east was probably even more adverse. Mr. Carter said he was not ignoring that and what he was saying was that when assessing the scheme, there is a need to assess it in the round.

Dr. Sheehan he wrote to the NRA two years previously in relation to giving true representations of the route and he got a letter back from the Minister say that the yellow line was just indicative of the route. He said the EIS should be about showing the impact on the environment and on the landscape.

Referring to the image being discussed, Dr. Sheehan said that if you are on the castle it would be very difficult to see any passing traffic. He said the road been shown should be at a much deeper angle and the new road development link into the existing N22 would be clearly seen because of the high ridge. Mr. Carter said the points were not valid in that the road went behind the rock and in terms of screening the vegetation next to the farmhouse will be retained. Mr. Carter said that the lower image been shown was a true representation in that the vegetation next to the farmhouse would be retained. He confirmed to the Inspector there would be trees removed in the construction of the roundabout. He said it would be seen against the backdrop of other vegetation.

Mr. Flanagan raised the point that Dr. Sheehan was suggesting that the existing road was not seen from the castle and Mr. Carter said it most certainly was. Mr. Flanagan said his understanding was that Dr. Sheehan felt that the existing road could not be seen from the castle, but that they differed in their opinion. Dr. Sheehan said that what he said was occasionally there were little gaps or with high goods vehicles you may see a high goods vehicle passing. He said but in general you would not see passing traffic.

Dr. Sheahan said he wished to refer to Section 6.13 where Mr. Carter said the setting of Carrigaphooca Castle and Carrigaphooca Stone Circle would not change significantly to the present landscape setting. Mr. Carter said he thought the area discussed there was actually the area to the north from the Foherish River crossing going east. He said it was actually the area further east that was being referred to. Mr. Carter said that area was 500 metres away from the castle. Dr. Sheehan said there had been no reference to the impact to or from the biggest built structure in Carrigaphooca namely the castle. He said as they had stated already, the castle was the elephant in the room. Mr. Carter said that the area been spoken of in terms of impact reflected the Carrigaphooca ridge landscape with rock outcrops which was north of the N22. He said the castle was approximately 200 metres away from the proposed road and he said the views going back to the 1700s would remain unchanged.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 87 of 246 Cork County Council

Dr. Sheehan referred to Section 6.15 of the Mr. Carter’s brief of evidence which stated that the associated lighting at the roundabout would be a prominent feature. Mr. Carter confirmed that the top of the lighting may be seen from the castle.

Dr. Sheehan referred to Section 4.18 where there was a claim that views of the proposed road would not be available from Carrigaphooca House. He asked Mr. Carter had been in Carrigaphooca House to see the view of the castle. Mr. Carter said he not been to the property but in terms of the landform and knowing the elevation of Carrigaphooca House relative to the castle, he said he had walked the section of the route and looked back towards Carrigaphooca House and there was not an available view from that location. He said there was a very fixed screen because of the gardens around the house.

Dr. Sheahan said that while he lived in Carrigaphooca House the landscape in front of the castle was perfectly visible from his front door and from any of the windows in his house. He said there was a perfect view down to the castle and more importantly to the landscape in front of the castle. Mr. Flanagan said he wished to clarify whether it was the road from the house or the castle from the house was being discussed. Dr. Sheahan said Mr. Carter had claimed there is no view of the castle or the landscape or of the new road development from Carrigaphooca House. Mr. Carter said that where the alignment of the route would be next to the N22, you could not see back to the house from that location.

Dr. Sheahan asked why there was no assessment made for landscape on the purple or link route and he said he had information from the NRA that they had failed to assess the particular link road for both cultural heritage and for landscape. Mr. Cunningham said that he was at the route selection workshop back in 2001 and he knows that landscaping was covered and he knew every specialist was represented and he said it was listed in the appendices to the route corridor selection. Dr. Sheehan said it was not and Mr. Cunningham said it was appendix 3.2, while Dr. Sheehan gave the reference L/01. The Inspector noted disagreement on the matter.

Ms. Stack Shanahan asked Mr. Carter questions (pages 68 – 83) and referred to a quotation from the report no. 5 that the proposed road development would remove vegetation of importance within the vicinity of Carrigaphooca Bridge and that the scale of the proposal would adversely affect the character and setting of the bridge. The reference was Volume 4A, Technical Report 5, page 12 on landscape and visual of the EIS. She said the bridge was the seven-span bridge adjacent to the existing N22. Ms. Stack Shanahan said the proposed development would be on embankment to the north. Mr. Carter said that development would be prominent within local views. Ms. Stack Shanahan referred to the Civil War Monument where she said eight actually died with seven on one side (whose names were on the monument), she said there was one other person, whose was not named because of the fact that he was on the other side. She said the point he was making that this was destroying the cultural heritage and the setting of the Guerilla warfare which continued from

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 88 of 246 Cork County Council

the War of Independence and the links with the Cúil na Cathrach position. It was confirmed that the encounter took place at the bridge and the bridge blown up. Ms. Stack Shanahan said it was a significant battle and she said that Mr. Carter’s comments would confirm that the setting which is relevant to the Civil War would be adversely affected in terms of the character and setting of the bridge. Ms. Stack Shanahan pointed out that the Council had a photograph of the monument to the Civil War encounter in their own presentation. In response to a comment from Mr. Flanagan, she said she was not linking the items, but the whole cluster of heritage at Carrigaphooca was never marked at all for public input. She said she had to write letters to the newspaper about the matter. Mr. Carter said that in terms of landscape setting, the proposal would have a local impact on the bridge, but it was the cultural heritage link that was been dealt with by Ms. Bailey. Mr. Flanagan said he wished to understand the concerns that Ms. Stack Shanahan had about the setting and as he understood it, her concern included the cultural element of the bridge.

Ms. Stack Shanahan asked Mr. Carter about visiting Carrigaphooca Castle and he said he had visited a number of times of the last seven years. Ms. Stack Shanahan said that the five heritage points in Carrigaphooca were never identified in any of the maps for public consultation. She asked how high was the rock in which the castle was situated. Mr. Carter said it was probably about 30 feet. In relation to the height he estimated the height of the castle to be between 20 and 30 metres and he said that while he was not a cultural heritage expert, he noted the windows were narrow as with a fortified structure. Ms. Stack Shanahan asked a question in relation to stairs and Mr. Carter’s description of them being steep. Ms. Stack Shanahan stated that castles would have a trip or two trips on the stairs so that if the castle was invaded, one heard the enemy tripping on the stairs.

Ms. Stack Shanahan asked about Windsor Castle and the book by Mr. Plantagenet-Somerset Fry and Mr. Carter he had heard of the castle but he was not familiar with the book. He also said he could not answer as to why the book had contrasted castles in Britain and Ireland and had picked Carrigaphooca. Ms. Stack Shanahan said that the similarity was because of the defensive purpose that it controlled the entire valley and that was why it was compared and contrasted with Windsor. She said when people climbed to the top of the castle they want to see the historic landscape setting which she considered were entitled to see and that 500-metre exclusion was the European standard.

Mr. Connolly asked Mr. Carter questions in relation to the property of Michael and Nora McCarthy, Reference 169 on the landscape and visual map and plot P230. He also referred to Figure 9.4.5 and 9.4.6. Mr. Carter confirmed that Section 6.4 in his brief of evidence was a response and an expansion to the representation made on behalf of the McCarthy’s.

The property was shown on the screen at the hearing. Mr. Carter confirmed to Mr. Connolly that he was not actually on the McCarthy site and it was agreed that the description of it being a rural location, identified as the Teerbeg and

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 89 of 246 Cork County Council

Codrum enclosed pasture could also be described as a peaceful and tranquil setting at present.

Mr. Connolly noted in Section 6.4 of the brief of evidence that it was acknowledged in the EIS that the proposed road would have a significant visual impact on the property.

Mr. Connolly said the characterisation would now be that it was dominated by a dual carriageway and Mr. Carter said the view towards the junction at Gurteenroe were different than the current view. Mr. Connolly asked why the landscaping was not affected at that location; Mr. Carter said he would not say that it was not affected. He said it would take time to develop and that in a route of over 20 metres in length there would be properties in rural locations that would be affected. He said it was something they tried to mitigate by avoiding those by pulling the alignment away from them wherever possible. He said in that area there was large woodland to the south and it came back to the issue of balancing constraints.

Mr. Connolly noted that the prediction for year 15 as well as for year 1 was that there would be a significant negative visual impact. Mr. Carter said the situation would be improve but it was also partly reflecting the fact that it is a view back towards the junction of Gurteenroe that is in a longer distance and is part of the impact.

Mr. Connolly asked about the outline landscape mitigation plan and the specific measure SLM 4 and Mr. Carter said that was basically hedgerows and hedge banks and he would call it extensive planting on a 1.5 metre grid.

Mr. Connolly raised a number of points about the mitigation and the planting and Mr. Carter said there would be approximately 20 metres of planting which would be substantial and on the slope. He said it was an Environmental Mitigation Plan and in the EIS it would be Figure 9.3.

Mr. Carter stated this was also reflecting the impact of the Gurteenroe interchange as the roadway was in cut at the particular chainage.

Mr. McCarthy ( owner of the house in question ) stated that the survey had not been taken from where he lived. He said they would be looking directly down onto the road. He said it would 50-60 yards in front of him and he would not be able to look out the window without looking down on the road. He said they would not see the junction at all from the road.

Mr. Connolly asked about a detailed landscaping scheme and Mr. Carter said the assessment was informed in relation to mitigation. He said there would be a significant impact on the property and in terms of view, the ground did slope generally towards the south, so there would be views diagonally across the dual carriageway and back to the junction itself. He referred to Figure 5.3 which gives an idea of the depth of cutting. Mr. Connolly said there was some cutting and then a portion at grade and then an embankment where all the

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 90 of 246 Cork County Council

traffic would be seen and there would be the impact of the embankment as well.

Mr. Flanagan stated that the assessment should be on the receiving environment, but he did not want Mr. McCarthy to feel that any assessments would take away from the potential where the issue is to be raised under the relevant rules if a CPO was confirmed.

In answer to further questions from Mr. Connolly, Mr. Carter said that landscape mitigation was targeted towards impact and he noted the need for balance between taking additional land to put in mitigation proposals and reducing the impact of the land-take.

Mr. Connolly stated that he appreciated there was no scope for extending the CPO, but he was investigating whether better mitigation could have been provided and whether that potentially could bring about a landscape benefit. He said the Council had almost handcuffed itself into a position where it could not achieve mitigation of the impact.

Mr. McCarthy stated that the visual impact from his yard was significant. He said the original route was running just to the edge of the wood and then it was moved 40 metres. Mr. Carter said the reason for the move was partly woodland aspects and the impact in terms of ecology.

On a general question, Mr. Connolly asked about the 12 viewpoints shown and that they were not a before and after situation. Mr. Carter said they were basically to illustrate the existing character of the area. He said they were not important viewpoints, but they were more representative viewpoints of the character types.

Mr. Connolly raised the objection of Ms. Sheila Coughlan (Jnr) and gave a plot reference of 202 . It was explained that this was close to the New Bridge over the River Laney and Mr. Connolly referred to Item 6.6 in the brief of evidence. Mr. Carter confirmed that he had not been at that house but had assessed it from the road below. He said it was accepted that there was a significant impact on the property. Mr. Carter said that in Section 6 of his brief of evidence he gone into more detail and he said that at ground level, it was a very tranquil view. He said the river ran across it with the associated vegetation and the property is immediately next to the R618, but the view was very scenic. ( In the brief of evidence, Mr. Carter had stated that it would not be possible to fully integrate the embankment proposed as it is out of character with the nature of the floodplain).

Mr. Connolly asked what the view would be and if a photomontage could be produced. Mr. Carter said he thought there would be a clear view of the road on embankment. He said it would be limited by vegetation in front of the property, but the road on embankment would be visible and would form a large part of the view. He thought that the level would be similar to that of the property. Mr. Carter said the route was very constrained through that location

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 91 of 246 Cork County Council

and he confirmed the embankment would be approximately 10 metres in height.

Mr. McCarthy (Plot 169) said he wished to add that when the road was moved closer to his house, he approached the local T.D. Mr. Creed who actually owned the land and he confirmed in writing that he had no objection to the road been moved over onto the scrubland. He said in relation to the wood there are only a handful of trees at one location, even if the road was moved into the wood.

Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Carter questions in relation to the area at Carrigaphooca. It was established in questions that Carrigaphooca House could be seen from Carrigaphooca Castle, but Mr. Carter said that one could not see from the proposed road line to the house.

Mr. Sweetman asked further questions in relation to the location of the proposed roadway. He asked Mr. Carter about the new and existing road being of similar construction. Mr. Carter referred to the large horse chestnut trees on the existing road and Mr. Sweetman said that the existing road was at the bottom of the hill. He asked which trees were going to be removed. Mr. Carter disagreed with Mr. Sweetman on which trees were to be removed. It was confirmed that the land-take was approximately 45 metres in width. It was confirmed that Mr. Sweetman’s point was that the road would require enough trees to be taken out to materially affect the view.

4.3.5 Additional Evidence in relation to Cultural Heritage with particular reference to Cúil na Cathrach Ambush Site by Dr. William Sheehan: - (Transcript Day 3, Pages 136 – 147)

Dr. Sheehan introduced the submission by stating that he wanted to address some points raised in the letter of 7 th May 2010 to which the email addresses of several prominent historians had been attached. He said the main points made in that letter were not referenced as the published work of any of the historians listed. He said the letter was contained in the submission submitted on behalf of An Daimh Staire Acadamh Fodhla.

His submission stated that the letter of 7 th May 2010 appeared to present Cúil na Cathrach as a major ambush of the War of Independence similar in standing to Kilmichael and Crossbarry. He said in his professional view, this was an inappropriate ranking of the ambush within the overall history of the War of Independence. He referred in sequence to the points made in letter: -

A: ------“Cúil na Cathrach was one of the most notable ambushes of the Irish War of Independence”.

Dr. Sheehan said that when selecting a representative ambush for Cork, Professor Peter Hart in his introduction to Rebel Cork’s Fighting Story, chooses the Kilmichael Ambush. He said on the map in the books’ inside

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 92 of 246 Cork County Council

cover, Cúil na Cathrach is not shown while Clonbanin, Kilmichael and Clonmult are.

Dr. Sheehan said in Professor Diarmuid Ferriters’ book “The transformation of Ireland”, he does not cite Cúil na Cathrach as one of the most important events of shaping the War of Independence. In the selection of violent incidences, there is mention to Kilmichael, Balbriggan, Ennistymon and Bloody Sunday. Dr. Sheehan said the Cúil na Cathrach ambush was only important as an element in a larger chain of events as noted by Professor Kautt where he refers to deaths elsewhere in the country and said they paled into comparison with Crossbarry

Dr. Sheehan said a comparable ambush to Cúil na Cathrach during the period would be Stranooden, County Monaghan where there were three fatalities.

He said Professor Hart in the chapter on the dynamics of violence “The IRA at War 1916 – 1923” does not refer to Cúil na Cathrach and chooses Kilmichael as a key ambush site. He said he did not consider Cúil na Cathrach to be a key site of the Irish War of Independence in a professional historian sense. He said this would be as nothing really changes afterwards and that it had no impact on British policy towards Ireland nor did it alter the operation of the British Army or other ground forces in any way. He said it did not provide a model for future IRA operations as it was considered a failure by that side.

Point B of the Letter: “The Cúil na Cathrach ambush is one of the largest and longest encounters of the War of Independence”.

Dr. Sheehan said Professor Kautt gave figures of 100 members of the IRA and 146 British personnel at Crossbarry with 60 IRA at Cúil na Cathrach and 70 auxiliaries. He said Professor Kautt would raise doubts about the timeline of the Cúil na Cathrach ambush and the location of the RIC driver in the intermediate time.

Point C: “Cúil na Cathrach reflected the IRA’s growing Guerilla sophistication in early 1921”.

Dr. Sheehan said improvised explosive devices (IED’s) were the key change in IRA tactics during the period and they were used at Clonbanin, Crossbarry and Rathcoole, but not at Cúil na Cathrach.

Point D: “The British response to Cúil na Cathrach was also noted in its use of combined arms tactics with the deployment of infantry, armour and air units to the scene”.

Dr. Sheehan said that neither Dr. Hopkinson nor Professor Kautt referred to the presence of British Infantry, armoured cars or the RAF during the ambush at Cúil na Cathrach. Dr. Sheehan said in his extensive research on the British Army in Cork, he had come across no evidence which suggested any British Infantry, armoured cars or planes were involved in the Cúil na Cathrach ambush.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 93 of 246 Cork County Council

Point E: “The Cúil na Cathrach ambush was essential to the establishment of the largest republican safe haven of the 1920-21 period”.

Dr. Sheehan said in the absence of references, he took it to be a repetition of Professor Kautt’s claim where he appears to endorse Charlie Brown’s ascertion that Cúil na Cathrach created a safe haven in West Cork. Dr. Sheehan said that Hopkinson in his work did not endorse the claim and neither did he. He noted that Hopkinson shows that the IRA considered the ambush to be a failure and stated that Hopkinson said that by May and June of 1921, the IRA had been forced to disband many columns and that men spent much of the time on the run. He quoted Sean Moylan, and Florence O’Donoghue.

Dr. Sheehan said Professor Peter Hart would also find it difficult to agree with Professor Kautt’s statement having noted that in 1921 “the flying columns went from being the hunters to the hunted”. He said that Liam Lynch was compelled to describe his experience ---“the enemy were continually dogging me and often close on my trail”. Dr. Sheehan said British drives and sweeps of West Cork continued during the period with the last major drive taking place in the Clydagh Valley in June 1921.

Point F: “Michael Hopkinson’s The Irish War of Independence, standard work on the military conflict, provides Cúil na Cathrach with as much space as Kilmichael”.

Dr. Sheehan said Hopkinson’s account of Cúil na Cathrach which was referred to as Coolavokig was that a large lorry of auxiliaries drove into an ambush which had been waiting for four days and the three auxiliaries were killed and eight wounded. The quotation stated that the IRA column retreated when British reinforcements arrived. He said the history of the 6 th Division had concluded that an opportunity of defeating the enemy was missed owing to bad tactics and a failure to work out a proper plan of operation based on information received. He said that IRA sources were just as critical about the performance of their men. The quotation also said that the IRA view was that it might easily have been a disaster only for steady action of small groups .

Dr. Sheehan said that while the same space that should have been given to Cúil na Cathrach, it was his view that Hopkinson did not consider Cúil na Cathrach a successful ambush.

Dr. Sheehan referred to Dr. Ó Gráda’s submission which described his historical perspective as materially skewed and said that the working methods and methodologies of professional historians were that they had a duty to avoid any bias, including that towards what Professor Ferriter called in a similar context “local myth and triumphulist memoir”.

Dr. Sheehan said that Professor Ferriter claimed of Kilmichael that it was not the only ambush airbrushed by various subsequent nationalist discourses which supported Harts’ revisionist work where he stated that “if such detailed

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 94 of 246 Cork County Council

document hoovering was done for other events, it would rattle the bones of other heroes”.

In answer to a question from the Inspector, Dr. Sheehan clarified that the work of Peter Hart would revise the traditional narratives of the War of Independence while looking at other sources and other perspectives and integrating other voices that have not been heard in the past. He clarified that he considered Professor Ferriter’s view was that looking at Hart’s work on Kilmichael, that it had been completed reinterpreted and that if other ambushes were subject to the same forensic examination, they too would expose perhaps creative mythologies around those ambushes. He said it suggested that Professor Hart was correct in taking the forensic analyses that he did of Crossbarry or of Kilmichael.

Mr. Flanagan stated that in relation to the monument at Cúil na Cathrach the date would appear to be incorrect and Dr. Sheehan agreed with him.

4.3.6 Mr. Neil Evans answered questions in relation to drainage and flooding issues as follows: - (Transcript Day 3, Pages 236 – 272)

Mr. Sweetman asked questions in relation to the floodplain maps and Mr. Evans and Mr. Cunningham indicated the review and examination that took place following the flooding event of November 2009. Mr. Cunningham said that in relation to the embankment on the Sullane at the eastern end of the road development that granular material would be put at the bottom of the embankment.

Mr. Evans said that prior to the flooding of November 2009 there was consultation with the OPW about requirements for the design and the requirements for bridge openings and the culverts. He said the modelling that was carried out following the floods had access to Light Imaging Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) and he said this used laser from airborne scanners.

Mr. Evans stated that the maximum normal operating level of the reservoir was fixed and this was reflected in the modelling. He said the effect on levels in the reservoir was fairly limited and would be restricted to the area of the new bridge. It was confirmed that the reservoir starts at the end of the scheme and Mr. Evans said there was a range of different operating levels which were flexible depending on the requirements of water supply and flood storage.

In reply to a question from Mr. Sweetman, he said the flood level was 63.91 metres above ordnance datum (m OD) where the road crossed the 1 in 100 year flood. He said the depth of the water would be approximately 1.5 metres at that point. He said ground levels significantly changed from the Sullane crossing down to Coolcour. He said the existing bridges were not flooded and the level was between 64.5 and 64.25 m OD.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 95 of 246 Cork County Council

There were a number of questions relating to the flooding in Cork and Mr. Evans noted the recommendations from the Lee Catchment Flood Risk Assessment Management Study.

Mr. Evans stated that the volume of Carrigadrohid Reservoir was approximately 10 million m 3 and he referred to Section 6.21 of the brief of evidence. Mr. Sweetman asked about the displacement effect of the embankment and Mr. Evans said that the water in flood conditions would come from the right bank and head towards the reservoir overland.

Mr. Cunningham said that the flood drawing was shaded in blue and the change that was due to the road would show no change in the flood characteristics.

Mr. Sweetman said the Sullane River rises and falls quickly and said that the embankment would seriously affect the water flow in the area. Mr. Cunningham said that in addition to the span of the bridge which was two- span and totals 96 metres, there would be a further 120 metres of flood alleviation facilities which could take the form of culverts through the embankment. Mr. Sweetman said this amounted to an outline permission approach.

Mr. Cunningham said that there had been more flood assessment work done in the period from October 2009 to the time of the hearing and that they could confidently say they were not making the situation any worse at the Sullane Crossing and in other areas where there was marginal change they had land that could be compensated. He said the 120 metres of measures was on one side of the crossing and 20 metres on the other side. Mr. Cunningham said that while the detailed design had not been done, the detailed modelling had been carried out.

Ms. Lucey asked Mr. Evans questions which related to CPO Reference 215 . The property owner in this case is Eileen Lucey. Ms. Margaret Lucey said there were two maps relevant and one was the last map on Mr. Evans’s brief of evidence and the second one was a letter written to Eileen Lucey on the 14 th May 2010 by Cork County Council with a map attached. It was established that the property is on the north side of the route and very close to the western end. Mr. Evans confirmed he had been looking at it in terms of the realignment of the river and the need to mimic the existing characteristics of the river.

Most of the questions following were answered by Mr. Cunningham. It was clarified that the property is close to the two roundabouts and behind the property is a large hilly area. The gradient is to the south and it was stated by Ms. Lucey that the property had a low point which was lower than the low point on the road alignment. It was also established that flooding had occurred and had not been resolved since the original work of improving the N22 by Cork County Council was carried out in 1996. Mr. Cunningham stated that the drainage system for the road did not go over land but was collected and brought to an attenuation pond and then discharged into the watercourse.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 96 of 246 Cork County Council

It was also established that the underpass under the road was at a relatively steep gradient on a north-south direction. Mr. Cunningham said the overland drainage to the north of the embankment would be collected by a cut-off drain and that a small portion of 10 metres wide could have a discharge from the land onto the base of the underpass and out the far side.

Mr. Cunningham stated that the over land drainage would be intercepted and he indicated the routes of the different cut-off drains. Ms. Lucey said in 1996, the new road was actually built on the floodplain and because the property was lower than the new road, they became the floodplain and the pipes that went underneath it were going into a level that was higher so the water backed into their property. It was noted that there was an existing problem and that as far as the landowner was concerned, it was the same County Council was being dealt with.

Mr. Michael Lucey, son of Ms. Eileen Lucey raised concerns about flow from other properties following development which would join into their drainage system and watercourse. Mr. Cunningham said he could not be designing for things that had not happened and he knew they had done a full drainage design that should lessen the effects of flooding in front of Eileen Lucey’s house. He said that the road development would not make the localised flooding any worse and the likelihood of water reaching the low point is actually less once the scheme is built. He referred to a commitment given in writing also.

Returning to the underpass, Mr. Lucey asked would there be a drain in front of it to stop the water entering it. Mr. Cunningham said that on the drawing he was looking at, there was a culvert that would pick up the water flowing towards it and there was also a stream in the area.

Mr. Lucey asked about the provisions for additional drainage and the possibility of development further up at some stage. He asked would a guarantee be given that this would not result in any increased flooding other than the intolerable levels currently there. Mr. Cunningham said that if somebody planned the future development, in his opinion, it would have to take the affects of their water that they are sending elsewhere. Mr. Lucey said he was referring to the possibility of drainage coming from a farm north and uphill of Mrs. Lucey’s lands. He said it was the objective of the agricultural community to drain their land and dry it and get it done as quickly as possible.

He said he doubted that farmers upland would be concerned about the flow of water and what happens when it gets to the river. He said the drains around the house did not operate for the majority of the winter, because the drainage was ineffective. He said there were two culverts that drain into the Owengarve River that had created a limited floodplain. Mr. Lucey stated that his objection was on the basis of the drainage information that he was given. He said it was inadequate.

Mr. Cunningham stated the drawing that had been submitted gave the appropriate level of detail. It states that the cross-drain was 900 millimetres in

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 97 of 246 Cork County Council

diameter as it was the minimum for the OPW requirement. He said for capacity reasons that could possibly have been 450 millimetres diameter. Mr. Cunningham said that overland flow would be conveyed through the road and then anything falling on the road would be attenuated to reduce the flows. Mr. Cunningham said they could have a look at the capacity of the cross-stream and have further consultations with Mr. Lucey.

4.3.7 Questions were put to Mr. Curtin on Agronomy as follows: - (Transcript Day 3, Pages 304 – 312)

Dr. Ó Gráda said his client had Holding No. 227 which was 78 acres. He referred to the technical report for agricultural land, Appendix 4.1, Page 11. He noted that the impact with mitigation measures had been categorised as moderate. He said his client was surprised that when the next holding on the list showed that 0.4 hectares was taken and that was classified as a major overall impact. He said in terms of viability of holdings, he would invite a comment on that. Mr. Curtin said the criteria relates to how the farm will operate into the future. He said it was not the absolute amount of land taken but rather than the proportion of land that is taken and whether a tunnel would be provided to access the land as well.

Mr. O’Shea said in one case the route was going right through the bigger farm. He said that taking 19 acres through the holding and right through the middle of it questioned how the Council could stand over that criterion. He also said there was a reference that some horses may be kept that are not mentioned. Mr. O’Shea also said he was refused a copy of the report and all he was looking for was a bit of fair play. Mr. Flanagan explained that the matters would be dealt with under severance and injurious affection under a separate code. He said that the assessments and the EIA would not be aligned in any way with the rules governing compensation.

Mr. Sweetman said the EIA on the particular farm was relevant because it was totally unexplained. Following further questions, Mr. Flanagan said that the report would be made available then.

4.3.8 Questions were put to Ms. Bailey in relation to cultural heritage by Mr. Sweetman, Dr. Sheehan and Ms. Stack Shanahan as follows: - (Transcript Day 3, Pages 153 – 189)

Mr. Sweetman asked about a connection between Carrigaphooca Castle and Carrigaphooca House. Ms. Bailey said there would be no contemporary connection and that the castle dated from the 15 th – 16 th century and the house was 19 th century. She said it was likely that the house with the type of demesne landscape was established in order to partake in the wider romantic views of the landscape, as was the tradition at that time. Mr. Sweetman asked what was it based on and Ms. Bailey said it was based on her knowledge of 19 th century demesne landscapes. Mr. Sweetman asked about the thickness of

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 98 of 246 Cork County Council

the central wall of the house and stated that he had looked at it and it was five foot wide and that it was actually a 17 th century house with the middle wall of the house being medieval.

In an exchange of further questions, Ms. Bailey said the Department of the Environmental Archaeologists were contacted in 2007 and she had been told that there was no definitive evidence there was medieval fabric in the structure. Mr. Sweetman said he was giving evidence on the matter and it was certainly not 19 th century. Ms. Bailey said the house was listed within the record of protected structures as a 19 th century house and she had no evidence to suggest it was earlier in date.

Dr. Sheehan said that on a 1791 map, the house was shown and therefore it would be 17 th century. Ms. Bailey disagreed.

Mr. Sweetman asked were there other protected structures in the area. Ms. Bailey said the castle was also listed. Mr. Sweetman asked about bridge and Ms. Bailey confirmed that it was rated and identified in the EIS as being of architectural merit. She said she ranked it as having regional significance as a piece of architecture. Mr. Sweetman asked would Ms. Bailey’s opinion be that it should be a protected structure and Ms. Bailey said it was not her place to make that decision.

Dr. Sheahan asked Ms. Bailey about Section 3.9 of her brief of evidence where the impacts on Carrigaphooca Castle and Stone Circle were listed as slight negative. He asked what impact would it take for her to recommend that the road would not proceed. Ms. Bailey said the impacts were defined within the EIS and a significant impact would be an impact where part of the site would be removed and profound where all of the site would be removed.

In relation to the curtilage, Dr. Sheahan asked would this be included around the castle. Ms. Bailey said it would be the actual site.

Dr. Sheehan asked why there was no assessment carried out during the route selection of Section Y 04. Mr. Cunningham said he would need to answer it because he was involved at that stage. There was a discussion in relation to the colouring of the route in question on the report and Mr. Cunningham said at route selection what they did was identify the key features and Carrigaphooca House, Carrigaphooca Castle and the standing stones were all identified as key features and as they selected the route, they compared with other routes. Dr. Sheahan said they were not in the assessment tables.

Mr. Cunningham said the key features were entirely assessed and the route they had was worse for cultural heritage. He said it was the worst one because it had the key features within the corridor but when the balanced it out with other parameters that were needed, it was just not cultural heritage but the affect on the economy, on ecology, on peoples’ lives, shortness of the route and engineering and flooding difficulties.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 99 of 246 Cork County Council

Dr. Sheahan said that he thought there was misinformation involved in that because the yellow route which was chosen was the least preferred for all of the issues such as landscape and aesthetics, cultural heritage, air quality, demolition and loss of amenity, road alignment and construction impacts. Dr. Sheahan said the tables of key constraints all the site were not listed on the assessment table.

Mr. Cunningham confirmed to the Inspector that the emerging preferred route had been presented to the elected members of Cork County Council and this was documented in the EIS. Dr. Sheahan said he would indicate the relevant table where the information was lacking.

Dr. Sheahan asked Ms. Bailey in relation to Section 3.9 of the brief of evidence where Carrigaphooca Castle and Stone Circle were referred to as national monuments in state care. Ms. Bailey said they were national monuments because of their site type, because one was castle in good repair and the other was a multiple stone circle and they were also in state ownership which made them national monuments. She said they had registration numbers.

Dr. Sheahan asked about the statute about being a Registered National Monument and a National Monument. Ms. Bailey said a Registered National Monument was necessarily in ownership of the state. She said a national monument would be of significance because it is on an important site that is recognised as being important by the nation. She said it would be subject to statutory protection under the National Monuments Act. Dr. Sheahan said that two of the three Registered National Monuments under the guardianship of the Minister were in Carrigaphooca.

Dr. Sheehan raised Section 3.18 and the secondary entrance into Carrigaphooca House and the impact thereon. Ms. Bailey said that the road scheme ran adjacent to the edge of the original demesne, but the CPO line would not impact on the edge of the walls. Dr. Sheahan referred to Section 3.18 the quote that “will be subject to a slight impact due to the proximity of the proposed road development”. Mr. Cunningham said he could put the scheme at that location on the screen. Dr. Sheahan asked if the CPO map could also be put up. Ms. Bailey said the secondary entrance was close to the lane coming down the demesne were it touched the roadway.

Dr. Sheahan said that Mr. O’Shea of the NRA had given written confirmation that no development would occur from the secondary entrance to the main entrance. He said there was no need for the extension all the way along. Mr. Cunningham said Dr. Sheahan was right and that at a meeting he had suggested that the road be tied in sooner to save the belt of trees that was on the south side of the road which probably dated back to the widening from the 1970’s. He said the road designers had worked on it and had exactly where Dr. Sheahan had said, they thought they could tie in sooner. He said if required, the CPO could be modified, but there was a commitment to the physical works would not go beyond there and would safeguard the trees. Mr. Flanagan said the schedule could be amended, but he said that sometimes if

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 100 of 246 Cork County Council

the CPO is not amended, they had entered into an agreement with somebody as to what they are doing.

Ms. Stack Shanahan asked Ms. Bailey questions in relation to the requirements of the EIA Directive and public participation. She drew attention to the incorrect reference to Carrigaphooca Castle and Stone Circle on two tables as AH25 and 26 which should have been AH21 and 22. Ms. Bailey said it was a mistake and this was included in the errata.

A discussion ensued in relation to when the error was found and why it was not highlighted and Ms. Stack Shanahan said it was a matter of legal fundamental importance and was not a matter for an errata. Ms. Bailey said there was a mistake on Table 12.1 within the EIS where AH25 and 26 should read AH21 and 22 and it was one typo. Ms. Stack Shanahan said it was also in Volume 2 of the main text in Table 12.10 where the errors were repeated. She noted the decision on the matter would not be with Ms. Bailey.

Ms. Stack Shanahan said she wished put it to Ms. Bailey that the errors were of fundamental importance and they challenged the whole veracity of the report and furthermore in the map of 1791, Carrigaphooca Castle and Carrigaphooca House were distinctly shown. She stated that The McCarthy Mór had continuous residence in Carrigaphooca and this was a national record the Genealogy Office of the National Library and she was a descendent the McCarthy Mór. She said from the public perspective, the public had a right to be able to depend on people employed by the taxpayer to have honest and true reports.

Ms. Stack Shanahan referred to the matter of an easement or the tunnel under the road over to the castle and to the stone circle. She referred to Section 6 of the Conveyance Act of 1881 and a case reference Wheeldon v. Burrows and stated that the underground passage to the castle and to the stone circle were there from time immemorial.

Ms. Bailey said the tunnel was adjacent to the secondary access and it ran under the existing N22 which was built in the 1970s when the road was widened. Ms. Stack Shanahan said it became a concrete structure in the 1970s.

The Inspector asked was there a tunnel across the land south of the road and Ms. Stack Shanahan said it did but there was indication that she would be given a tunnel through any part of the road linking her property under the new road. Mr. Flanagan said that the Council had made enquiries of the folio of the register of freeholders and in folio 21435 there was nothing registered in the way of wayleaves. He said his understanding is that in terms of people seeking access from the existing public road to the castle, they obtained the key from the landowner.

He said the Council were not aware that any person has an automatic right to access and that in terms of the CPO process, that if there is a restrictive covenant or wayleave, it is covered by Section 83, Sub-Section 2 of the

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 101 of 246 Cork County Council

Housing Act of 1966 and this gives a right to compensation. He said that the issue whether or not there is a right would be a matter that would have to be asserted before an arbitrator. He said the Council’s obligation was to make appropriate enquiries.

Mr. Cunningham confirmed that the Council’s proposal did not close off the access, but that once across the road he could not get over or under the new road. He said the tunnel would remain intact and as to the right of way, it was disputed in terms of the landowner whose land was being compulsory purchased. He said they asked the landowners of any rights or easements on the land and the Council then looked at the title deeds as they go through the process.

In a response to questions as to what happens if it did come to light that there was a right of way, Mr. Flanagan said it would be extinguished under Section 83, Sub-Section 2 of the Housing Act, which states that any rights in land or easements, if they exist, were subject to a claim for compensation under the 1919 Act. He quoted the most obvious one was the famous Jackson Way Case.

Ms. Stack Shanahan stated that as Mr. Flanagan would know, an easement by its nature would not appear in a registered document and that is why Section 6 of the Conveyancing Act is a trap. She said therefore when the folio map was examined there would not be an easement because it existed back to the time of the stone circle by custom and practice. She said she wished to draw to the attention of the Board, that from all points of the land there was a right of way which goes back to the time of the stone circle and to the castle when the crossing of the river was by a ford.

Mr. Flanagan stated that on behalf of the Council in a sense they were neutral, but as a matter of fact, people obtained a key from Mr. Healy to gain access from the public road. He said that there was no evidence of a natural private right of way or any one that is used in terms of regular usage. Mr. Flanagan said that the act specifically contemplated a situation where if somebody does come and there is CPO Order, if they assert the right and establish it, then they go before the property arbitrator.

Mr. Sweetman said he thought it was a public right of way relevant to the ford. Ms. Stack Shanahan stated she wished to put it on the record that it was not acceptable to her.

4.3.8 (Continued) Dr. Ó Gráda asked questions of Ms. Bailey as follows: - (Transcript Day 3, Pages 189 – 203)

Dr. Ó Gráda stated that Ms. Bailey had made extra information available in relation to the heritage site at Cúil na Cathrach with a total of 19 pages of discussion and this was complemented by maps and diagrams. He said the extent of the documentation revealed how significant the battle was. He said it would prompt the question as to whether the roadway can be moved off site CH2. He asked could the idea of a fallow area be provided around the site.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 102 of 246 Cork County Council

He said it was basically the curtilage area. Ms. Bailey said she normally refer to it as a constraint area which is established around a recorded archaeological site.

Dr. Ó Gráda referred to Figure 4 which showed the area of Cúil na Cathrach. He said the drawing clearly revealed how the roadway would go straight across the central part of site CH2. He said while the area identified was quoted as the area which most activity took place as being to the east of the route. He said the drawing then purports to show that where most of the action took place and that any actual command post which any reasonable person would agree a command post should not be either side of the proposed road. Ms. Bailey said the drawings show the start-up positions of the ambush and it showed how the ambush progressed and it was difficult to map it in terms of a visual event.

The Inspector asked the local authority if anyone was aware of any ambush site or historical site similar to it that had been designated in Cork County. Mr. Murphy, Cork County Council Planner said none of the ambush sites were protected in their Development Plan. Dr. Ó Gráda said that was a notable finding and in relation to the drawing presented (No. 4) he said the initial position of the two machine guns (Lewis Guns) was seen to be very important. He said the leading officer of the British Army who was killed was commemorated there and Grant was his name. He said he shot by one of the Lewis Guns. He said he was trying to emphasise the point that the two sides of the road preservation were inextricably historically and heritagely linked. Dr. Ó Gráda said it could not be divided in two and that the memorial commemorates for the man who was killed and that happened on the other side of the road.

Mr. Flanagan stated that the representation of what happened physically is the roadside monument. He said that was the current situation and consideration would be what would be done in the event the road is built. He said another issue was how one would either preserve the information that has elicited as part of this process and he was thankful that all present were involved in that.

Dr. Sheehan (Historian) said that in relation to Major Grant who was the auxiliary commander there was no consensus as to what gun killed him. He said it may well have been a Lewis Gun, but he could have been killed by people who were on the Macroom side of the road just as easily with several rifles and other weapons firing at the time, any of them could have been responsible.

The Inspector asked the representatives of An Daimh Staire Acadamh Fodhla were they saying that the site was the largest circle represented on the drawing through which the proposed road was coming two-thirds to one side and one- third to the other. Dr. Ó Gráda said their case was that it had been erroneously represented. He said that having dealt with planning applications and appeals in every one of the 26 counties, he wished to state for the record that he had not seen an ambush site marked upon an ordnance survey map and he thought

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 103 of 246 Cork County Council

that was notable for the record. He said the Cúil na Cathrach battlefield site appeared on two editions of the OS Map.

4.3.8 (Continued) Questions were put to Dr. Sheehan (Historian) as follows: - (Transcript Day 3, Pages 203 – 229)

Dr. Ó Gráda commenced by stating that there appeared to be a lacuna in the planning code which did not see fit to protect the battlefield site. Dr. Sheehan said it was important to remember that it was an ambush and therefore a much smaller action than a battle. Dr. Sheehan said that his understanding was the reference to the OS Map was in 1937 which would have involved a certain re- drafting of maps at that point.

Dr. Ó Gráda said because of the sensitivity of what had happened in Cúil na Cathrach and the aftermath, people wanted to forget it for a long time. He said it was like the Great Famine being buried for so long. He said his point would be that there are records that have not come to light and will not come to light. He said they suspected that when they did come to light, it will come in the record of the British Casualties, for example, were much higher.

There was an unpleasant exchange between the local authority representatives and the representative of Daimh Staire Acadamh Fodhla in relation to bias and the Inspector explained that all issues would be taken on board in writing the report.

Mr. O’Shea asked to put his point personally and stated that as Mr. Flanagan put emphasis on sources, the main source was that of the local authority and it was very powerful and they (local people ) could not cope. He said the main source of information was the source from the participants and this was not mentioned at all. He said he knew some very well.

In relation to the ambush he referred to the withdrawal and stated that they did withdraw up to Dineen’s House at Coomnaclohy (north-west of Baile Bhuirne in the general area of Mullaghanish). He explained to the Inspector this was beyond Baile Mhic Íre.

He said at that point British Army reinforcement lorries came on the party and they withdrew. He said there was another group who went over the pass and he said he was told by Patsy Lynch himself that there was a discussion about whether they would open up with the machine gun. He said there was a battle there and causalities.

He said the big thing was that they relied on the information from the decedents of the participants. He said they had them in the area and mentioned Donal Healy and Mr. McSweeney. He said Cork County Council had met those people and they were so dissatisfied that a letter was written expressing the disappointment with the attitude of the Council. He said the

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 104 of 246 Cork County Council

Council were selective about what they picked and what they were told, so the whole thing is totally imbalanced.

Mr. O’Shea asked why there was an obsession with going through the ambush. He said the debate had been going on for about eight years and he had gone to the trouble of producing alternative routes. He said he showed to Bob O’Shea (Cork County Council, NRDO) and he said that his route would facilitate individuals and the ambush. Despite that, the original line goes straight through the very centre of the ambush site.

By way of clarification of a question from the Inspector, he said there was a meeting on the 6 th July 2006 in the Lee Valley Hotel in Macroom where he was told that all interested parties had been consulted and they all gave their approval for the route. Mr. O’Shea said he never got an answer as to who the interested parties were. He said the route was a genuine effort on his part to show what could be done.

He said the Council offered a route within one farm. He said it was too much trouble to follow the boundaries. He said if it had been done in an orderly way, it would eliminate the need for a tunnel on the bottom of the well. He said when the map was shown on Monday one could not make out the fields in it.

Mr. O’Shea said there was another area to the north of the existing N22 and there would be an alternative there. He asked Ms. Bailey did she remember being at the monument in March 2007 when she was asked to do a walk-over. Ms. Bailey said she recalled but she did not recall being instructed not to show maps to him.

Mr. O’Shea said Ms. Bailey had maps and said when he was eventually shown by somebody in Macroom, they would not give a copy and went half way. Mr. O’Shea asked why the Council were so obsessed with going through the route when they could avoid it.

Mr. O’Shea referred to the account of the ambush in the EIS and stated that they were ordinary people not with letters after their names or the State’s money behind them. He said if they saw that account, they would turn in their graves. He asked was it too much to ask to show some respect for those people and what they did to contribute to the establishing the State which we have today. He said in response to the question of putting up a plaque, you would be putting up a plaque but covering up the site and he asked was that what was going to be handed down to our descendants.

Mr. Flanagan stated that the Council respected the views of everyone but he would say that Ms. Bailey did refer to nearly 30 witness statements which formed part of her work.

Mr. O’Shea said that while they had looked at references, they never spoke to any participants, and the discussions they had with the descendants of the

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 105 of 246 Cork County Council

participants where such as to cause his friend to write to them and tell them they were totally dissatisfied with their whole approach.

Mr. McSweeney asked questions of Dr. Sheehan and the suggestion that there were 60 IRA men fighting first in Cúil na Cathrach. Dr.Sheehen (Historian) said they were the numbers given by Professor Kautt. Mr. McSweeney said there were 60 in the flank and his father took part in the ambush and they were a reinforcement group and recognised as such and they were armed with shotguns. He said in all 253 volunteers took part in the ambush. He said some of them were in outlying areas on sentry duty. He said this was published in “Outlook” some time ago. He said he noticed that one large lorry was mentioned by some of the reports and it was actually seven lorries and one car. He said he had frequently heard from his uncles and father and on the whole larger family group that they had seven lorries and they always maintained there were 90 auxiliaries in the original force and that swelled to over 300 later in the evening.

In relation to the safe haven, he said that was huge and in the Moylan Report of the ambush that they ran a “Little Republic” in Coolea after the ambush.

Mr. McSweeney said the first southern division had Liam Lynch as its head and they had 30,000 volunteer under their command. In relation to casualties, those of his family and other families who were involved always quote the figures between 14 and 16 as being the casualties. He said those figures were also on the submissions which those people made and which could be got in Cathal Brugha Barracks.

Mr. McSweeney said the plan of the ambush was very simple in that there were two machine guns mounted on outcrops on a straight bit of road and the idea was that they passed first into the space between the two and this unfortunately did not happen, but the first machine gun failed to fire and it was found afterwards that it was in perfect condition so there was some doubt about that.

Mr. McSweeney said that as a result, they did not get into the position which had been planned and also one lorry turned in the road and made its way to Macroom. He said some of the participants and other people felt that that could have been avoided because Charlie Brown said in his book that he proposed before the ambush that a movable object would be placed near Cúil na Cathrach to stop anyone from escaping from the ambush and calling help. He said the main and vital part of the plan did not go ahead because they did not get the military in between the two machine guns. He said most of the participants were from Comocloghy, Kilnamattra and Baile Bhuirne with some but not many from Macroom. He added there were some from Cork City as well.

Dr. Sheehan (Historian) addressed some of the points and said there were some points of agreement, but some points of disagreement. He said he would agree that the ambush was well laid out and in the sense where the main action

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 106 of 246 Cork County Council

took place was due to information that the auxiliaries had and it was not a result of the problem with the layout of the ambush.

Dr. Sheehan said he wished to put on the record also that his view was that the IRA volunteers had a proper spirit of aggression in taking the fight to the auxiliaries in that they left their original positions and went and sought the encounter with the auxiliaries. He said it was important to put their bravery on the record. He said while there are always going to be certain points of disagreement between people in regard to Irish History, he felt one needed to put those kind of things on the record as well.

With regard to figures, Mr. Collins’s book had Commandant Sean Hegarty’s report in full and the figures given by Commandant Hegarty were 56 rifles, two Lewis Guns, 10 shotguns. He gave the breakdown of the different battalions and those involved in the ambush. He said it was accepted that he may not have been including people involved in scouting at the outer rims of the ambush. He said generally that the main force was to be found in those figures as he put it.

Dr. Sheehan said in relation to a safe haven, there were IRA testimonials to say such a thing existed. He said the problem in military history is the definition which would be that it would be an area into which counter- insurgency forces could not go without involving themselves in a large-scale confrontational battle. He said that the reality was that that type of safe area did not exist in Cork, while individuals might feel safe in certain locations, there was no place in the country where the British troops could not go. They used patterns involving large drives and sweeps and they had search and destroy units for hunting down IRA men. He said they also used aircraft regularly to over-fly areas of Cork from May 1921. In relation to the issue of protecting the safe area, the First Division was not formed until April 1921.

Mr. McSweeney said looking at the submissions, Patsy Lynch of Baile Bhuirne was the accountant in Baile Bhuirne and he described how he collected Liam Lynch and brought him first to Baile Bhuirne and then to the Headquarters of the First Southern Division. He said he accepted Dr. Sheahan’s point that the First Southern Division was not formed until April 1921, but it had 30,000 volunteers under command. Mr. McSweeney said the volunteers from Baile Bhuirne and Coolea had 25 volunteers on a round-the- clock duty to guard the area. He added that before Cúil na Cathrach, the British Ministry was in the habit of coming to Baile Bhuirne on a Friday and in the period prior to February the 25 th , 1921 they had shot five innocent bystanders and that did not happen after the ambush.

4.3.9 Questions were put to Mr. Hague in relation to ecology as follows: - (Transcript Day 4, Pages 11 – 16)

The Inspector asked Mr. Hague about mitigation measures for barn owls. Mr. Hague said there would be planting of mature trees to prevent barn owls from accessing the carriageway to allow them to fly over. He said these would be

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 107 of 246 Cork County Council

not just for the crossing locations but for distances either side and he said the documentation was in the schedule of mitigations.

The Inspector asked the question about the shed adjacent to the Bohill River which was a known bat roost for the Brown Long-Eared Bat. Mr. Hague said they were common at that location and Mr. Sweetman pointed out that in general they were rare and threatened. Mr. Hague said that in relation to the Kerry Slug, the documentation on the survey was with the derogation license application.

4.3.9 (contd.) Dr. Jervis Good, NPWS made a submission to the hearing and answered questions on same as follows: - (Transcript Day 3, Pages 311 – 337)

Before Dr. Good addressed the hearing, Mr. Flanagan stated that originally there was a screening and FONSE Report in August 2009 in relation to the assessment of the area where Ms. Lucey had raised issues and which was referred to by Mr. Hague. He said the original FONSE Report would be made available. He said the issue then came about of the potential for an extension of a designation which is what Dr. Good was going to refer to which is Appendix 5 and in Mr. Hague’s presentation the NPWS submission of the 15 th December 2009 is covered in point 5.30.

Dr. Good stated that he was the regional ecologist for the NPWS. He said his primary degree was in zoology and he was a founding member of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management.

Dr. Good said he was referring to Mrs. Lucey’s land. He said currently there is a large SPA which has been notified north of Baile Bhuirne and the process is that people can apply to have land excluded or added. He referred to his hand-out and noted that an appeal area asked for by Mrs. Lucey was included and covers all of the folio of the land. Dr. Good said it was an extension of the boundary of Mullaghanish to Musheramore Mountains pSPA. The appeal of the boundary to include lands in An Slievereagh within the pSPA was on sheets 058a and 058c and was currently under review. Dr. Good said that the letter that was issued to Mrs. Lucey said the file was closed, but in fact it had been reopened again.

Dr. Good said it would be very exceptional to include lands: -

a. which were over one kilometre from the existing SPA boundary, b. which contain a large tract of improved grassland of low habitat value to Hen Harriers, c. which also include the existing N22 road.

He said the fields affected had been examined by himself on the 18 th May 2010. He said nearly all the fields within the footprint were improved grassland, although some had rushes and they would be excluded as foraging

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 108 of 246 Cork County Council

habitat for Hen Harrier. He said some areas of an estimated 0.4 hectares would be considered foraging habitat.

Dr. Good explained that the file had been examined and that a map had been inadvertently transposed onto the whole landholding. He said it should not have been included as one of the criteria for accepting land is that it should be 100 metres from the existing SPA and this was 1.2 kilometres from it. He said if the landowner was not happy with the internal appeal, he/she could formally appeal to an Appeals Advisory Board. This Advisory Board consists of representative of the IFA and ICMSA as well as of the Environmental NGOs.

Dr. Good said there was an anomaly and he would be recommending a condition to be put in to any approval as follows: -

If any lands in An Slievereagh:-

A. Contain potential Hen Harrier foraging habitat. B. Would be lost to the road development. C. Are notified to the NRA for designation as part of the Mullaghanish to Musheramore Mountains pSPA, then,

D. An area of equivalent acreage would be created on land within the SPA. E. The area would be created prior to completion of the road development and, F. The area will be maintained as suitable Hen Harrier foraging habitat.

He said the reason would be to avoid deterioration of habitat within a European Site. He said if the condition was implemented, the proposed road development is not considered likely to have a significant adverse affect on the Mullaghanish to Musheramore Mountains pSPA.

The County Council said they had no difficulties with what Dr. Good was proposing.

The Inspector read the contents of the letter of the 26 th April to Mrs. Eileen Lucey: -

“Following completion of the internal NPWS Assessment of the appeal, it is determined that the land subject of the appeal can be included in the pSPA. Accordingly the appeal is deemed to be successful. Please find enclosed a copy of the map showing the revised boundary for the site”.

Ms. Lucey said she would like to know how they could reopen the file as it would be dealt with by Sections 4 and 5 of the EC Habitats Regulations (1997).

Mr. Flanagan said what they did was to consider it and obviously the Board would do the appropriate assessment ultimately. Mr. Flanagan said for the avoidance of any doubt, Mr. Hague included the information in Appendix 5 of his brief of evidence and this assumed that it was designated as an SPA.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 109 of 246 Cork County Council

Questions were asked in relation to the location of the road versus the SPA as designated in the letter to Ms. Lucey. It was established that the Hen Harrier was the primary reason for the designation. A drawing was submitted showing the line of the road through the area.

Mr. Flanagan said under Article 30 of the Habitats Regulations , the first step was to assess likely significant affect and the Council had done a FONSE Report which is contained in Appendix 5. He said this would be subject to proper assessment by An Bord Pleanála and they would bring to the Board their assessment in the report.

Mr. Lucey referred to the comment referring to the ground not being within a kilometre of the scheme and he said the ground was always one kilometre out of it. He asked how the decision was reached to grant the status when it was always that way.

Dr. Good said that it was not in response to the fact it is close to the road nor is it in relation to the road. He said there was an inspection and the area that was recommended was the large polygonal area to the north of the road. It was confirmed also that the height of the area was approximately 200 metres above Ordnance Datum.

Mr. Sweetman suggested this was like the Santona Marshes Decision. Dr. Good said he wished to clarify that this was a transition case and it had not actually been designated. Mr. Sweetman said it was one that is supposed to have the full protection of the European Directive and Dr. Good said that was as it stood. Mr. Sweetman said if you just read Mrs. Lucey’s letter that would be the case.

Mr. Sweetman asked Dr. Good about Kingfishers and he asked had any survey been done on the river for Kingfishers by NPWS. Mr. Sweetman referred to the judgement against Ireland in relation to Kingfishers and referred to Article 7 of the Habitats Directive.

Mr. Sweetman said he thought that the Board has a responsibility to actually have the river surveyed as to whether or not there are Kingfishers and whether a Santona Marshes situation may not arise. Mr. Hague said they had carried out surveys for Kingfisher at the proposed crossing points of each of the rivers and had found no evidence of nests at those sites. He said there are no nest sites currently at the crossing points, but it was not inconceivable that nest sites may arise prior to the time of construction and in that case, a pre- construction survey would be required. Mr. Sweetman said it was habitat of the bird which is protected not the nesting site. Mr. Hague said that in relation to the protection of the habitat, it would be protected at all of its proposed road crossing with the construction of clear span bridges and he did not see that there would be any impact on the Kingfisher at all.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 110 of 246 Cork County Council

In response to a question from the Inspector, Dr. Good said that Kingfishers were difficult to find but that when they were breeding, they could be surveyed rather successfully.

4.3.9 (contd) Questions were put to Mr. Hague as follows: - (Transcript Day 4, Pages 25 – 78)

Mr. Sweetman asked about the lichen survey at Prohus Wood. He asked that it be read into the record. He said he questioned the condition. Dr. Good read the condition from NPWS into the record: -

A survey of lichens in Prohus Wood pNHA will, pending permission of the landowners be carried out before road construction commences and be repeated two years after opening of the road to traffic if lichen species of conservation importance were found in the wood.

The surveys will be carried out using standard lichen monitoring methods, and a report of these two surveys will be sent to the Heritage Office of Cork County Council within a year of the survey been undertaken. If the survey shows that there has been a deterioration of lichen habitat of conservation importance, then appropriate mitigation measures will be undertaken after a consultation with the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The reason is to ensure protection of the site of biodiversity importance.

Mr. Sweetman asked does this require a lichen survey to be carried out prior to the commencement of development. Dr. Good said that was correct and Mr. Sweetman said that in the light of circular letter PD2 or NPWS 1/2007 this was not possible. Mr. Sweetman said that circular letter stated it was wrong to use, ‘prior to commencement of development conditions’, to carry out survey work to fulfil the inadequacies of an EIS. He said it was sent to the Commission as compliant with the European Court Judgement. Mr. Sweetman said with regard to the Kerry Slug it was the same because the question “prior to commencement of construction, and subject to the conditions of the derogation license” was ok had there been preliminary proper survey and a second one prior to commencement of development is good practice. He said the problem here was “a suitable receiving environment for translocation of the Kerry Slug will be identified in agreement with the relevant landowners”.

Dr. Good said that there were two different issues namely a protected species and a pNHA.

Dr. Good explained that there are three categories of NHA, namely natural heritage areas which are a national designation. He said they were not European designation. He explained there were a large number of sites in the country which are proposed but they had not been notified to the landowners which would be the next step. He said only the blanket bogs and raised bogs had been actually designated. He said the protection for the sites came from the objectives in the County Development Plan. He said to clarify it was not a

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 111 of 246 Cork County Council

fully designated NHA. Dr. Good said in relation to the NPWS circular, he was just not sure whether it applied in the circumstance of sites which are not notified for designation.

Mr. Sweetman quoted from the circular which related to compliance conditions under Section 34(5) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended by Section 8(2) of the Strategic Infrastructure Act 2006. He referred to the requirement that the effects of a proposed development covered by the directive, and information on any necessary mitigation measures, is supplied as part of the EIS for the development, insofar as it is relevant and reasonable to require the development to compile the information.

Mr. Sweetman said his reading was that such things like the lichen survey were fundamental to the EIS.

Mr. Flanagan stated that the letter stated that where mitigation measures have been identified and where it was necessary to ensure effectiveness of their implementation, there would be post-approval monitoring and surveys.

Mr. Hague confirmed that Prohus Wood was 111 metres from the development boundary and was on the opposite side of the Sullane River, to the south. It was also clarified that it was half way between Carrigaphooca and Cúil na Cathrach.

Mr. Sweetman said the lichens were extremely susceptible to NOx pollution. He said lichens were not found on the east coast anymore and they were virtually unknown in England. Mr. Sweetman asked about the assessment of the air quality. Mr. Hague said that this had been examined in relation to the effects of the road traffic on all designated areas including Prohus Wood and the two Natura 2000 sites. The conclusion was there would be no significant effects on any of the designated sites, including the Natura 2000 sites and the NHA Prohus Wood.

Mr. Sweetman said it was right and proper that the wood was monitored after the development but could not compare what went wrong unless you had a full survey to start with. Dr. Good said a lot of what Mr. Sweetman said was correct but it was important that the decision that was made to grant was based on the technical information regarding the effects.

Mr. Hague stated that the air quality figures for nitrogen deposition fall far below the recommended maximum levels for impacts on communities of lichens. He said the guidelines were UK Guidelines and he referred to the Highways Agency Interim Advice Note on Air Quality dated 2005. He said in areas of moss and lichen dominated mountain summits, the critical loads for nitrogen was between 5 and 10 kilograms per hectare per year. This was the level required to have any effect on lichens. Dr. Good asked for the actual reference of that document. Mr. Hague said for comparison, for dry heaths the critical loads were between 10 and 20 kilograms of nitrogen per year. He said in Section 13.3.5 of the EIS the Prohus Wood nitrogen deposition was estimated at 2.76 kilograms per hectare per year which is substantially lower

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 112 of 246 Cork County Council

than the critical loads. He referred to Table 13.1 of Volume 2 of the main text of the EIS. Mr. Flanagan pointed out also that in the analysis of the do- nothing and do-something scenario, these were virtually the same and there was a difference of 0.06 kgs/Ha/yr. It was clarified then that Mr. Hague had the reference for Interim Advice Note of the Highways Agency as being No. 61 of 2005.

Mr. Flanagan stated he wished to make a further point which was that it was one thing to have a lichen survey but it is another thing to look at the potential effects on the environment. He said that as the likely effect on the environment, the Local Authority would say there is no effect and that was their position.

Mr. Sweetman asked was the source of information written by a relevant nature conservation authority and he would add the NPWS, the European Commission, English Nature and the Joint Nature Conservation Council in England. Mr. Hague said the figures were contained in the Highways Agency Document and were based on peer reviewed papers that had been published.

Mr. Sweetman suggested that the Council were putting the Board in a difficult position because the English Highways version was written relevant to the remaining types of lichen in England. He said they did not even know what lichens are in the wood and what levels of NOx they were susceptible to.

Mr. Sweetman summarised his position as saying: -

1. It was not know what type of lichen there was because a survey had not been carried out. 2. Susceptibility of each type of lichen was not known because they did not know what was there. 3. There were virtually no lichens left in England to all intents and purposes. 4. He said they were very little lichen left on the east coast and these were very ordinary ones. 5. The wood is designated because it has the rarer types of lichen and more susceptible to pollution than the average ordinary lichen.

Mr. Sweetman asked questions in relation the Kerry Slug . He quoted further from the NPWS document and then asked Mr. Hague about the submission from the NPWS. Mr. Hague said they agreed completely with the conditions that were being proposed by NPWS. He said they were being included in the Schedule of Mitigation. Mr. Sweetman asked about the translocation of the Kerry Slugs. Mr. Hague said they did not know precisely at this stage. He said it would depend on the micro habitats and the specific site locations that are to be disturbed. He said the areas to be removed would need to be individually assessed at the time of construction or immediately prior to construction. He said a good deal of survey has been undertaken on the Kerry Slug, including the survey specifically at Cascade Wood and north of Cascade Wood by Dr. Anderson which served as a sample or a case study. He said Dr. Anderson’s document was included in the license application documentation. Mr. Sweetman said he wished to question Dr. Anderson on that document.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 113 of 246 Cork County Council

It was noted that Mr. Hague and Dr. Moorkens were at the hearing to answer questions in relation to ecology issues and it was established that Dr. Moorkens is one of the three recognised expert malacologists in the country. Mr. Sweetman said he wanted to put on the record that he asked for Dr. Anderson to come and he was not available. Mr. Flanagan said he wished to record that if the Board or the Inspector felt the need for Dr. Anderson he was happy to make him available.

Mr. Sweetman stated that the Council did not know where from or where to they were going to move the Kerry Slug. Dr. Good said it was a practical problem in relation to landowner changes and also what was being learnt about the species all the time. He said why he recommended the provision of the conditions in the licence was that if the information changed, you could not use that new information. He said the key point about the condition is on line 4 which was that the assessment was required by a competent experienced malacologist. He said there were only three of those in the country.

He said they would be relying on best scientific advice to ensure best outcome for this favourable conservation species. Mr. Sweetman said he agreed with Dr. Good on the secondary information but there was a level of information that should be supplied under which variations could then be implemented. He said there should have been three or four possible options.

Mr. Sweetman asked Dr. Moorkens about the Kerry or Iberian Slug. Dr. Moorkens said it was found in Kerry first and there was lots known about it but she said they did not know enough about it. She said there was a body of information which was enough to inform us that in a very unique situation that is very rare in the world. She said where it does occur it is very common, which was unique for a species and when this was put in context it is not a threatened species or an endangered species and on any red list.

Dr. Moorkens said that because of its very restricted world distribution, it is on Annex IV so it is strictly protected. She said that where a species is widespread there is the opportunity to conserve that species. She said that meant you do not remove any net habitat because then you are not reducing its area of occupancy which is a key thing for invertebrates. She said in dealing with invertebrates it is not numbers, it is the area occupancy that is important and this can be looked at on a metre by metre squared and that would be more important if the species was rare.

Mr. Sweetman asked about the maximum quantity per square metre and Dr. Moorkens said in a really good year there might be 5,000 per 10 m 2. She said there was the same situation with the vertigo snails also in that you could see a press headline saying there were more than 60 million vertigos when the next year there were 10 million and make the wrong conclusion that there were 50 million vertigos lost. She said it was not about that at all but having refuge during poor times and an area to expand during good times so they were maintaining and swapping genetics. She said that was how invertebrates work.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 114 of 246 Cork County Council

Mr. Sweetman asked about the removal of net area of habitat for the slug and Dr. Moorkens said that the scheme without compensation/ mitigation would remove habitat.

In response to questions from the Inspector, the Dr. Moorkens said that the road cut through the Kerry Slug area. She said it was not a pest species and its food requirement was lichen and moss which is not grown commercially. She described the habitat as having sandstone underlying rock, with damp conditions and the non-intensive farming. She said that it was not dependent on height over sea level and damp conditions could be found near a floodplain or at the top of a mountain.

Dr. Moorkens said that one the things that have gone on were developments that did not require planning such as intensification of agriculture. She said in coniferous plantation, the habitat of the Kerry Slug had been fragmented. She said she would describe it as a fragmented landscape.

Questions were asked about fragmentation of habitats and the connectivity that was being sought. Dr. Moorkens stated that the developer would plant oak trees which were suitable for Kerry Slugs. She said there would be boulders moved in the correct orientation with lichens and that it would effectively be hand-picked and the boulders would not be either lost or crushed.

Dr. Good said in the condition that the NPWS had recommended, it referred to a suitable receiving environment and that the implications of that was that the environment may be managed. He said for instance you could get areas which were burnt which could be rehabilitated and they could be managed in such a way that the environment is created.

Mr. Flanagan said the purpose of it was that somebody such as Dr. Moorkens would be the person who would identify those locations.

Mr. Sweetman referred to the brief of evidence “the further information Appendix 4 of the Ecology Brief answered the question raised by the Department relative to the long-eared bat” and he asked was that based on the bat survey by Mr. Keeley. Mr. Sweetman asked to ask questions of Mr. Keeley and it was established that Mr. Keeley was not at the hearing and that the answers would be given by Mr. Hague with reference to the EIS and the appendices and Mr. Hague said he had discussed the issues in detail with Mr. Keeley and he was happy with everything that was in the EIS.

Mr. Sweetman asked is there any evidence of successful monitoring of bat movements on motorways in Ireland. Mr. Hague said he was not aware of up- to-date current levels of monitoring but there was certainly evidence there. Mr. Sweetman raised the issue of the Ennis bypass which he said was a complete failure. Mr. Hague said the Ennis bypass had large numbers of lesser horseshoe bats . He said within the current study area, Mr. Keeley had found some limited evidence of lesser horseshoe bats but no commuting routes

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 115 of 246 Cork County Council

and it was their belief that the mitigation set out in the EIS was adequate to allow crossing of the lesser horseshoe bats across the road.

Mr. Sweetman asked were bat roosts being removed and Mr. Hague said it was not for lesser horseshoe bats, but the brown long-eared bat. Mr. Hague said that in Appendix 6 of the brief of evidence it outlined previous examples for successful bat mitigation for brown long-eared bats has been implemented on road schemes (page 31 of the brief of evidence).

Mr. Sweetman asked about successful relocation of bats and Mr. Hague said this was not relocation but a known bat roost was going to be replaced with a number of specifically designed bat boxes in appropriate locations. Mr. Hague said that he was aware of information showing that bat boxes are being occupied and monitoring has been successful and he could not say exactly where they were. Mr. Sweetman noted that the reference referred to was that in Scotland in one scheme 60% of boxes had been occupied within three years. Mr. Sweetman said the evidence of bats did not stand up.

Mr. Sweetman asked Dr. Moorkens questions about the pearl mussel and it was established that there was a small population of adults but no juveniles. Mr. Sweetman noted that the water quality was not bad and Dr. Moorkens agreed it was not bad for humans and for fish, but miserable for mussels.

On a related issue, Dr. Moorkens confirmed to Mr. Sweetman that the breeding scheme for the River Nore pearl mussel had been successful after five years and there were juveniles almost one year old. Dr. Moorkens stated that the lifespan of the freshwater pearl mussel was between 100 and 120 years.

Mr. Sweetman asked Dr. Moorkens further questions about the Kerry Slug. Dr. Moorkens said following Dr. Anderson’s survey and from her own knowledge where they would and would not be she said they would be in intensely agricultural land. She said Mr. Hague and herself looked at the aerial photographs on the route and it took one kilometres square and wherever a one kilometres square touched the route looked at the percentage potential habitat which was about 3% of the kilometres squared that could be affected by the route. She said the potential suitable habitat within the land take was 0.3 km 2. She said there was 11.2 km 2 of potential habitat. Mr. Sweetman said this was quite a substantial amount of land and Dr. Moorkens agreed. Mr. Sweetman asked would the road form an eco-barrier for the slug.

Dr. Moorkens said there was 34 km 2 looked at as potential habitat and she said that the squares examined amounted to one-third, and the other two-thirds had been destroyed by either intensive farming or coniferous forestry. She said there were a lot of barriers which is why she would put emphasis on trying to create connectivity and try to make a benefit out of the roads rather than a difficulty out of it. She said rather than looking at as a complete fragmentation, you are potentially using it to connect areas that have already been fragmented.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 116 of 246 Cork County Council

It was established that there would be some habitat created along the verges of the road and Dr. Moorkens said if the trees to mitigate for the owls were suitable trees for the Kerry Slug, they will actually provide the habitat.

Mr. Hague clarified that grass would be replaced with tree and shrub planting and it would be acceptable to incorporate boulders and such for the slugs so that the barn owl mitigation will actually be of benefit to the slugs as well. He explained that where the barn owls would like to feed is in areas of open grass and those will not be anywhere near barn owl nesting areas, so is not a matter of removing grass and that does not conflict with the Kerry Slug. He said the known barn owl nest is at Mount Massy and some hundreds of metres from the line of the proposed road. In answer to a question from Mr. Sweetman, Mr. Hague said the feeding range of the barn owl would be a couple of kilometres and Dr. Good (NPWS) said that generally five kilometres would be the most utilised area.

In relation to the barn owl, Dr. Good explained that it was not so much that they were hit by vehicles, but as they are very light birds, they get caught in the tail wind and thrown down to the ground.

Mr. Sweetman asked questions in relation to impacts on the integrity of the site. Mr. Hague said there would be no affects on the integrity of either the SAC or the pSPA. There was a discussion in relation to integrity and qualifying interests and conservation objectives.

Dr. Good explained that the reason the wood was included in the SAC was for the Acidophilus Oak or Old Oak Woodland . He said the Kerry Slug would be taken into account because it is part of the bio-diversity of that woodland.

Mr. Sweetman said the conservation objectives were not on the NPWS site and Mr. Hague quoted from his brief of evidence (page 11) which stated that the Hen Harrier was the main qualifying interest for the Mullaghanish to Musheramore Mountains SPA. He said another qualifying interest was named as the Merlin. He said there will be no impacts on the Hen Harrier or other qualifying interests due to the fact that the known breeding sites are at least 1.2 kilometres away from the road.

Following further questions from Mr. Sweetman, Mr. Hague said that in the absence of conservation objectives, they had looked at the qualifying features and the qualifying interests of the site and had concluded there would be no significant impacts on those.

Mr. Sweetman asked about the kingfisher survey and Mr. Hague said the original surveys were done in the year 2007 in the summer and he carried out a walkover survey in February of 2010, and inspected all of the water crossing and there are no areas of suitable habitat at most of those watercourse crossings except for at the Sullane which he inspected and saw no nests for kingfisher that he could see at the time. Mr. Sweetman asked about dippers and Mr. Hague said he observed dippers along the watercourses but no nest at

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 117 of 246 Cork County Council

any of the bridges. He confirmed to Mr. Sweetman that dippers tend to nest under bridges or in the crooks of trees and along the banks of watercourses.

Dr. Ó Gráda asked questions of Mr. Hague and Dr. Moorkens and referred to Tor na Spideog and said that nature conservation should be at the heart of the project. He asked Dr. Moorkens in relation to the term gene pool and if you can get decline and death by being cut off by an eco-barrier. He referred to Item 4.20 in the brief which states there was potential for barrier effects on the species.

Dr. Moorkens said that an eco-barrier is exactly what they wanted to mitigate against. She said it was to try to provide connectivity and that barriers do not come from roads, but they are also from intensification of land use, so what is attempted is to balance the level of adaptation to micro habitat with encouraging gene pool exchange. She said you have to analyse whether you were actually moving slugs that are highly adapted to their micro habitat and see whether that would outweigh the benefits of exchange of genetic information by moving slugs.

She said there was a different pattern between the colouration and the slugs in the woodland habitat and those in the open habitat. She said the open habitat slugs are quite black with little white spots on them which are mimicking the lichens on the boulders, whereas the slugs in the woodland area were brown with cream coloured patches, which mimicked the lichens on the trees. She said you would not want to be taking brown slugs and putting them into the black areas.

Dr. Moorkens confirmed to the Inspector while they were the same species there was a level of adaptation. She said one did not necessarily adapt to the other and it could just be a genetic difference built up over the years so it is a balancing act between adaptation and gene pool, gene flow.

Dr. Ó Gráda referred to farm intensification and referred to the REPS Schemes. Dr. Moorkens said that the nature of having land grazed would be incompatible with the slug. She said the slug was a wild creature and that the road being a planned activity can be subject to mitigation, whereas anyone could intensify a field that currently holds Kerry Slugs and nobody could stop them.

Dr. Ó Gráda asked about the N22 being a solid ecological barrier formed over many kilometres as it went all the way from Cork to Tralee. Dr. Moorkens said it was amazing how invertebrates can cross road barriers, and noted speculation that they could go on the feet of mammals. He referred to the case of the vertigo snails where you can get restrictions in drought years with tiny patches and the following year you can find the spread out one or two metres away. She said invertebrates have adapted to move and a road barrier is not uncrossable by invertebrates. She said the mitigation measures would allow a connectivity that is designed to promote connectivity and could be a very good learning exercise in terms of our knowledge of the species.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 118 of 246 Cork County Council

Dr. Moorkens said the Bohill crossing was also to be designed so that it would actually have habitat to allow a crossing. Dr. Moorkens said she was not saying that roads should be built just to provide wildlife corridors, but with the strictly protected species like the Kerry Slug, there should not be any loss and the design was such that there should be no net loss of habitat or integrity of occupancy.

Dr. Ó Gráda asked questions about badgers and their relocation and Mr. Hague said they were currently three active badger setts and that while a badger survey had been carried out, due to the nature of badger movement, a pre-construction survey would be required in the year prior to construction. He explained the procedure for moving badgers under license which would not be done during the breeding season. He said the survey establishes if the sett is active. If it is active, and as per license, a series of gates are installed that effectively block off the entrance to the sett.

Mr Hague said that after a few days the gates are dropped so that the badgers can come out but they cannot go back in and when you are certain that the sett is unoccupied, it is dug out. He said the badger group is a social group and would relocate it’s sett within its territory. He explained there was a vast volume of research on badgers and badger movement and it was an internationally accepted methodology for dealing with badgers in connection with road schemes and other developments.

Dr. Ó Gráda asked about the effectiveness of the badger relocation and Mr. Hague said it was published research which was approved by NPWS.

Dr. Ó Gráda asked Dr. Good would the NPWS agree that the bat removal and relocation at the Ennis bypass had failed. Dr. Good said in relation to the lesser horseshoe bats, there has been successful creation of roosts of a different design. He said that was a very complex design (Ennis) and quite simple designs had been very effective in the type of environment being encountered in that scheme and in Glengarriff.

Dr. Good stated that he had four questions relating to kingfishers and he put these to Mr. Hague. He asked could anglers or the public get from the road to the river so that there would be new areas of potential disturbance. Mr. Cunningham said the type 2 dual carriageway would not have access other than normal agricultural access. He said they would be no access from the new road.

Dr. Good sought confirmation that there would be no construction works carried out during the breeding season or they would be restricted. Mr. Hague said there were no kingfisher nests within the proposed crossing points, but the pre-construction kingfisher survey would be undertaken in the year prior to commencement of construction. Mr. Cunningham said that the blasting would be undertaken in major cuts and these would not be where they were approaching river crossings. Dr. Good sought a one kilometre distance and when checking the drawings, Mr. Cunningham said 500 metres was the practical amount that could be achieved. Dr. Good asked questions about the

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 119 of 246 Cork County Council

intensity of the survey and said he would be concerned about walkover surveys. It was clarified that Dr. Good sought a two-hour period in the morning or in the evening or a four hour period for a survey during the middle of the day. Dr. Good said that he wished the site area would be surveyed within one kilometre and Mr. Cunningham said they would get an appropriate wording which would include the idea of intensification of the survey also.

4.3.9 (Continued) Questions were asked by Dr. Good (NPWS) in relation to ecology as follows: - (Transcript Day 4, Pages 189 – 195)

Dr. Good asked about the source of information on the highways agency document ( UNECE Interim Advice Note, Tabbed LA 20 ) which indicated a decrease in lichen in the section relating to Tundra. He said this was shown against a figure of 5-10 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare per year. Mr. Hague said that the existing and proposed scenarios would be 2.6 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare per year and were well below the threshold limits.

The reference is the 2006 Highways Agency Report and Appendix 1 is tabbed LA21 . Mr. Hague said this was a collection of peer reviewed information and the named people are accepted as being experts in the field.

Dr. Good said that he was trying to follow through the references in the Highway Agency Documentation to check that it was on a scientific basis. He referred to Appendix 1 (LA21) and the reference H91AO which referred to woodland habitat and sessile oak. He noted a figure of 10 kilograms per hectare per year and that on a precautionary principle a figure of five was used on the original document. He said he was satisfied there was a scientific basis to that figure.

Mr. Sweetman asked what was the current deposition of NOx and the future levels. Mr. Hague said it was within 0.06 and approximately the same. He said there would be a very minimal increase.

Dr. Good asked about the revision of the commitments in relation to the kingfisher. Mr. Cunningham said he had a revised document (tabbed LA22 ) which had the commitments in relation to the kingfisher on it. This document sets out commitments in relation to pre-construction surveys for kingfisher and dipper and also in relation to blasting locations. In relation to blasting, it states that in the event of a kingfisher breeding site being identified within one kilometre of a proposed blasting location, no blasting would occur during the breeding season.

4.3.10 Questions were put to Mr. Murphy and Mr. Webber in relation to Planning and Socio Economics as follows: - (Transcript, Day 3, Pages 275 – 303)

Dr. Ó Gráda asked Mr. Murphy questions in relation to the scenic route designated S23 on the County Development Plan which referred to the

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 120 of 246 Cork County Council

existing N22. Mr. Murphy agreed that the existing road was a designated scenic route and the proposed road was not. He said the proposed road could become a scenic route in the future if it was so designated. Dr. Ó Gráda asked did the N22 not inter-weave with the new route, and that there was an obligation on Cork County Council to protect the views from the existing road rather than the proposed road. Mr. Murphy said that the scenic route was been affected primarily in two places by the proposed N22 and while there would be glimpses of the proposed road and embankment, it would disappear because of the nature of the landscape.

In response to a further question from Dr. Ó Gráda, Mr. Murphy said that the scenic route as defined in the County Development Plan was from the point of view of somebody driving the route or else walking or cycling. He said if you drove through typically you would come to the overbridges on the new route and this would affect it at those two points. He said the area west of Codrum where the proposed road is down by the Sullane and the floodplain had issues in terms of impact and this would not be denied by the County Council.

Dr. Ó Gráda asked about Section 7.3.32 of the Development Plan and Objective ENV2-11 . Dr. Ó Gráda asked about refusal of permissions for the contravention of development plan provision. Mr. Murphy said he would have examples of one-off houses and he drew attention to the Macroom Electoral Area LAP and he said under Section 7.2 on Page 25 it states that where a development had a negative impact, the scale of the impact would be judged against any positive, public planning benefit arising from the development. He said it was not analogous to a one-off house, as it was a public project based on the common good and there was positive public planning benefits from the route. He said the N22 or the S23 scenic designation route would be impacted.

In reply to a question from Dr. Ó Gráda in terms of a situation where a road proposal would involve impacts were too substantial, Mr. Murphy referred to Section 7.2.6 and 7 where it referred to developments with a significant negative impact and which were not outweighed by any other planning considerations.

In the County Development Plan, Dr. Ó Gráda referred to Objective ENV2-13 which required no adverse obstruction or degradation of the routes. Mr. Flanagan referred to Page 280 of the 2009 County Development Plan and said he wished to clarify that the application for approval by Cork County Council as a Planning or Local Authority or Road Authority in what would be otherwise exempted development and required EIA approval from An Bord Pleanála.

Dr. Ó Gráda said that the applicants’ own analysis indicated 83% of the viewpoints show either a significant or significant adverse visual impact. He asked if Mr. Murphy took cognisance of that when he made his certificate. Mr. Flanagan said the certification was related primarily to the CPO. He said the purpose of the certificate was to affirm that the use under Section 213

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 121 of 246 Cork County Council

referring to the Compulsory Purchase powers was required, but there was an overlap in the EIA issue running concurrently.

Mr. Murphy said that there was nobody denying that the existing N22 was the scenic route. He said there was an objective in the plan regarding scenic routes, but one would have to look at the objectives outlined in relation to community, employment and all the other objectives and also the objectives about supporting the strategic NDP and Transport 21.

Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Murphy about the difference between significant negative affects and negative affects. Mr. Murphy said that what he said was that if it had crossed the existing N22 at six locations, then he would say it would be significant negative affects. He said his view was based on experience and it was fundamentally a judgement call.

Mr. Sweetman asked about the SEA Directive and the 2004 Regulations. He asked about the different strategies as to whether they had an SEA carried out. It was established that the Cork County Development Plan of 2009 had an SEA and Macroom Town Development Plan also had one.

Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Murphy did he think the road protected the landscape and Mr. Murphy said it was and in relation to Carrigaphooca Castle, he said it was not being impacted upon.

There was disagreement on the impacts involved on the N25 at Barryscourt Castle and also Ballincollig Castle. Ms. Stack Shanahan said the road at Ballincollig was moved substantially to protect the castle at Ballincollig.

Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Murphy about the Habitats Directive and the Annex 4 species including the Kerry Slug and the Otter. Mr. Murphy said he understood that they were both Annex IV species.

Mr. Sweetman referred to Objective ENV-19 of the Cork County Development Plan and the objective to encourage biodiversity. He said that this objective stated that you could not interfere with the habitat of the Kerry Slug. Mr. Flanagan said it was an objective and it was accepted as being an objective. Mr. Sweetman referred to the certification by Mr. Murphy which stated that the proposal conformed to and facilitated the policies and objectives set out in the Cork County Development Plan. He asked how did that tie in Objective ENV-19. Mr. Flanagan said he could not forget about the other objectives in the County Development Plan.

In relation to a query on the extent of impact on a species, Dr. Jervis Good of the NPWS commented that there were detailed EU Commission Guidance on the matter and in relation to the absoluteness of the requirements, he said the answer would be qualified and complex.

Mr. Lucey asked about the impacts on Baile Bhuirne and Mr. Flanagan said that in response to a question from An Bord Pleanála in January, 2010 a report produced in terms of the impact on the Gaeltacht area.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 122 of 246 Cork County Council

4.4 SUBMISSIONS

4.4.1 Submission by the South West Regional Fisheries Board (SWRFB):- (Transcript Day 1, pages 77-88) ( since 01/07/2010 known as Inland Fisheries Ireland)

Mr. Michael McPartland of the Fisheries Board made a submission and answered questions in relation to that submission.

Mr. McPartland stated that from a Fisheries perspective, the number of route options that were considered had significant implications for fisheries in terms of loss of habitat. He said having looked at the various options there was a similarity in terms of the losses. He said the submission pointed out that the total losses involved would be of the order of 940 metres and that provision should be made for offsetting those losses in terms of recreation of habitat elsewhere. He said he had received the written commitment from the County Council in that respect but wished to know that the Council were in agreement with that.

Mr. Cunningham stated that the Council were looking at the reinstatement of an Old Millrace in the vicinity of Macroom. He said the problem was that the Millrace was in the ownership of private landowners who would not be aware of the plan. He said the intention of the County Council would be to go to the landowners and if they thought it was good idea, they could carry it through and if not, they would have to go back to the Fisheries with something equivalent elsewhere.

By was of clarification, Mr. McPartland stated that the impacts basically relate to loss of channels due to realignments, culverting and bridging. He said there was not a great dispute as to the full extent of it but he thought it came to something just short of one kilometre.

Mr. Sweetman asked about the 940 metres involved. Mr. McPartland stated that habitat of the order of a kilometre would be either lost permanently or there would very poor habitat as a result of the proposed development. He said that throughout the country, a lot of degraded habitat has resulted as a result of various works that have been carried out through the years. He said as it stood at the moment, that habitat was permanently degraded and this had occurred all over the country. He said that what they wished to do was to ensure that there was no net loss of habitat as a result of the proposed development. He said what was proposed was to carry out remedial works on a section of previously degraded habitat which may have been many years ago and the plan was to identify a suitable habitat which had been degraded and carry out the remedial works to have an equivalent amount of good habitat produced.

Mr. Cunningham said they had agreed the principle in relation to community or ecological gain associated with offsetting the habitat. He said upgrading the old Millrace would be Plan A, but there was a Plan B where they would

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 123 of 246 Cork County Council

look for a similar area and remove obstacles to fish passage and there was a commitment from Cork County Council to that work.

Mr. McPartland confirmed to the Inspector that this was a new type of initiative which would not have been carried out a number of years ago. He said that going back 10 or more years ago there would be a gradual piecemeal loss of habitat involving small losses in different locations. He said culvert designs and other issues had improved the situation but it was the sheer loss that they were now trying to deal with.

Mr. Sweetman asked about the protection to salmon under Annex IV of the Habitats Directive and noted that this was to be implemented in 1995. It was taken as a submission point that Mr. Sweetman considered that the Lough Rynn Judgement meant that everything had to be put before the Board before they are assessed and there was no arrangement in front of the Board in this case.

Mr. McPartland said that the Fisheries Board had made a submission to An Bord Pleanála. In that submission it was suggested it would be appropriate to offset 1,000 metres for upgrading for the 1,000 metres of habitat affected. Mr. Sweetman said that the Board could not do it that it was against the law.

Mr. Flanagan stated that there was a written submission by the SWRFB to An Bord Pleanála and he would speak for the independence of that submission and that it was not prepared on a nod-and-wink basis contrary to what had been suggested.

4.4.2 Submission on behalf Daimh Staire Acadamh Fodhla by Dr. Diarmuid Ó Gráda: - (Transcript, Day 1, Pages 172 – 223)

This submission is tabbed OBJ 01 and has a number of sections which are also included in the submission were made later at the hearing on behalf of Mr. Twomey. Dr. Ó Gráda having referred to the context of the proposal, described the submission as relating to the part of the proposed road development to be in Ballincollig and Baile Bhuirne and specifically in respect of lands at Cúil na Cathrach, west of Macroom. He said it was in the townland of Coolnacaheragh.

Dr. Ó Gráda said the submission was made on behalf of a group of local residents who live within the area. He said his client, An Daimh Staire Acadamh Fodhla, objected to the proposal because of its disruptive impact on an important heritage site that is the War of Independence Battlefield identified in the application as Cúil na Cathrach and numbered CH2 in the Environmental Impact Statement.

Dr. Ó Gráda referred to photographs in the EIS numbered 177 – 180 and referred to Volume 4B, Technical Report 8: Cultural Heritage Plates (EIS). He said site CH2 formed part of a network of battlefield sites involved in the

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 124 of 246 Cork County Council

War of Independence 1920/21. He said it was very significant that the sites were clustered together within a limited part of County Cork and included: -

• Coolavookig – 20/7/1920. • Knockanure – 17/8/1920. • Kilmichael – 28/11/1920. • Dripsey – 28/1/1921. • Cúil na Cathrach – 25/2/1921. • Clonbanin – 5/3/1921. • Crossbarry – 23/3/1921.

Dr. Ó Gráda said he was instructed that it was the last three of the engagements that had the most telling impact on British Government Policy and culminated in the Truce of 11/7/1921.

Dr. Ó Gráda said his client was pressing for an amendment that would move the route a short distance to the west Site CH2. He said this was shown on Drawing 740/03/100/SK/183 entitled “Cúil na Cathrach Ambush Alternative, CA01” and this drawing is included in the submission.

Dr. Ó Gráda described the carriageway design and referred to Figure 5.2 of the EIS. He said the aggregate width of the carriageway amounted to 21.5 metres and this was set in a roadway of 47 metres width. He contrasted the 47 metres with the current width of 6.7 metres between yellow lines at the site of Cúil na Cathrach. He said he wished to emphasis the difference because of the destruction of a heritage site.

Dr. Ó Gráda said the new road would be built on a very substantial embankment formed by filling material and the downgraded N22 would pass beneath the new roadway in a skewed under-bridge. He referred to Figure 5.3, Drawing V512-NE02426-NED-01 and he described the proposal as a Goliath or Leviathan of a motorway, basically a complete urban/industrial type culture imposed on a quiet rural area. He said it was the destruction of a heritage site by that type of road and it was completely dis-respective of the culture of the area. He referred to 5.3 Sheet No. 5 for the underbridge and noted that it would be catering for the largest scale of bridge as it catered for the dual carriageway. It was confirmed that Sheet 5 of 13 of Figure 5.3 referred to the bridge. Dr. Ó Gráda said the span would exceed 11 metres with 5.3 metres minimum head room. He said that development at Site CH2 would be very intrusive and the impact would be seen over a wide area.

Dr. Ó Gráda referred to the Cork County Development Plan of 2009. He said the section of the N22 is designated scenic route S23 . In Volume 2 of the Development Plan, protected views which were identified as including the Derrynasaggert Mountains, the Sullane River Valley, the surrounding hills and rugged landscape. He noted three separate landscape types were identified for this designation with rolling marginal middle ground being type 12a. He said type 13a was ‘valleyed marginal middle ground’ and the third one was type 15b, ‘ridged and peaked upland’.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 125 of 246 Cork County Council

In relation to the development plan he said Section 7.2.31 of the plan highlighted the importance of the designations “scenic routes act as indicators of high value landscapes and identify more visually sensitive locations for higher standards of design, siting and landscaping are required”. He said what was seen here was a heavy and quite insensitive engineering exercise of the kind associated with open cast mining.

Dr. Ó Gráda said the landscape character type had been identified by the applicant adjoining site CH2 as open pasture. He said the key characteristics of the landscape type were identified as: -

• Rugged topography of linear rocky knolls, boggy hollows and scrub. • Some isolated pasture fields bounded by unmanaged hedgerows. • Lower slopes used for unenclosed rough grazing. • Dwellings situated on prominent large rocky knolls. • Minor roads following the contours of south-facing slopes.

He said the application acknowledged that the area contained the greatest concentration of rock outcrops over the route and accepted that the area was regarded as being a very attractive or good landscape quality.

Dr. Ó Gráda said Section 7.3.32 of the Development Plan stressed the scenic route and the need to protect it. He said Objective ENV 2-1-1 acknowledged that appropriate landscaping and screen planting would be required along the scenic route. He said his examination of the plans indicated that the current proposal had an excessively high profile, bulk and scale for that sensitive landscape.

He said that the countryside needed greater sensitivity than that which would arise from a run of the mill computer programme. He said the overall height when a parapet was included would be eight metres. He said the design details meant the roadway would become a formidable dividing line across the landscape. He said it form an eco-barrier cutting off the movements of the local wildlife. He referred to the concerns of the NPWS in relation to Barn Owl mortality on a newly opened national road with raised embankments with rough grass.

He said his analysis indicated that part of the roadway should have had a much lower profile if it was not to be so overbearing as to fundamentally alter at the appearance of the place and that was the central point of his submission.

Dr. Ó Gráda referred to landscape sensitivity and Section 7.2.17 of the Development Plan where there were four categories of landscape sensitivity listed. He noted that the only category that appeared to suit the roadway would be low sensitivity landscapes. He said it stood to reason that Section 7.2.20 of the Development Plan would rule out the current proposals in its present form as the N22 had been designated a scenic route, with the views and prospects purposely defended against inappropriate development. He said that interpretation was supported by Objective ENV2-2 which stated that landscape issues would be an important consideration in the assessment of

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 126 of 246 Cork County Council

proposals. He said under Objective ENV2-13, the Council would require developers in the environs of a scenic route to demonstrate there would be no adverse obstruction or degradation of the views towards or from vulnerable features.

He said they had demonstrated there would be significant alterations to both the appearance and character of the area and the introduction of such a heavily engineered design must be found to be excessively at odds with the established character of the area. He said it would introduce an altered cultural ethos that would be largely urban-derived.

Dr. Ó Gráda said it was an area of long-established family farms, mostly of modest extent. This had encouraged stronger social bonds including the cooperative tradition known as Comhar na gcomharsan, wherein neighbours mutually supported each other at harvest time or when extra hands were needed. He said social bonds were reinforced by the Scoraiocht, get-togethers in each others homes that allowed for conversation, entertainment and the sharing of the latest local news. He said it was that scale of agriculture that informs much of the local history and culture. He said also it was from that background that the significance of Site CH2 emanated. He said no mitigation measures would prevent significant alterations to the appearance or character of the area. He said the damaging impact would be such as to constitute a material contravention of the Development Plan for County Cork.

Dr. Ó Gráda said he wished to turn to the cultural designations which were at the heart of the submission. He said the Development Plan was vague when it came to cultural matters such as Site CH2. He said Section 5 of the Plan is entitled cultural heritage but it confined itself to place-names and the Gaeltacht. He said there was no reference whatsoever to cultural sites such as Cúil na Cathrach or Site CH2.

Dr. Ó Gráda referred to the Macroom Local Area Plan of 2005. He said the main objective was to provide a strategic corridor between Cork, Killarney and Tralee. He said the project is described as realignment and rebuilding with the site selection already completed. In Section 7.2.2 of the LAP, scenic routes were designated in according to the Plan, the value of a scenic route maybe in continuity; dramatic changes are gradually unfolding of scenic and landscape character. He said the current application is for a highway carried on an intrusive embankment with primarily rectilinear features. He said it would occupy the horizon, thereby diverting the attention of adjacent property holders as well as all visitors to the area. He said it would dominate the views, relegating those features protected by the Plan to a subordinate context. He said it demonstrated that the distinctive and rich character protected by the Plan would be substantially eroded and degraded.

In relation to landscape category, he said Section 7.7.11 described the landscape category of rolling marginal and forested middle ground in some detail. “The landscape is modelled in terms of both colour and texture due to the diverse land cover, involving a mix of scrub and cultivated patches. Roads

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 127 of 246 Cork County Council

are limited in width and wind through the rugged terrain”. In his view, that described Cúil na Cathrach and the site his client was trying to protect.

He said Section 7.7.12 explained that the landscape category was of national significance due to its linguistic, musical, cultural and educational value. He said they wished to invite the Board to find that this national significance has not been properly addressed in the design and layout of the current proposal. He said the Macroom Electoral Area LAP review was the outline strategy for 2010 up to 2020. He said that document dated January 2010, identified traffic problems associated with congestion in the main towns of Macroom and Ballincollig, but it largely ignored the impact with the N22 scheme on the rural areas such as Site CH2.

Dr. Ó Gráda referred to official records pertaining to the site. He said the Battle at Cúil na Cathrach has been widely recorded and documented. He said as early as 26 th February 1921, a report appeared in the New York Times and this was attached to the submission. He said a detailed description could be found at the website. He said there was a commemorative roadside plaque at the site and a photograph was included in the submission. He said Site CH2 is identified on the OS Maps in 1937 on the 25 inch and 1940 in the six inch map. In the 1937 map he said it is described as Cúil na Cathrach Battlefield (1921) and extended 300 metres from west to east within 60 metres average of the existing roadway.

He said on the second map, the title was similar but its length was 355 metres. He submitted that the inclusion of the records in the OS Maps was unusual and significant and this constituted an official record of the site, thereby underlying its significance for the purposes of the current assessment. He said the maps recorded a site while the participants were still alive because the field work was undertaken about 13 years after the battle. He said a significant proportion of passing traffic remained horse-drawn and this tended to rule out conjecture.

Dr. Ó Gráda said the representation of the site in the current application differed from OS record in that it had been reduced by 60% and moved twice as far from the public road. He said this suggested a notable change because it tended to suggest a conventional battlefield rather than an ambush.

Dr. Ó Gráda referred to the Applicants’ erroneous interpretation of the Cúil na Cathrach site. He said that he was instructed that excessive and inordinate weight was afforded to the views of William Sheehan concerning the significance of the historic site. He said that opinion was based on a reading of the EIS along with other documents and his client was of the opinion that Mr. Sheehan’s account was materially skewed to a British perspective on the historic events. He said there were now informed by a group of historians on the issue and he listed these historians: -

• Dr. Michael Hopkinson, University of Sterling. • Professor William Kautt, US Army, Staff College, Kansas, USA. • Dr. Peter Hart, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 128 of 246 Cork County Council

• Dr. John Borgonovo, UCC. • Professor Diarmuid Ferriter, UCD. • Dr. Marie Coleman, Queens University, Belfast. • Dr. Donal O Drisceoil, UCC. • Dr. Ruan O Donnell, University of Limerick. • Mr. Gabriel Doherty, University College Cork.

Dr. Ó Gráda said that panel he was instructed, were respected academics with a substantial knowledge of the topics. They are all active in researching and teaching the Irish War of Independence. He said the panel of experts had made available their collective opinion on the matter and he wished to put this before the Board for its consideration and a copy was attached in the submission. Dr. Ó Gráda said he would briefly list some of the most important passages as follows: -

“The Cúil na Cathrach Ambush was one of the largest and longest encounters of the War of Independence. Nearly 200 combatants exchanged fire for four hours, and then continued a six-hour running fight across miles of broken country.

Cúil na Cathrach should thus be classified as one of the IRA’s most ambitious operations of the entire conflict.

The Cúil na Cathrach Ambush was essential to the establishment of the largest Republican safe haven of the 1920/21 period.

Reflecting its historical importance, the ambush appears in numerous histories of the Anglo-Irish conflict. For example, Michael Hopkinson’s The Irish War of Independence (2002), the standard work on the military conflict, provides Cúil na Cathrach with as much space at Kilmichael.

In its current state, Cúil na Cathrach offers one of the most attractive opportunities in Ireland for battlefield archaeologists. British observers reported impressive IRA entrenchments on the site, the remnants of which will be destroyed by the proposed road works.

Changes to the landscape will further eliminate key ground features that are essential to understanding the battle. This will ruin the site’s potential as an interpretative centre, just a few years before the centenary of the Easter Rising. The loss of such an educational, cultural and tourism resource must be avoided”.

Dr. Ó Gráda said in their opinion, there was ample evidence that the ambush at Cúil na Cathrach was one of the successes of the Irish War of Independence. It clearly demonstrated the capabilities of the IRA and the British Army considered it to be an important event.

He said there some maps in the EIS purporting to illustrate the military engagement involved. He said these included the drawing entitled extract from the modern OS Map showing the possible extent of the engagement at

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 129 of 246 Cork County Council

Cúil na Cathrach, Figure 4 of the Irish Archaeological Consultancy Limited report. He said that drawing, dated 21 st July 2008 was quite detailed and it indicated within a rectangular boundary, an area of 35 hectares approximately, described as the original ambush position. He said that one kilometre of the existing N22 was included within it, largely forming a centreline across it, from east to west. He said close to the centre of the rectangular designated area was an area identified as where most activity took place. He said that latter space was represented by an oval boundary enclosing an area of about four hectares along 370 metres of the existing N22.

He said another drawing showing details of the site CH2 was entitled Cúil na Cathrach Ambush Alternative – CA01 and he attached a copy prepared by the applicant, dated December 2008. He said what the drawings had in common is the disposition of each side during different phases of the battle. He said they shared the same detail on the initial position of each soldier of the attacking force. He said they indicated a position of the road blocks, and for the British Army the position of each vehicle is shown for the point of engagement, along with the British troops’ subsequent fallback positions.

Regarding the differences in the boundaries, Dr. Ó Gráda said he suggested that 66% of the attacking force was outside of the oval space when the ambush started. He said that would be a telling point for the interpretation of the tactics to secure the victory. He said it was a significant consideration for the parameters securing the site CH2 in its proper heritage context.

Dr. Ó Gráda said the latter drawing showed an alternative route for the proposed roadway at 400 metres further to the west and this would skirt the battlefield. He said it would encroach on the south-west corner of the rectangular area describing the original ambush position and he invited the Board to consider why that option was not carried further.

Dr. Ó Gráda said Section 4.4.6 of the EIS stated the route was realigned at Cúil na Cathrach to minimise impact on the ambush site. He said this was a notable admission of the project does not avoid the site and sought to reduce the impact. He quoted the section of the EIS and said that what the statements failed to state was that the incursion across the rural area would take the form of a very large embankment set within a reservation 70 metres wide and eight metres high. He said if the topography of the area was as stated such a prominent consideration then it was equally so for Site CH2, because it had the same topography that prompted the choice of this battlefield.

He said according to Section 5.2.1 of the EIS, first crossing of the N22 would occur at Cúil na Cathrach but that is the very place where the heritage setting requires protection. He said it was fundamental reason for choosing the place to ambush motor-borne soldiers. He said there was an intrinsic relationship with the roadway, but that must be expressed at a small-scale that has pertained hitherto. He said the immediate intimacy, arising from isolation and restrictive views would be lost with the new road proposal. He said those elements would be replaced by an urban-scale engineering works with industrial characteristics.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 130 of 246 Cork County Council

Dr. Ó Gráda mentioned the impact of fragmentation of farms and stated that it was a view that the intended roadway line was decided prematurely. He submitted that the modest size of farmholdings in the area is of special concern and that it was the intimate scale of farming that had fostered strong community bonds such that it had informed the landscape in all its cultural aspects.

He referred to Section 9.2.1 of the EIS that the existing N22 is within a designated scenic route. He said the Council policy was significant and it had considerable implications for Site CH2 and he noted Section 9.2.4 of the EIS which acknowledged that the site as characterised by “large, more rugged rocky outcrops on small irregular fields”. He said Cúil na Cathrach east was defined as semi-natural habitats containing wet heath and scrub, poor fen and flush woodlands and Cúil na Cathrach west was described as woodlands habitat with broadleaved woodlands. He quoted that both SEI 16 and SEI 17 were rated of local importance (higher value).

He said in Section 9.5 the applicant admitted “the road development will impact upon the area of relatively undisturbed rock outcrops that exist in concentration throughout this area at Cúil na Cathrach”. He said this was an important admission and in his opinion reveals a major flaw in the scheme. He said the predicted residual impacts in Section 11.6 acknowledged there would be significant residual impact in terms of habitat loss and this would persist after any mitigation.

In relation to visual impact, he quoted view reference VP5 and Figure 9.2 of the EIS with viewpoint 5. It was ascertained that this view was taken from the county road which joins the N22 somewhat north and east of the ambush memorial. Dr. Ó Gráda said that they were only getting the “before views” and he asked why was there not before and after views.

Dr. Ó Gráda said some landscaping measures intended to reduce the destructive visual intrusion and these were included in Figure 9.3. He said that the mixture of measures included grassland and hedgerows and hedge banks and these would be ineffectual. He said after dark, the planting would not serve to screen the light pollution from the vehicle headlights.

He said in the circumstances it was difficult for local residents and interested parties to envisage the impact. He said it was his opinion that the EIS was both defective and incomplete. He said 12 viewpoints were listed and illustrated in the EIS and in relation to visual impact magnitude he noted ‘large adverse’ at five of the viewpoints, ‘moderate adverse’ at four and ‘slight adverse’ at three. He said these were rating for 15 years after construction. He said this meant that according to the applicant’s own analyses, 83% of the viewpoints show either significant or significant adverse visual impact. He said the winter impact would be much worse than the summer impact.

He spoke of the visual impact of the under-bridge at Cúil na Cathrach and noted the intended roadway would be formed on an artificial embankment

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 131 of 246 Cork County Council

over 50 metres wide. He said Figure 5.7 indicated a new road surface would be 5.6 metres above the existing roadway. He said the road would loom large over the historic site at Cúil na Cathrach.

Dr. Ó Gráda referred to Section 15 (i) of the Planning and Development Act and the obligation on the Planning Authority to secure the objectives of the Development Plan. He quoted Section 7.2.6 of the Plan and referred to the certificate dated 16 th October 2009 issued by Cork County Council in respect of its planning assessment. He said this certified the order itself, together with the works that would facilitate where both in conformity with the policies and objectives of the Council’s plans at County, Macroom Electoral Area and Macroom Town level respectively.

Dr. Ó Gráda said in their opinion, it was a surprising endorsement because it had not found any written report based on a planning assessment or a site inspection. He attached an e-mail which stated that the route selection process was undertaken by the NRA and that the planning policy unit of the County Council had no recollection of any report being done.

He submitted that this treatment of the project by the planning authority was incomplete. He compared with the approach that an applicant should expect in respect of say a planning application for a house. He quoted the case of Sharpe (P&F) Limited vs. Dublin City and County Manager, 1989.

He said in the absence of a report, he invited the Board to find that there is not enough evidence of planning consideration by the Council. He stated that in those circumstances his submission, clearly based on a close examination of the relevant documents and plans, must carry more evidential weight than the mere certification afforded by the Council.

Dr. Ó Gráda listed his conclusions and stated that his client supported the proposed realignment of the existing N22 and that the project was welcome in principle. He said the objection was put forward to secure a remedy that would amend the particular section in both the vertical and horizontal alignments so as to render the project consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. He stated they invited the Board to find the application contained critical defects insofar as it relates to the site CH2 and its immediate vicinity. He said several aspects of the project presentation are defective, because they fail to illustrate the true scale and intrusive impact of the roadway.

He said it would be normal for the developer to show features by way of photomontages or appropriate diagrams. He said in his opinion, the application should be rejected insofar as it relates to the vicinity of site CH2. He said alternatively a request should be made by An Bord Pleanála for additional information to rectify these material shortcomings.

He said that the road would be on a high, wide embankment with heavily engineered and industrial elements which gave a form, profile and texture that

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 132 of 246 Cork County Council

did not respect the culture of the rural area. He said it would ravage an important heritage site.

He said EU Policy promotes harmonisation not homogenisation and supports unity and diversity.

He noted the EIS at Table 12.9 listed site CH2 as a design constraint and notes that in Table 13, that CH2 is less than 50 metres from the proposed alignment. He said the statement in Section 4.4.6 to the process was developed to minimise impacts on historic battlefield site, had not been achieved. He said it had not be clarified by the applicant what the impact on the monument would be and that they should have been informed whether the monument would have to be demolished or else moved to another location. He referred again to Section 9.2.4 that the vicinity of the site was typified by “larger, more rugged, rocky outcrops and small irregular fields”. He referred to the film “The Wind that Shakes the Barley” which gave world notice to the independence war landscape. He stated they invited the Board to consider that it would indeed be ironic if this heritage site were now to be destroyed by an agency of the state.

Dr. Ó Gráda referred to interpretative centres at the Boyne Valley, the Grand Canal Docks and Ionad Bhlascaoid in Kerry. He said in the realm of nature conservation, the bar had been set higher by the EU Habitats Directive, especially the recent requirement for appropriate assessment under Article 6(3).

He said he noted in relation to An Bord Pleanála that there had been at least three recent cases for permission for schemes were refused in whole or in part and referred to the example of the Galway Bypass, N6, where only one part of the scheme was allowed and the other part refused. He said it had been previously shown that there is an alternative route to avoid site CH2.

4.4.2 (Continued). Mr. Flanagan asked questions of Dr. Ó Gráda:- (Transcript Day 4, Pages 111 – 115)

Mr. Flanagan asked about the current Cork County Development Plan as being the 2009 Plan and Dr. Ó Gráda agreed it was the plan and Mr. Flanagan put it to him that the County Plan had enshrined policy at national, regional and local level. Dr. Ó Gráda said it did enshrine the wider planning context and set out the legal context and planning context and government guidelines.

Mr. Flanagan asked would he accept that in Chapter 2 there was an overall strategy for the life of the plan and Dr. Ó Gráda agreed.

Following further questions, Dr. Ó Gráda said there were not opposed to the project but the reservation was in relation to Cúil na Cathrach. Mr. Flanagan said he would put it to him that Dr. Ó Gráda had suggested that the proposed development could constitute a material contravention of the plan in his submission. Dr. Ó Gráda said his understanding and his belief is that the

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 133 of 246 Cork County Council

protection of the scenic route S23 which referred to the existing N22 related to the protection of scenic views and prospects. Mr. Flanagan asked if he was basing it on the landscape section of the Development Plan and Dr. Ó Gráda agreed.

4.4.2 (Continued) Submission by the National Graves Association (NGA) in relation to Cúil na Cathrach: - (Transcript Day 4, Pages 196 – 198)

The submission which is an addition to that delivered by Dr. Ó Gráda on day 1 of the hearing states that there was outrage by the NGA at the proposal by the NRA to needlessly route the proposed new N22 dual carriageway through one of the country’s most historic ambush sites of the Irish Nation’s struggle for freedom. It submits that the ambush was one of the most decisive engagements of the entire struggle when taken together with Clonbanin and Crossbarry. The submission refers to the Dripsey Ambush of the same year and subsequent executions. It states that a morale boost was vital to the Cork volunteers and the ambush provided that morale boost with 28 casualties being admitted by the British.

The submission states that the ambush site is situated on the main southern Irish tourist route from Cork to Killarney and is visible to a large number of people every year. It states that as a result of the IRA victory at Cúil na Cathrach, the area of Cúil-Aodha / Baile Bhuirne was then considered to be the safest location in the south of Ireland from British interference with active membership of 7,500 in the First Brigade and 30,000 in the First Southern Division.

The view of the National Graves Association was that it defied belief and logic that any native Irish establishments such as the NRA would now consent to needlessly desecrate such an historic part of the national heritage when it could be so easily avoided. It states that the refusal of the NRA to completely avoid the site was adding to the outrage being felt by many who felt that the NRA was betraying the 253 Muskerry volunteers who put their lives at risk at Cúil na Cathrach. It submits that it reflects ignominiously on the NRA and would seem to prove their incapacity to serve the Irish nation appropriately. Dr. Ó Gráda read out the statement from Daimh Staire Acadamh Fodhla on behalf of the National Graves Association and it is tabbed OBJ03 .

4.4.3 Submission on behalf of Michael Joseph Twomey Junior, Cúil na Cathrach: - (Transcript Day 4, Pages 198 – 219)

Dr. Ó Gráda read the submission into the record and there was also reference made to discussions between Dr. Ó Gráda and the County Council during the lunch recess on Day 4.

Dr. Ó Gráda said the case was made on behalf of a local resident who had an agricultural holding on both sides of the existing N22 in the townland of Cúil na Cathrach. He said the landholding was 78 hectares of which the Applicant

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 134 of 246 Cork County Council

sought to take 7.6 hectares. He submitted that the intended roadway would be carried on a high, wide embankment of about eight metres in height with a footprint over 50 metres wide.

Dr. Ó Gráda said his client objected to the proposal because of the fragmentation, nuisance and pollution that would arise and the contrasting assessments on an adjoining case were found to be quite surprising in terms of proportionality. He invited An Bord Pleanála to consider whether the categorisations were reasonable or equitable.

Dr. Ó Gráda said the possibility was indicated in a drawing with reference 740/03/100/SK183 entitled CA01 Cúil na Cathrach Ambush Alternative which was included in the submission to the hearing and tabbed OBJ01 .

Dr. Ó Gráda said there were concerns on socio-economic grounds of the very restricted access from his client’s land. He said the site at Cúil na Cathrach forms a part of a unique locality. He said at its heart is the Gaeltacht of Muskerry noted for its rich tradition of music, poetry and story-telling and would also be associated with the late Sean O’Riada.

Dr. Ó Gráda his client was pressing for an amendment that will move the route a short distance to the west of the site referenced CH2. He said the development plan contains several policies and objectives that have a bearing on the current proposal and that the N22 is a designated scenic route at present. He said the current proposal has an excessively high profile, bulk and scale for this sensitive landscape. He said in his opinion there were no mitigation measures that would prevent significant alterations to the appearance or character of the area.

Dr. Ó Gráda said from his own experience, he would suggest the structure of the hearing and the appeal process was defective in that it was too late in the day when alternatives had already be decided.

He said there was a view that the intended roadway line was decided prematurely and without due consideration of farm fragmentation and without adequate regard to local socio-economic consequences. He said An Bord Pleanála comes to assess the project too late in the overall process and there was no scope for amendments that would support the sustainable development of the local community.

In relation to access, his client would ask that the option of additional access points would be re-visited. He said there would much longer journeys to services and community facilities and when people from villages in the area of Cill na Martra wished to go to Cork, they would have to travel to the Millstreet junction on the existing N22 and then take a left-hand, a hairpin turn and proceed to another built up area to reach the north-western outskirts of Macroom.

He said this would almost retrace footsteps for about a mile until they would eventually reach an access point at the new road to the north-west of Macroom

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 135 of 246 Cork County Council

having originally commenced their journey to the west of the town and passed under the new road at two points where they would have been accessed under the original plans and which in their opinion social justice would demand that access should have been provided at those points.

Dr. Ó Gráda referred to the modest size of farmholdings which already challenged their owners and it was believed that the NRA approach was based on having to deal with fewer people. He said he had encountered a local view that regarded the approach by the applicant as one of expediency at the cost of family farming. He said that at the heart of his client’s case was that the Council and the NRA were going through the centre of holdings rather than being more discreet in accommodating and going for more marginal selection of routes.

He said his client supported the proposed re-alignment and upgrading of the N22 and that the project was welcome in principle.

Dr. Ó Gráda at this point asked about an issue which he said the Inspector had raised on Day 1 of the hearing about a possible amendment and improvement of the scheme at Cúil na Cathrach.

There was a discussion (pages 202 – 215) during which the Inspector pointed out that the question posed on day 1 related to the question of consideration of a termination point for the scheme before Cúil na Cathrach at Carrigaphooca, with the scheme consisting of a Macroom bypass only. It was clarified the question was put to the local authority as to whether that was an option considered by them and it was also clarified that the same question was put to Dr. Sheahan and that the Local Authority as per Mr. Cunningham had said that the accident benefit the scheme gained required a complete scheme and at an earlier stage there were roundabout junctions throughout the development. It was clarified also that a reference to the Galway bypass was different in that the scheme had actually been designed in two separate sections.

Reference was made by Dr. Ó Gráda to a without-prejudice discussion which had taken place with Mr. Flanagan which Mr. Flanagan objected to being raised. The matter was not heard and Dr. Ó Gráda continued with his submission.

Dr. Ó Gráda said that the application should fail on account of the inappropriate design of the roadway which would be on a high, wide embankment with heavily engineered industrial elements, topped with urban features. He described the local cooperative traditions and social bonds which were reinforced and he said it was the scale of agriculture that informs much of the local history and culture in the area and it was from that background that the significance of the site CH2 emanated.

In relation to access to the scheme, he said a situation had arisen more akin to discrimination and social exclusion which indicated a flaw in the design of the scheme. He said the situation showed the need for an enhanced form of

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 136 of 246 Cork County Council

independent appeal system for parties that are affected during the earlier stages of the routing and design of major road projects.

He said it was ironic that access to the Ballincollig bypass which was six miles long included four access points.

Concluding, Dr. Ó Gráda submitted that he had ventilated and advanced a matter of public interest in relation to the heritage site CH2 at Cúil na Cathrach. He said in making the submission, he was mindful of the participation and support by an international panel of historians of high academic standard. He said being to a large degree comprised of a small farmers, school teachers and such individuals of modest means, it had placed a very onerous burden on their limited resources. He formally made a request to An Bord Pleanála for costs reasonably incurred in the preparation and presentation of the case.

4.4.3 (Continued) Mr. O’Shea added to the submission on behalf of Mr. Twomey as follows: - (Transcript Day 4, Pages 220 – 222)

Mr. O’Shea said the proposed road ran through the farm and there was an offer of a tunnel on the lower side, but no offer of any tunnel on the northern side where there is an area of about 50 acres. Mr. O’Shea asked that An Bord Pleanála would base their decision on social justice and he said in relation to the ambush there was not enough emphasis put on the accounts that came directly from the participants.

He said they had pages of reports from the NRA, but the most reliable information of all came from the participants that he personally knew. He said he felt obliged to those people who did so much to achieve the freedom which we enjoy today.

Mr. O’Shea said the access was a major point and he cited the example of the Ballincollig bypass. He said he knew there was always a conflict between the common good and the rights of the individual and he said the Ballincollig bypass was a prime example of the way things should be done in that regard.

In relation to the NRA, he said it was an independent statutory body, which he had not problems with and he favoured it because it was necessary, but on the other hand he said weaknesses had shown up and there were now depending solely on An Bord Pleanála in that regard. He concluded by asking the Inspector to impress on the Board the need to have their decision made with regard to social justice.

4.4.4 Dr. John Borgonovo made a submission to the hearing in relation to Cúil na Cathrach and answered questions in relation to his evidence as follows: - (Transcript, Day 2, Pages 233 – 259)

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 137 of 246 Cork County Council

Dr. Borgonovo stated that the letter that was submitted was put together from a number of different experts on the Irish War of Independence. He said Michael Hopkinson wrote the standard work on the subject, while Professor Kaute was a leading counter-insurgency expert in the US Army. He said Dr. Peter Hart from Newfoundland would not be considered a nationalist historian and he signed on. He listed other signatories namely Dr. Colman of Queens, Dr. O Drisceoil from UCC, Dr. O’Donnell from UL and Dr. Doherty of UCC.

He said they had some serious issues with the EIS with regards to the history. He said Cúil na Cathrach Ambush would be considered a national event rather than a regional event. He said it featured in briefs to the British Cabinet at the time and the history of the 6 th Division in Ireland. He said it was part of a broader movement with three ambushes in a month at Crossbarry, Clonbanin and Cúil na Cathrach. He said these were massive ambushes of a large scale and larger than anything else in the war in independence. He said there were large scale hits of major concentrations of ground forces. He said Cúil na Cathrach might be the biggest deliberate attack on a ground force convoy with 90 members of the auxiliary cadets up against the IRA.

Duration-wise, Dr. Borgonovo said it was considered to be the longest with four hours in a set place and some interesting things with the British response, namely armoured cars and planes. He said that the three ambushes it could be argued that to negotiations was a truce. He said he would make that argument.

He said if you looked at the British documentation, it was apparent that the ambush really caught their attention. He said after the ambush the ground forces did not go west from Macroom. He said as a result a safe haven was created ten or fifteen miles west going all the way to the Kerry border. He said the first of southern division under the command of Liam Lynch was the single most important IRA structure not only of the War of Independence, but at the ensuing civil war. He said the area essentially became a no-go area for two years, not just in the War of Independence, but also in the civil war and he said it all came out of that ambush. He said strategically and politically it was very important.

He said he was very surprised that the EIS stated that it was not apparent in scholarship. He said there was a full paragraph in Michael Hopkinson’s book also his and in Richard Adams Police Casualties in Ireland. He said it also merited a chapter in Rebel Corps Fighting Story which was in 1961 edition.

He said what was being planned was destroying the ambush site, cutting right through the centre of it. He said the idea that somehow you could isolate the fighting on side of the dual carriageway to the other is nonsense. He said it was part of one piece with topography being critical. He said walking in through the site one could understand that there were lines of sight. One needed to have elevation and to know where cars were supposed to be stopped and blockades. He said the proposal was going to destroy all of that. He said from the British point of view and perhaps the most interesting they were fascinated by the Cúil na Cathrach ambush because the IRA were dug in such

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 138 of 246 Cork County Council

a strong position. He said the position is one complete whole and he could not segregate it. He said coming up to the centenary of the Easter Rising of 1916 there would be unprecedented interest in the Irish War of Independence. Dr. Borgonovo said that it was a key event in the location and still remembered and the marker that was put up was put up by old men and pensioners who were very poor and the Government did not put up the monument.

Dr. Borgonovo said it was important for people to understand the events and to actually see them and actually walk through them just as the British drove through them and to put yourself in the position and this proposal was going to completely destroy that opportunity.

Following his submission, Dr. Borgonovo answered questions to the Inspector (Pages 241-243) and in relation to the familiarity of the public with different locations, he agreed that Crossbarry was famous because Tom Barry wrote a book about it and that Kilmichael was famous because it was the first time the auxiliary cadets had gone into battle and were destroyed to a man. Dr. Borgonovo said that no many people outside of Cork would know about Clonbanin. He said while there was song about Kilmichael, there was also songs about Cúil na Cathrach as well. He said as the historian he would put the ambush at Cúil na Cathrach at the same level of importance as Crossbarry (in transcript page 243 typographical error where Crossbarry is represented as prosperity). Dr. Borgonovo said that he would regard it in the top four or five ambushes in the entire conflict.

Mr. Flanagan asked Dr. Borgonovo questions (page 243-259) and it was noted that Dr. Borgonovo was present as an expert witness.

Mr. Flanagan asked which portion of the letter that was submitted by the historians did he write and he said it was written by him and Dr. Donal O Drisceoil. He agreed that Dr. O’Drisceoil was the historical adviser on the film “The Wind that shakes the Barley”.

Mr. Flanagan asked about the sources of information and Dr. Borgonovo said these included a quick search in the British Cabinet papers, reference to the recently published book by Dr. William Kautt, the RIC Monthly Reports, History of the British Army 6 th Division, Bureau of Military History Statement by ten or eleven participants, Ernie O’Malley Notebooks and also newspaper accounts from the Cork Examiner, The Cork Constitution and the Irish Times. He said he also referenced Charlie Brown’s story of the 7 th and Michael Hopkinson’s book also. He agreed with Mr. Flanagan that there was no official record of the engagement but he said there was no official account of most of the engagements of the War of Independence. He said there was the British Commander McCreedy and his briefing to the British Cabinet. He said there was also the Inspector General of the RIC briefing of the Chief Secretary.

Mr. Flanagan asked about the account of the history of the 7 th and Michael O’Sullivan’s book. Dr. Borgonovo agreed those were sources and Mr. Flanagan stated that those sources had been referred by the Council’s

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 139 of 246 Cork County Council

consultant in the presentation. Mr. Flanagan asked Dr. Borgonovo what he was referring to in relation to his comment on no official record. He said he was looking at page 2 of Section 8.6 in Volume 2 of the EIS. The quote was the significance of the site is not defined in any of the academic tests used during the research as it was a relatively small event. He said that if the Council’s experts did not use Hopkinson’s work on the War of Independence, they did not do a very good job at looking at scholarly material because that was the standard.

Mr. Flanagan asked Dr. Borgonovo had he read the EIS and he said he had read the section (8.6) pages 1-3. Dr. Ó Gráda confirmed this was the passage in relation to the subject site namely CH2. Mr. Flanagan confirmed that the relevant reference was paragraph 12.5.2.5 which was pages 12 – 9, 10 and 11. Mr. Flanagan then asked had Dr. Borgonovo read the appendices. Dr. Borgonovo he had not. He would say that Hopkinson put into context and put in national importance.

Mr. Flanagan asked what remnants there were of the site and the Dr. Borgonovo there has not been any kind of battlefield archaeology done on the site. He said there was a roadside monument and he said he did not know if there had been any excavation of the field. He said he wished to know what the 70-year history of the field was. He said he had been at the site and the current road was part of the battlefield.

Mr. Flanagan asked about the comment that planes were used following the ambush. Dr. Borgonovo said that in the aftermath there was plane and this was in bureau statements and he would say there was about nine or ten statements. In relation to the timing as to whether it was hours or a week later, Dr. Borgonovo said it was in the aftermath and that you had about four hours and then running fight where the British reinforcements come in from the Cork direction from Ballincollig. Mr. Flanagan said there was no evidence of a running fight and Dr. Borgonovo said there was a second encounter about four or five miles away, three or four hours later. Dr. Borgonovo stated that the actual shooting involved the Macroom element pulling out late and they actually had to shoot their way out, climbed a ridge and exchanged fire outside of the actual roadway. He said the eight battalion element was the main element and the accounts vary but they retreated after a few hours. In response to a question from Mr. Flanagan, Dr. Borgonovo agreed that this was his interpretation of what happened based on sources. He said he was just handed the New York Times of 26 th February 1921 which stated that airplanes were employed during the actual encounter. He said the volunteer statements actually mentioned the plane being involved as well in the scouting.

Dr. Borgonovo told Mr. Flanagan that he had not read Ms. Bailey’s evidence which had been given earlier. Mr. Flanagan referred to the 14 page review of the evidence and the note that in some circumstances where numbers on the British side may have been kept low and on the other hand where on the IRA side these may have been increased as part of overall. He suggested to Dr. Borgonovo that the conclusions of the document stated that due to the varying nature of the accounts mentioned, it was difficult to say for certain the exact

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 140 of 246 Cork County Council

progression of the battle. Dr. Borgonovo it would depend on how you want to define exact. He said that just looking over the document and he had not looked at it in detail, it was the most detailed compilation of the battle that had been produced to date. Mr. Flanagan said that the overall culture and significance could be defined as being of regional importance. He referred to the 14 ½ page document and said Ms. Bailey had faithfully recorded the different sources and also the different interpretations of things and Dr. Borgonovo agreed and he also agreed with Mr. Flanagan that Ms. Bailey had said it was of regional importance while he had said it was of national importance.

Mr. Flanagan asked Dr. Borgonovo about his observations on mitigation proposals and he explained what was proposed which was a sweep with a metal detector and examination of the site. Dr. Borgonovo said there were sites similar to that but no just around Cork, but around the country and there were no educational standing monuments to them. He said they should be interpretative centres and there was no effort by the government to create those as educational centres to educate people in terms of culture, but also in terms of actual events and to use them as tourist destinations.

Mr. Flanagan asked was he aware of the proposals that would be a sculpture and lay-by with an information plaque. Dr. Borgonovo said this would be good, but he finished by saying the site will still be destroyed and it would be a great memorial to the site that used to be there. Mr. Flanagan said that he would suggest it was not going to be destroyed.

At this point the Inspector asked about the site and where one would seek to get a vantage point. He said he would like to able to see it through the perspective of the participants and the Inspector asked would the side road be suitable. Dr. Borgonovo said he had not walked it and at this point Mr. O’Shea stated that he knew the country intimately and lived there and was looking after the land at present. He said you do not see anything from the side road, you would see for 100 yards or so, but up to the top you see nothing. He said there was no line of site from the side road. (Mr. O’Shea has incorrectly reported as Mr. Twomey arising from a misunderstanding at the hearing and this is on Page 258/259 of the transcript). Mr. O’Shea stated that the most reliable sources were those who knew the participants. He said as one of the older generations and one of few links with those people, he said they would be shocked if they saw the effort to denigrate their efforts. He said the people played their part in securing the independence with the three ambushes at Clonbannon, Cúil na Cathrach and Crossbarry, they were the three big ones and it led to the treaty. He said if you are going to put a roadway through that, you were going to destroy it.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 141 of 246 Cork County Council

4.4.5 Submission by Dr. Gerard Sheahan as follows: - (Transcript Day 4, Pages 182 – 188)

Dr. Sheahan’s submission was divided into a number of sections as follows: -

1. Dr. Sheahan submitted that the proposed road would cross the N22 at the very location that should be avoided at all costs. He said the developer and his experts failed to understand the historical and cultural meaning of the area. He said there was a rich cluster of registered national monuments, a protected structure, important built heritage and a battle-site in an untouched landscape.

Dr. Sheahan said that it also required the building of an additional road to tie into the existing N22 and a new lighted roundabout with an additional road leading to an underpass. He submitted that a crossing of the N22 at Carrigaphooca Castle Demesne had no simple engineering solution and thus the required 41 acre land-take would leave a permanent scar on its unique setting.

2. Dr. Sheahan submitted the developer had failed to meet criteria of the route selection process. He said they failed to assess the alternative routes in a matter required by legislation particularly when consideration of the registered national monuments was taken into account. He said the N22 Constraints Study Report stated that all national monuments should be avoided if at all possible, but that those in state ownership should be regarded as key constraints.

He submitted that no cultural heritage field inspection survey was carried out and that the castle and stone circle were not identified. He said by omission or neglect, no impact assessment ranking was carried out on those registered national monuments at the route selection stage.

Dr. Sheahan submitted that the NRA had failed to identify the registered national monuments on the public consultation plans or on the route selection report (Appendix 5).

3. Dr. Sheahan submitted that the proposed development failed to protect the landscape setting of the two registered national monuments and the cluster of the protected structure, historic bridge and battle-site at Carrigaphooca Castle Demesne. He said according to the developers, a significant proportion of woodland clump, important vegetation and rock outcrops would be lost. He said the road development would be a prominent feature and the scale of the proposals was adverse and according to the EIS, would be a discordant feature in the landscape.

4. Dr. Sheahan stated the CPO took 41 of the 202 acres of Carrigaphooca Castle Demesne and within the unique landscape setting where the castle, stone circle, Carrigaphooca House and the protected historic gardens and designed landscape and also the seven arched bridge and the civil war battle-site and monument.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 142 of 246 Cork County Council

5. Dr. Sheahan said the road design materially contravened the County Development Plan. He noted that the S23 scenic route runs through a special scenic landscape. He listed planning policies ENV2-13 which stated there would be no adverse degradation of use and also objective ENV4-5 to protect important non-structural elements. Dr. Sheahan submitted the key objective was ignored in the EIS.

6. Dr. Sheahan submitted that landscape mitigation appeared to be based on a miscalculation on growth in that projection for 15 years would in fact take 40 years.

7. The application requires additional research and there is no facility in the EIA Directive for an incomplete application.

8. Cultural heritage impact prediction is flawed. Listing of AH21 , Carrigaphooca Castle as a mass rock and the stone circle as a ringfort is an error. Dr. Sheahan submitted that the contrast between Technical Report 5 which states that the impact for Carrigaphooca Castle Demesne is large adverse and discordant, compared with Ms. Bailey’s evidence that there was a slight negative impact, led him to the opinion that many of the impacts were flawed.

Dr. Sheahan stated that the DEHLG Circular Letter regarding compliance conditions in respect of developments requiring EIA should be taken into account and specifically the section concerning restriction on use of compliance in order to complete an inadequate EIS and to request the development of appropriate mitigation measures.

Dr. Sheahan stated that the developer had not provided adequate information in respect of environmental and natural heritage impacts and that the appropriate course for the Planning Authority was to request the developer to submit further information in accordance with Article 33 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001. Dr. Sheahan said the situation regarding Barryscourt Castle near Carrigtohill had the landscape setting preserved and the road was moved so that it could not be seen in Barryscourt.

4.4.6 Dr. Gerard Sheehan made a submission on behalf of the Society of the Descendents of the Officers of the Irish Brigades in Europe as follows: - (Transcript, Day 2, Pages 158 – 163)

Dr. Sheehan said he wished to mention in commencement that the European Commission were currently investigating the incorrect application of the EIA Legislation at Carrigaphooca Castle Demesne and he gave the case reference number in his written submission. He said the European Court of Justice had fined Ireland for breaches of the EIA Directive and the possibility existed that significant financial fines could

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 143 of 246 Cork County Council

be imposed if the proposed adverse impact on the Carrigaphooca Registered National Monument Landscape proceeds.

Dr. Sheehan showed a slide indicating a large cluster of built heritage situated in a very small landscaped setting. He said the CPO was taking 41 of the 202 acres in the Carrigaphooca McCathy Mor Demesne. He said that equated to about 9% of the total land-take in the whole scheme, so it was really disproportional.

Dr. Sheehan said that Carrigaphooca Castle House was a protected structure and all the area around the house its historic garden and designed landscape, as per the Department of Heritage, Environment and Local Government. He noted that in the cluster there was the heritage of Carrigaphooca Bridge, a historic seven-span bridge and a monument for the Civil War Battle Site. He said in that small area, there were a huge cluster of very important built heritage, and particular the two registered national monuments. He said the constraints report clearly indicated that they should be avoided at all costs. He said what happened was that the land-take was coming down diagonally from a high ridge, so the new road would come right across the present line. He referred to the junction arrangements for the existing N22 and noted that the roundabout would be lit with lighting on three roads going into the roundabout.

Dr. Sheehan said that as was heard previously in the hearing, the Cúil na Cathrach Battle Site was not the correct place to cross the N22 and neither was the battle site Carrigaphooca. Dr. Sheehan the development would result in the building of a new road and roundabout and because of the topography of the area; there would be large cuttings and embankments that would significantly scar the landscape in his opinion.

He said looking northwards from the Castle and certainly in summer, the current N22 is not visible from the Castle. He said there was a significant amount of woodland clump extending along to the east also. He noted Technical Report No. 5 in the EIS stated that a significant proportion of the woodland clump would be lost and it was certainly an adverse impact.

Dr. Sheehan said looking from the top of the castle to the west the new road would cut right through the foreground of the untouched landscape setting. He said Technical Report No. 5 said the road development would introduce the regular outline of an engineered structure into the landscape which would be discordant with sinuous character of the River Sullane. He said therefore the EIS report itself said it is discordant to build a dual carriageway along this totally unspoilt landscape.

He said the Carrigaphooca Bridge was a unique seven-span bridge. He said there was monument there commemorating seven soldiers of the national army killed at Carrigaphooca in 1922. Dr. Sheehan pointed out the location of the secondary opening to Carrigaphooca House Demesne. He said there would be an area removed facilitated tie-in of the road leading up to the new roundabout. He said just a number of metres further

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 144 of 246 Cork County Council

along the road the new dual carriageway cuts across at an angle. He noted that the further thing discovered at the hearing was the location of the crossing for haulage of materials which would also be at Carrigaphooca. He said it was a logical follow on from the evidence of the previous day that there would be a construction compound sited in that unique landscape setting which is totally unacceptable.

Dr. Sheehan said on the summary of the site selection of locations to cross the N22, Carrigaphooca should one to be avoided at all costs. He said the two registered national monuments which were located there, should be avoided according to the constraints report. He said attempting to build a four-lane dual carriageway through the rich cluster of registered national monuments and protected structures and important built heritage like the bridge and the battlefield is indefensible. He said a 41 acre land-take from the Carrigaphooca landscape is certainly a disproportionate burden and a scar on its unspoilt landscape.

4.4.7 Ms. Eileen Stack Shanahan made a submission as follows: - (Transcript, Day 2, Pages 164 – 174, Questions and Discussion Pages 174 – 184)

Ms. Stack Shanahan stated that in her opinion the proposal was an incorrect application of the EIA Legislation. She said it failed to meet the requirements set out in Article 6.2 and 3 of the Directive 85/337. She said they failed to assess the alternative routes in a manner required by legislation, particularly when considering national monuments at Carrigaphooca Castle Demesne. She said the NRA, in the course of route selection and public consultation, failed to identify the registered monuments at Carrigaphooca and also failed to mention the two registered national monuments in the route selection report, Appendix No. 5.

Ms. Stack Shanahan stated that Minister Gormley had given a public commitment in November 2009 on radio that the new Landscape National Monuments Act would protect all landscape heritage. She said in France the requirement is for a 500 metre exclusion zone for development around any national monument. She said you are not supposed to see anything within a 500-metre radius of any registered national monument. She said that was the same standard being sought for the unique heritage in Carrigaphooca.

Ms. Stack Shanahan said the Carrigaphooca Castle and Stone Circle were the elephants in the room as they were never even mentioned. She said what the EIS did admit to was that the new road in passing through area would result in the loss of some rocky outcrops, which are a major aspect of the character of the area. She said the report also stated that the development would remove vegetation of importance within the vicinity of Carrigaphooca Bridge and the scale of the proposal would adversely affect the nature and setting of the bridge. She said what they would do is they would make Carrigaphooca look like a monstrous carbuncle in a sanitised landscape when you remove the natural outcrop of rock and natural vegetation from the area. She said the EIS reports that the magnitude of the visual impact in year one would be large

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 145 of 246 Cork County Council

adverse, while in winter and summer of year 15, the impact would be large adverse.

Ms. Stack Shanahan stated that the woodland clump was an important landscape feature and that a significant portion of this would be lost. She said starting at chainage 11+510, the road would pass through an area of rocky grazing land. She said there would be deep cutting and this would leave the castle standing up like a sore thumb in a sanitised landscape. She said there was no reference to it in the landscape report or in the visual analysis of the chainage between 9+500 to 13+000. She said Volume 2 and Table 12.10 of the EIS claimed that the archaeological heritage impacts of Carrigaphooca Castle and Stone Circle would be slight in both cases, whereas the technical report clearly states that the impact is large adverse and discordant. She queried how 41 acres of a historic landscape could be taken and only a slight impact would occur on the landscape.

Ms. Stack Shanahan referred then to the route selection process and in the constraint study report (4.5.6), it stated that all recorded monuments should be avoided if at all possible, but that those in state ownership should be regarded as key constraints. She said incredibly there was no cultural heritage field inspection survey. She said when the NRA relied on an aerial survey, they still missed Carrigaphooca Castle, which she said was quite incredible.

Ms. Stack Shanahan said there was a balancing of competing rights. She said naturally the people in Macroom are entitled to a better environment, but people that we wish to come as tourists have a legitimate expectation to see a better environment when they look at the landscape heritage of Carrigaphooca Castle. She said the confined area is a rich of cluster of registered national monuments, protected structures and important built heritage and the road application at Carrigaphooca should be rejected.

Ms. Stack Shanahan referred to the significance of Carrigaphooca Castle and she referred to the following references: -

• Castles of Britain by Plantagenet Somerset Fry – Mr. Fry contrasts it with Windsor Castle and singles it out of 13,000 references to castles in Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales. • The archaeology of Medieval Ireland – Dr. T. B. Barry – selected Carrigaphooca Castle for the cover of the book. • 1791 Map showing Carrigaphooca Castle Demesne and its historic landscape (including in submission). • Etching from 1718 – National Library of Ireland showing the river in full flood. • Painting of Carrigaphooca Castle in the Royal Irish Academy. • Line drawing – James M. Healy – the Castles of County Cork – description of Carrigaphooca being in splendid condition. (Above three items included in submission).

Ms. Stack Shanahan referred to the castle and the heritage of the Irish Brigades of France. She said the first infantry regiment of King Louis in

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 146 of 246 Cork County Council

1690, after the Battle of the Boyne was led by Justin McCarthy, Lord of Muskerry and Lieutenant General of France. She said the 30,000 troops commanded were drawn from the hinterland of Carrigaphooca and Macroom and the legendary Irish Brigades fought in every great European War. She mentioned Eugene McCarthy, Edward Stack (Regiment of Walsh Serrant) who were both closely associated to Carrigaphooca and to the McCarthy Mor were decorated by George Washington and by King Louis XVI. She said there was a trans-boundary impact because of the shared cultural heritage with France, Austria, Spain and England and that was because the Irish Brigade Armies had to go to Europe and there was a duty imposed under the EIA directive to consult with the countries that have a shared interest and heritage in this landscape setting and that was not done at all.

Ms. Stack Shanahan said Carrigaphooca Castle was symbolic of Ireland before the Battle of Boyne and when the castle is shrouded in mist, it is dramatic, moody, and evocative. When its stones are bathed in the setting sun, it is golden, light and benign and serene. She said it was the epitome of Irish culture and heritage and we should proud to preserve it in its true historic landscape setting.

Ms. Stack Shanahan referred to the tourism element and she made reference to the destruction of Macroom Castle and what she described as the deception inside the castle gates. She said for a visitor coming to Macroom and the expectation walking through the gates, there is the destruction of the demesne which was knocked down in 1967. She showed photographs of the current state of the Macroom Castle Demesne. She said the castles of County Cork (James M. Healy) described Macroom Castle “what remains now is little more than a shell in which some ugly buildings and sheds have been erected”. Ms. Stack Shanahan said this is the result of what happens when people do not stand up and protect their heritage.

Ms. Stack Shanahan stated that under British Rule, Carrigaphooca was recognised as an ancient antiquity and this was illustrated in a map of 1791, the etching from 1718 and also by the Royal Irish Academy. She said it incumbent on us to preserve our heritage and attempting to build a new road with roundabouts and flyovers through the rich cluster of registered natural monuments with protected structures and important built heritage it indicated that the road application should be rejected.

Ms. Stack Shanahan clarified for the Inspector that some of the visitors were from the Society of Cincinnati and these were descendents of people who went to America with Lafayette. Ms. Stack Shanahan also showed a book published by the Maritime Museum of the American Navy and she noted that in France and America, the people that came from Macroom and the hinterland of Munster that fought in France and went to America were recognised in France and America.

Ms. Stack Shanahan said Mr. Healy on whose land the castle was situated was very obliging and had facilitated visits from universities and from cultural heritage groups including groups interested in military history and also people

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 147 of 246 Cork County Council

who wished to see the stone circle. She said Professor John A. Murphy had climbed to the top of the castle in her company and from the top of the castle you could see the landscape intact. She said the landscape was not to facilitate the person driving in a bus, but to facilitate the person who takes the time to stop in Macroom town and go out to Carrigaphooca and climb to the top of the castle and take in the vistas. She noted that one heritage tour charged $4,000 to visit Carrigaphooca Castle amongst some of its castles. She mentioned that it was not just specialist groups, but that Mr. Kevin O’Leary who was fifth generation Irish had been the first person from his family to come back. (Mr. O’Leary is mentioned in the written submission of Ms. Stack Shanahan).

In reply to a question from the Inspector, Ms. Stack Shanahan said that she was not objecting to Macroom being bypassed, but she took the example of the destruction of Macroom Castle and said she was opposed to the destruction of heritage because that was something that could never be replaced.

It was confirmed by Mr. Cunningham at this point that there would be full horizontal column lighting on the roads associated with the roundabout but not the N22 at that location. The Inspector asked was there a crossover between people who had interest in the Cúil na Cathrach Ambush Site, the Civil War Monument and the Castle. Ms. Stack Shanahan said that she had more contact with people who visit this castle and stone circle, but she said she understood there was regular wreath lying at the civil war monument at Carrigaphooca Bridge.

In relation to a further question from the Inspector in relation to the agricultural building between the existing road and the castle, Ms. Stack Shanahan said that from the top of the castle you do not actually see the agricultural sheds and she said they were natural in the environment. She said they were not intrusive from the top of the castle because you are so high up.

In relation to where the castle could been seen, Ms. Stack Shanahan said from the top of Slievereagh you can see Carrigaphooca Castle standing unspoilt in the landscape setting. She quoted an American Professor and Professor Nichol had written a letter to the newspaper about the route he took. She said when one got high up, the castle was very prominent. Mr. Flanagan on behalf of Cork County Council said that the castle was in fact owned by the OPW. Ms. Stack Shanahan said that the point she had made was that the constraint study stated that properties which were in state ownership had a higher duty for protection. Mr. Sweetman stated that he wished to endorse the submission of Ms. Stack Shanahan on behalf of An Taisce.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 148 of 246 Cork County Council

4.4.8 Submission by Killarney Chamber of Commerce/Kerry Irish Hotels Federation: - (Transcript, Day 2, Pages 65 – 73)

Mr. Randall made a submission on behalf of both bodies and answered a question from Mr. Sweetman on the submission.

Mr. Randall stated firstly he was speaking on behalf of Killarney Chamber of Commerce. He said they wished to make the strongest possible plea that the project be fully funded to commence and complete as a regional priority. He said Kerry and South Kerry were being increasingly marginalised in terms of the network and under the National Spatial Strategy, the proposed Atlantic Way was going to miss them by 35 kilometres hence the reason it had been renamed locally as the Kerry Bypass.

Mr. Randall said the primary commercial and services touchstone in the south of the county had been Cork, but the inter-urban roadway Baile Bhuirne to Ovens is in the main at third world standard. He said it had negative impact on aspect of living including attracting inward investment and visiting Killarney and South Kerry. He said there were at a distinct disadvantage with many other compared regions. He said the extreme substandard road conditions had caused a worrying eastward shift in visitor traffic and foreign direct investment. He said there were happy with the improved standard achieved from Killarney to the western outskirts of Baile Bhuirne and from Ovens to Cork. He said they could not overstate the importance of Kerry’s future socio-economic wellbeing of completing to an acceptable standard the entire N22 road between Killarney and Cork.

He said on behalf of the Kerry Irish Hotels Federation, they represented over 120 hotels and guesthouses in Kerry and that the project was essential in order to open up access to and from Cork. He said Kerry had rapidly become a peripheral part of the Irish roads network and that access was a huge detriment to try and bring business to the county, particularly international and business and tourism. He said tourism is the number one employer of people in Kerry and it was an industry that could recover quickly out of recession. He said the roadway between Baile Bhuirne and Coolcour had an immensely negative impact on business and discourages people from travelling to the county for business and leisure purposes. He said he strongly urged the NRA to pursue the project urgently.

Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Randall did the tourism in Kerry not rely on a green environment. Mr. Randall said very much it did but they could not show people the clean and green environment of Kerry and Cork if they could not give them access to Kerry and Cork from the nearest airport which was Cork Airport. Mr. Sweetman asked questions about Farranfore Airport, and Mr. Randall said it did not have the access that Cork had. Mr. Sweetman asked about Shannon Airport and Mr. Randall said it was about two hours from Kerry. Mr. Sweetman suggested that Kerry was close to Shannon and said that it was much closer to Kerry than Cork Airport.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 149 of 246 Cork County Council

4.4.9 Mr. Pat Melia made a submission on behalf of the Cork to Kerry Gateway Action Group as follows: - (Transcript, Day 2, Pages 184 – 198)

Mr. Melia said it was fitting that after many years of campaigning for a bypass that they seem to be moving in the right direction. He said the town of Macroom and its townspeople deserved better. He said following on from the tremendous support the community had shown to his group, they were making their submission with those people in mind. He said the Cork to Kerry Gateway Action Group was formed in 2008 with the intention of securing funding and a commencement date for Baile Bhuirne to Coolcour Project. He said the group had received overwhelming support from the Irish Road Haulage Association, the Chamber of Commerce, representatives of Kerry County Council, Macroom Traders and most importantly the ordinary decent people of Macroom and its hinterland.

Mr. Melia said firstly there was the adverse affect on the buildings and residents on the main street. He said many large lorries and HGVs both empty and full are passing through the town throughout the night and particularly from 0500 a.m. onwards. He said there was a fear of buildings collapsing and with that both loss of property, but more importantly, potential loss of life. He said this was also a factor that the town centre was being depopulated with residents been driven out of their homes from the main street where they were brought up.

Mr. Melia said retail businesses in the centre of Macroom were suffering due to the volume of traffic and people from surrounding areas were now going elsewhere to do their business because of the delays encountered as they try to come into Macroom. He said large volumes of businesses are being lost to towns like Ballincollig and Killarney on either side and people are travelling longer to do business to towns like Bantry, Dunmanway and Coachford due to easier accessibility.

Mr. Melia said the traffic congestion in the town was also preventing the passing tourists from taking a break to take in the local amenities or to take a meal or a drink. He listed the positive effects for a bypass including safety of children as there were hundreds of schools children in Macroom and he also listed the air pollution arising from traffic congestion and he noted safety concerns for elderly people. He said that safety had been neglected and some elderly people had been killed on the main street having been knocked down by large trucks. He said the bridge had an overall width of 23 feet and this was reduced to 20 feet when a footpath was taken into account. He said a similar width was at Corrigan’s Corner where the road was only 20 feet in width. He noted the difficulties for ambulances and the delays involved.

Mr. Melia said the positive effect of a bypass would be evident from a hauler’s point of view and he said it would have a positive effect on industry and employment in mid-Cork and Kerry.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 150 of 246 Cork County Council

Mr. Melia referred to Document No. 1 which is included in his submission which was a commentary on what the driver of a truck could typically find on a Wednesday at lunch time in Macroom. This document was listed No. 1 in Mr. Melia’s submission.

Mr. Melia described a truck arriving from the Cork direction at lunch time on Wednesday and passing the boys national school. He said children there would run along the footpath and a truck driver could not stop and wait until they passed. He noted the problem with a blind spot on the passenger side mirror in this case. He said as traffic would move on, one could see a woman pushing a pram on a footpath. He described the traffic lights outside the SuperValu shop and he noted that pedestrians did not always avoid by these traffic lights and this was an additional hazard. He described the wall of the shop being very close to the carriageway and wondered how this was still standing.

Mr. Melia described the driving through the square watching for cars coming from a side road on the left and their anxiety to get out in front of the truck.

Mr. Melia described the driving down the hill towards the bridge and the problems arising from on-coming bus and truck traffic. He noted that the problem with pedestrians was present at all stages and made the difficulty of negotiating narrow road space with other articulated vehicles, even more difficult. He referred also to a further blind spot where even tall pedestrian can disappear from view in front of the truck.

Mr. Melia also referred to the additional difficulty caused by cars parked on the side of the street and he described continuing to pass the Spar shop. At this point he noted the powerful engines in the trucks and the fact that while they could accelerate faster, this did not mean that they could stop faster and he noted that drum brakes were still standard equipment on most trucks and trailers.

Mr. Melia said that 30 years after being mentioned, Macroom needed its bypass if it is to survive as a market town. He noted that less than a year previously, there was a third fatality only 200 metres from the Castle Hotel, when a lady was fatally injured by a passing truck. He said he contended that the lady and those like her were as important as the many people who fought and died for Ireland. He said as a group they had outlined the reasons why Macroom should be bypassed and he said it was their wish that people in Macroom deserved to live their lives in a healthy, safe and prosperous society. He said people could have no idea what can be achieved by the construction of the Baile Bhuirne to Coolcour Road Project.

4.4.10 Submission of Dr. Good, NPWS: - (Transcript Day 4, Pages 17 – 25)

Dr. Good referred to his submission which firstly had related to the appeal in relation to the SPA at Slievereagh. He said the second part related to Prohus Wood which is a proposed NHA close to the site. He said in the submission

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 151 of 246 Cork County Council

of NPWS of 15 th December 2009, there was a request for more information regarding pollution affects and the further information given in the brief of evidence on NOX answers the question. He said that condition no. 3 in the Department submission relating to lichen survey is recommended. He said this required the following condition: -

“Prior to commencement of construction, and subject to the conditions of the derogation license, a suitable receiving environment for trans-location of the Kerry Slug will be identified in agreement with the relevant landowner(s). The suitability of this site for the long-term maintenance of a population of this species would be on the basis of assessment by a competent experienced malacologist (expert in slugs and snails).

Lichen covered rocks, boulders and other micro habitats found by thorough survey of the N22 route to provide habitat for the Kerry Slug would be removed from the route of the road and placed, in their original way-up and orientation, at the receiving site, after all located Kerry Slugs have been removed in accordance with conditions of the derogation license and trans- located to the receiving site.

Semi-quantitative monitoring for survival of Kerry Slugs at the receiving site will be carried out for four years after trans-location, and after any further year in which unfavourable conditions such as drought, fire etc. occur within the next six years. The report to this monitoring will be made available to the National Parks and Wildlife Service. If the Kerry Slug population is found to have declined below critical levels, then compensation habitat management such as rhododendron removal in woodland, reinstatement of burnt habitat will be carried out elsewhere in the area.

The surface of the riparian bank under the bridge of the N22 crossing of the Bohill River will be designed and sloped in such a manner that rainwater collected on its outside is allowed to trickle or seep into the interior, thus providing a temporarily moist connection under the bridge. A line of loose rocks, or a stone wall, or a face will be constructed for the full length of the gap under the bridge, and the surrounding habitat on either side of the bridge would be designed and prepared in such a manner that it is not a barrier to Kerry Slug dispersal. If, following post-construction monitoring, the creation of this moist corridor is found to have failed, then at least 15 Kerry Slugs will, under license, be reciprocally trans-located between equivalent micro-habitats on either side of the N22 road every ten years, by a competent, experienced malacologist.

Reason: To avoid deterioration of the habitat of and maintain genetic connectivity in, a population of a strictly protected species.”

Dr. Good said with regard to compatibility between license and planning conditions, the Department would issue a revised license with the amendments and he submitted the license to the hearing.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 152 of 246 Cork County Council

Dr. Good said he wished to point out that condition no. 5 of the license was that the license was valid until the 31 st December 2010. He said usually derogation licenses are issued annually, so he said that the revised license would be valid until December 2012.

Dr. Good said the second point he wished to make related to condition no. 7 which should be reworded as follows: -

“This licence is granted subject to the licensee, including his or her servants and the scientific agent, adhering to mitigation measures as set out by the scientific agent, these mitigation measures being subject to amendment or addition by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, in order to utilise more up-to-date research and/or in order to comply with planning conditions”.

Dr. Good said the reason for that amendment is just to make sure that there is compatibility between the planning conditions and the licence conditions.

Number 4-- strictly protected species: Brown long-eared bat.

Dr. Good said the further information in Appendix VI of the Ecology Brief of Evidence (p.31) answers the question raised in the Department’s submission of 15 th December 2009.

Number 5 strictly protected species: Lesser horseshoe bat.

Dr. Good said the source of the reference (Bickmore et al , 2003) for data demonstrating use of underpasses and bridges by this species, was not given in the Ecology Brief of Evidence (p.34). He said it had since been furnished to the Department by Dr. Matthew Hague, and is:

Catherine Bickmore Associates (2003) Review of work carried out on the trunk road network in Wales for bats. Catherine Bickmore Associates, Envirionmental Consultancy, London.

He said in addition to the mitigation measures in the EIS and Ecology of Brief of Evidence, the following planning condition is recommended:

“At all road underpasses and bridges likely to be regularly used by lesser horseshoe bats, temporary guide fencing or ‘walls’ shall be created in the period until planted vegetation matures, the purpose of which is to funnel bats into the crossing point. Surveillance of the use of these underpasses and bridges will be carried out, according to best survey practice, after opening of the road for two seasons, by a competent, experienced bat worker, and the results of these surveys provided to the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Reason: To ensure connectivity within a population of a strictly protected species.”

Number 6 Wildlife Act protected species: Freshwater pearl mussel.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 153 of 246 Cork County Council

Dr. Good said it is not clear from the EIS and the further information as to how the control of silt discharge to the Rivers Sullane and Foherish will be supervised. Accordingly, the following condition is recommended:

“The following measures shall apply to the Sullane and Foherish catchments upstream of freshwater pearl mussel populations. Pollution and siltation prevention mitigation measures will be implemented in full as outlined in the EIS and Revised Schedule of Environmental Commitments, and according to appropriate best practice guidelines (CIRIA, etc.). That is the Construction Industry Research and Information Association. Sufficient storm-flow attenuation capacity shall be designed into the site drainage system to avoid any increase in hydrographic peak in these rivers as a result of improved surface drainage efficiency from the dual carriageway. Decommissioning of temporary pollution control structures shall only be carried out during dry weather. All works with a potential to result in increased flow rates from the road into these rivers, or in pollution or siltation of these rivers, or watercourses draining into them, shall be supervised by an on-site clerk-of- works who will report on compliance with the relevant mitigation measures. The clerk-of-works shall be empowered to halt works is likely to result in a significant pollution or siltation incident. In the event of such an incident, these reports will be made available to the DEHLG National Parks and Wildlife Service, and the South-Western Regional Fisheries Board, and on-site works potentially affecting the rivers will cease until authorised to continue by one of these authorities. A compliance monitoring report, prepared by the clerk-of-works, and including photographs of the operation of all critical mitigation measures in inclement weather conditions, will be submitted to the above authorities at the end of the main construction period.”

Reason: To avoid damage to the habitat of a protected species.

Number 7 Wildlife Act protected species: Red Squirrel.

Dr. Good said condition no. 2 in the Department’s submission of 15 th December 2009 (rope bridges) is recommended.

4.4.11 Submission by Mr. Paddy Murphy (Macroom Haulage Limited) speaking on behalf of the Irish Road Haulage Association: - (Transcript Day 4, Pages 4 – 6)

Mr. Murphy said the Irish Road Haulage Association’s policy regarding bypasses and alternatives routes is to support them from a social and safety aspect, taking into consideration the concerns of local communities. He said bypasses should be designed primarily for the relief of the town and the impact of congestion.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 154 of 246 Cork County Council

He said Macroom was unique in that most towns have one bottleneck, but Macroom had at least three bottlenecks.

He said unfortunately the general public, through no fault of their own, are not always aware of the dangers of walking, cycling and driving close to one of the large HGVs. He said they did not want to be in any town and because of the size of the vehicles, they would be identified as the main part of the traffic in the town. He said the only way to solve the problem is to put transit traffic on an alternative route. He said they also object to tolls being applied to relief roads or bypasses. He said they did not mind going 10 – 15 kilometres out of their way to avoid the towns, but again do object to tolls.

4.4.12 Submission by Ms. Evelyn McSweeney, Mayor of Macroom as follows: - (Transcript Day 4, Pages 8 – 10)

Ms. McSweeney said she was in support of the much-awaited bypass of Macroom Town and Baile Bhuirne.

She said the lack of bypass was having a detrimental affect on the quality of life on people living in Macroom and there were inordinate delays in routine trips around town, health and safety issues due to the volume of traffic, narrow streets, and the substandard and narrow pavements for pedestrians were also issues.

Ms. McSweeney said it was not just having a negative impact on Macroom but also the areas reached from Macroom, such as Kerry. She said all ferry traffic to Killarney and other areas of Kerry had to pass through Macroom. She said she was certain that Fáilte Ireland would be able to supply lots of feedback from frustrated tourists that have had bad experience at having to pass through Macroom. She asked why towns with half the traffic had been bypassed years ago.

Ms. McSweeney said the lack of a bypass was affecting local schools and she said it was much easier for parents on the edge of town to go to Clondrohid which is four miles away with their children and they would still save half an hour or more in doing so. He said the lack of bypass was having a negative impact on industry in Macroom and particularly for businesses with deliveries bound for Cork which is on the western side of Macroom. She said shoppers on the eastern end would head more quickly into Ballincollig.

Ms. McSweeney said Macroom was a lovely traditional historical town and the lack of a bypass had hindered its development over the years. She said there had been a number of fatal accidents in Macroom town over the past number of years and the sad thing was that possibly they would not have happened if a bypass was in place. She said as Macroom had no rail service, commuters had little choice but to drive to their destination. She that was just a further reason why it was essential that the bypass from Macroom is progressed as quickly as possible.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 155 of 246 Cork County Council

4.4.13 Submission by Ms. Lucey on behalf of Ms. Eileen Lucey with CPO Reference 215: - (Transcript Day 4, Pages 79 / 80)

Ms. Lucey said the greatest public good would be achieved by the proposed Macroom – Baile Bhuirne Road Development. She said the Inspector’s Report, in the light of achieving the greatest good and best timeframe, should recommend that the construction commence at the eastern end of the development.

Ms. Lucey said the lands which are the subject matter of her submission which were her client’s specific lands are included in a natural protection area pursuant to EC Natural Habitats Regulation and she wished that to be taken in account by the Board.

Ms. Lucey said in the event of the Inspector recommended the proposed development should be proceeded with, she submitted that it should recommend that the existing flooding problems on the subject lands created by the development of the existing N22 in 1996 be considered and taken into account in the drainage scheme of the proposed development.

4.4.14 Submission of behalf of Michael and Nora McCarthy as follows: - (Transcript Day 4, Pages 121 – 160)

Mr. Barry Connolly of McCutcheon & Mulcahy Planning Consultants made this submission which is tabbed OBJ05 .

Mr. Connolly said he wished to outline his client’s additional comments and then restate the original observations in the written submission.

Mr. Connolly raised the issue of notification of clients in the event of further information being received. He referred to the N26 Ballina to Bohola Stage 2 Road Scheme, where the Board refused the scheme and he said it appeared on the basis that a more modest scheme may have been more desirable environmentally and economically. Mr. Connolly said he thought there would have been a fairly straightforward fundamental assessment of alternatives. He said his clients’ views were that they had inspected draft iterations of the proposed bypass which show the proposed road line further away from his clients’ dwelling.

He said the current proposal would result in a much greater impact on his clients’ residential amenity and business operation than those previous drafts. He said his clients would respectfully request they revert to one of the earlier road lines.

Mr. Connolly showed four photographs, taken by Mr. McCarthy on the previous day which indicated the view from his house with a large lorry positioned in the field where the road is proposed. The photographs also indicated a section of woodland which is further away and which Mr.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 156 of 246 Cork County Council

Connolly said was not a particularly high quality in his view. He spoke of the loss of residential amenity and noted that the property Tearbeg was purchased because of its peaceful and tranquil setting. He said the applicant had not sought to address any of the issues raised by his client over the years.

Mr. Connolly outlined the photograph showing where visually the embankment would start and the transition where the road went into cutting. He said the visual assessment had not been carried out in terms of that length of road. He said he thought there was an opportunity for the Council to go and do the courtesy of doing a full examination of the issue and he noted that there was not photomontage provided.

Mr. Connolly said the mitigation proposed was not sufficient for a road of its nature. He described the mitigation as almost an add-on at the end of the process. He said there needed to be a more holistic approach. In relation to the CPO boundary, he contrasted that with the proposal of the Council to carry out work outside of the CPO to satisfy the Fishery Board’s consideration on a millrace.

Mr. Connolly said they would struggle with the idea that all reasonable measures had been taken and he would suggest that the correct EIA process had not been followed.

Ms. McCarthy joined Mr. Connolly and wished to say that the development was a breach of her human rights (Article 8) which was her right to privacy. She said the development was an intrusion into her private and home life and she was not happy with it or dealing with the Council had been unbelievable. She said the development would result in anybody passing the road to be able to look into the house, including bedrooms and that was not why she bought the property 10 years previously .

Mr. Connolly continued by referring to noise impact and said there was a lack of clarity about the way in which operational noise would be monitored and dealt with. He said the points explored as to how the Board could give his client the comfort so that it would be ensured that the noise limits were met in the future. He asked in this case who they should call.

He asked who does one go to in the future, was it the NRA or is it the Council. He said does the NRA say, well we did not design the road, we just took it over, you should speak to the Council and that they would get an equal but opposite answer from the Council. He referred to the low noise surfacing and asked that when the first resurfacing came along, would there be a guarantee that the more costly option would be chosen. Essentially he was asking as it was an important mitigation measure could the Council guarantee that it would be maintained in the future.

Mr. Connolly referred to loss of residential amenity due to possible restrictions and access during construction and referred to his written submission in the matter.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 157 of 246 Cork County Council

Mr. Connolly said that he was disappointed that there seemed to be communal acceptance that people could not before put a tarpaulin over a lorry as part of mitigation and it would appear that that mitigation measure had almost been conceded as not being enforceable.

He referred to Point 9 of his submission which referred to impact on agricultural operations and said that the roadway would sever his clients’ farmlands and have a very serious impact on the farm business. He said they may also have an impact on surface water and land drainage systems. On agricultural grounds he said his client objected to the proposals as it would take a significant amount of land. He said there was still severance and the land south of the proposed road behind the lorry in the photograph was involved. He said it was accepted that an underpass was shown which was 2.5 metres wide by 4.5 metres high.

Mr Connolly questioned whether this would be satisfactory for a silage harvester. He noted that 50 metres down the track there was an existing field gate which was capable of widening without requiring planning permission. He said his client had looked at the possibility of taking the field into barley and helping out with the wider operations of the farming, as they operated cattle and horses.

Mr. Connolly referred to the reduction of the development potential of the holding. He said his client had a reasonable public road frontage at present and in the future subject to planning permissions this could be used as alternative access into the land. He pointed to the agricultural field and said road could close off any possibility of future access from the public road.

Mr. Connolly said moving the road further to the south would have been the ideal situation. He referred to injurious affection and significant disturbance and said he would acknowledge that was for another day and arbitration. He said that the EIS seemed to have given little thought to possible impacts on his clients’ business. He said the EIS had not provided essential information as it had deferred to a variety of things that would be done after the CPO process at detailed design stage and on an Environmental Operating Plan.

Mr. Connolly referred to flooding and said there should be a re-assessment of the flooding risk in light of the recent flooding events in the area. He referred to Section 3.6 of the non-technical summary and to Section 10.5.3 of the EIS regarding flood risk impacts. He said as the assessment had been left to the detailed design stage, it was questionable as to whether the applicant could conclude that there would be no additional flood risk to any properties. He said in relation to Section 10.5.1 it did not state whether the impacts referred to todays or future flood periods taking into account climate change.

Mr. Connolly referred to the level of detail to provide it within the EIS (Section 12 of his submission ). He said EIA should explore the possible likely impacts prior to the decision making as far as practicable. He said an EIS

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 158 of 246 Cork County Council

should not obviate responsibility for assessing proposals and environmental impacts and formulating mitigation measures to a later date.

He referred to the EOP and said it should be agreed prior to the decision making process so that public participation could take place on it. He referred to environmental management during the construction phase as described in the EIS and stated there was no reason why the information could not be assembled within a draft EOP for submission with the application rather than wait until a decision is taken. He said the EIS delegated the responsibility for formulating EOP to the contractor and that it should be the applicant rather than the contractor’s duty to prepare such a plan at the appropriate time. He said he would suggest that a draft Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan could have been prepared with the submission.

Mr. Connolly referred to the detailed design stage and the EPA document ‘Advice notes on Current Practice in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements’. It notes the common deficits of insufficient description of construction methods and a lack of indication of temporary developments such as haul routes, storage and accommodation compounds. He said there was a lack of clarity.

He stated that in the EIS there was a calculation of a shortfall of material of approximately 0.1 million m 3, whereas in another section the shortfall equated to 200,000 m 3 which was a significant discrepancy involving an additional 100,000 m 3 of material which could result in double the number of lorry movements associated with the construction phase of the proposal.

Mr. Connolly referred to the hydrological chapter and the necessity to design and implement the groundwater monitoring plan. He said there was no explanation as to why this could not have been done already and the information presented in the EIS.

Section 5.4.3 referred to construction compounds in the EIS but delegates the responsibility to the contractor. He said while some criteria were stated, these are generally vague aspirations.

Mr. Connolly ( Section 13 ) refers to a public participation deficit. He said the NTS stated the aim of the consultation was to inform the public of the extent of the study area and the constraints identified to date. He said it missed a point that the chief aim of a consultation was to inform the public of the possible impacts of a proposal in order for them to make a fair assessment as to what impact the application might have on them. He referred to the EPA document which stated that the core objective was to ensure that society was made as fully aware as possible of the likely environmental impacts of projects prior to granting of consent.

Mr. Connolly said the application sought to defer much to the contractor’s judgement at a stage where there is no consultation with the public. He said it stated that it would be mitigated as far as possible by imposing working constraints within an EOP. He said that did not afford the public a right to

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 159 of 246 Cork County Council

comment on specific impacts they might experience. He said as detailed earlier in the submission, further information may have been submitted but his client was not specifically notified of this by either the Board or the applicant when this would have been a very straightforward thing to do procedurally for very little cost.

Mr. Connolly referred ( Section 14 ) to a deficit of appropriate pre-application consultations. Mr. Connolly referred to Section 5.2.14 of the EIS and the Owengarve diversion at chainage 0 – 300. He noted the EIS described the work methodology but stated that an alternative methodology could be used if assessed by the NPWS and the Regional Fisheries Board to be an improvement and further minimise the impacts to the diversion of the watercourse. He said that would suggest that the NPWS and the RFB had not been consulted to date. He said there was no practical reason why this could not have been done.

Mr. Connolly referred to policy analysis and stated that it would appear that the assessment had not included the document ‘Smarter Travel – A Sustainable Transport Future, a New Transport Policy for Ireland 2009 – 2020’. He said this was most up-to-date expression of government transport policy and he did not consider the applicant to be in the position to conclude that road developments secured compliance with plans and policies at all levels.

4.4.15 Submission on behalf of Ms. Sheila Coughlan (CPO Reference 202) : - (Transcript Day 4, Pages 160 – 168)

Mr. Connolly of McCutcheon-Mulcahy made a submission on behalf of Ms. Coughlan and stated that a number of the general points which had been submitted in the case of Mr. & Mrs. McCarthy ( 4.4.14 above) could be taken as apply to the subjection as well.

Mr. Connolly referred firstly to the Board’s request for further information which he said was made in regards to traffic, ecology and flooding. He said it was noted that the Roads Act 1993 does not seem to require either the Board or the applicant to notify third parties regarding submission of additional information whereas a planning authority considering a planning application would be so required. He said his client would have hoped that the Board or the applicant would have carried out such notification even in the absence of a legislative imperative. He said this could have been quite easily with a short letter and an already assembled data base of names of addresses.

Mr. Connolly referred to the Board’s decision on the N26 Ballina –Bohola Stage 2 Road Scheme ( 16HA0003 ) by Mayo County Council. He noted that the Board had refused the scheme and it did so it would appear as a more modest scheme may have been desirable environmentally and economically. In relation to the Macroom Bypass, he said the decision was taken at preliminary design stage to pursue a dual carriageway but no information is

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 160 of 246 Cork County Council

given to explain why it was appropriate and why for instance the single carriageway or a 2+1 type road arrangement would not have more acceptable. He said that did not amount to any sort of an assessment of alternatives and would suggest that the EIA carried out is inadequate.

Mr. Connolly referred to the planning system and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities of November 2009 and said he would expect any new, as well as existing flooding information in the EIS to be assessed in the light of those guidelines. He said based on his client’s local knowledge and experience of flooding of that location, she was extremely concerned about the proposed road-on- embankment together with the associated structures being constructed on a floodplain.

Mr. Connolly raised the position regarding notices and said that notices were served on his client in relation to plot nos. 202a.201, 202b.201, 203a.201. He said it should be noted that a notice was not served in respect to plot number 203e.201. He said there was a fundamental flaw in the CPO notification because access to plot no. 203a.201 which is a 38-acre field occupied and farmed by his client is by way of a field gate contained within plot 203e.201.

Mr. Flanagan invited Mr. Connolly to meet with the Council representatives during the break and if he wished the schedule could be amended as the Council understood the occupiers of plot 203e.201 to be the ESB, but that the notification would be of the owner or reputed owner so that the Council did not object if an application was made to include the land in a schedule whether Ms. Coughlan had an interest in that or not.

Mr. Connolly raised the issue of agricultural farming operations and said his client had a proud tradition of farming in Macroom which stretched back to 1899. He said the current holding comprised 55.8 hectares in one land block. He said the road scheme would have devastating impact on the viability of the enterprise. He said his client objected to the proposal on agricultural grounds for a number of reasons namely: -

• It would directly take approximately 10.9 hectares of land and reduce the farm size by one-fifth. • It would sever the farm in two and significantly reduce the usefulness of the lands not the subject of the CPO. • Construction works would cause serious disruption to the farm operations. • Works would restrict his clients’ access to beneficially use both rivers and any fishing rights thereon.

Mr. Connolly said the proposed works would cause injurious affection and significant disturbance. He said that point 6 had been raised at cross- examination and in relation to point 7, which was the noise impact during construction and operation; he noted his clients’ dwelling was identified as N84 in Figure 14.1 of the EIS.

Mr. Connolly said the road would be constructed in very close proximity to his client’s dwelling and increased noise levels would be inevitable. He said it

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 161 of 246 Cork County Council

would be exacerbated if a construction compound was to be sited in close proximity to the lands. He said the noise would continue during the road’s operation. He referred to Table 10.5 of technical report in the EIS. He said the EIS concluded that the perceived noise impact would not be significant and he struggled to grasp why the siting of a dual carriageway would reduce noise levels from the existing minor road which is carrying much lower traffic numbers.

Mr. Connolly referred to points 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the original written submission.

By way of direct response and information, Mr. Cunningham said he wished to clarify some issues for Mr. Connolly which could be useful to him and his two clients.

Mr. Cunningham said that there would be an assurance in relation to the low noise surfacing in that they would commit that the future resurfacing of the road would be done in low noise surfacing.

In relation to the underpass on Mr. McCarthy’s land, he noted that on the scheme there were very high underpasses heights to facilitate special vehicles as had been mentioned. He said the width that had been provided was 3.8 metres and that could be discussed during the break.

Mr. Cunningham confirmed that if there were problems after the scheme was completed, it would be Cork County Council who are the owners and operators of the road and responsible for the road. He said if the mitigation did not work and for instance if a noise barrier was deficient, then it would be repaired by the Council.

4.4.16 Submission by Mr. Peter Sweetman on behalf of An Taisce and on his own behalf: - (Transcript Day 4, Pages 223 – 228)

Mr. Sweetman referred to the NPWS Circular 2007/01 and stated that the schedule of environmental commitments did not comply with the requirements of that circular. He said he wished to draw attention to a number of cases as follows: -

• 418/04 – decision of the European Court of 13 th December 2007. • Case 183/05 – 11 th January 2007. • Case 427 – 16 th July 2009. • Case 215/06 – 3 rd July 2008.

Mr. Sweetman stated that Ireland as a State had not complied with the judgements and the Irish Courts continued to make their judgements, except for one particular case, completely in accordance with Irish law. He quoted US President John F. Kennedy from September 30 th , 1962 in relation to the right of Americans to disagree with the law but not to disobey it. He said he believed in that and also that he was entitled to say that some of the Irish

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 162 of 246 Cork County Council

judges had made some decisions relevant to European law which beggared belief. He said it would not disobey them but he would certainly disagree with them.

He quoted case 418 in relation to kingfisher conservation and the requirement to comply with Article 6.3 and 6.4 of the Habitats Directive.

Mr. Sweetman said that was relevant because Mr. Murphy (Planner, Cork County Council) stated that none of the (county) plans had been properly assessed by SEA or the Habitats Directive. He quoted judgement 183/05 which he said found that Ireland had not taken specific measures for the effective implementation laid down in Article 12.1 (of the Habitats Directive).

He said in case 427/07 the reference is do they need an assessment for projects likely have a significant effect on the environment and he said Case 215/06 states that post-consent agreements are flawed. He made reference to what he called a semi condition about an interchange and the M7/M8 Portlaoise Road development which was still awaited.

Mr. Sweetman referred to case no. 0666 which he stated was currently before the European Court and he would say that the proposal of the schedule for mitigation measures requires the development outside the CPO alignment. The mitigations are taking place outside the alignment and therefore are invalid.

Mr. Sweetman said he wished to support the submission that Dr. Sheahan (Carrigaphooca House) had made.

4.4.17 Closing submission by Mr. Flanagan on behalf of Cork County Council as follows: - (Transcript Day 4, Pages 232 – 253)

Mr. Flanagan first submitted the revised CPO schedule and this is tabbed LA24 . He also submitted an outline of his evidence covering the Habitats Directive and some court cases and this is tabbed LA25 .

Mr. Flanagan said he would emphasis that it was his interpretation of the cases and points of the Directive that he was giving. He said he agreed with Mr. Sweetman that the Directive was about there being prior assessment of the likely significant affects and also that the Directive envisages the views of the public and for example Prescribed Bodies would be taken in consideration in the development consent process and he noted this was covered in Article 8 of the directive.

Mr. Flanagan mentioned the case of Mallster v Ipswich Borough Council which referred to significant local or individual effects and its relationship to the overall assessment. He said the individual farm assessments in his opinion went beyond the requirements of the EIA directive.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 163 of 246 Cork County Council

Mr. Flanagan said the second point in the EIS was the point of departure and that while there was a lot non-statutory consultation going back over years, the statutory consent process starts with the publication of the EIS. He pointed out there was no approval when an EIS is produced and it was for An Bord Pleanála to decide whether or not to grant planning permission. He said the EIA Directive contemplated either written submissions or oral hearing or both, but in Ireland it is both.

Mr. Flanagan referred to the case of Arklow Holidays vs. An Bord Pleanála and of Klohn vs. An Bord Pleanála which is described in pages 2 and 3 of the document tabbed LA25 submitted by Mr. Flanagan.

Mr. Flanagan raised the case Blewett vs. Derbyshire County Council where the expectation of perfection in an EIS was raised.

Mr. Flanagan said while he accepted that the Council had an obligation to comply with the legal requirements for the production of an EIS, equally others can proffer their evidence on the likely effects on the environment, so it is not a unilateral one-way show. He referred again to the Klohn case and the question as to why there was not an in-depth assessment of options. He said this decision indicated that the procedure did not require the Board to carry out environment impact assessment of the possible alternatives.

Mr. Flanagan said that it would negate the purpose of assessment, as some of the key work is only done once you choose a route and get on to the more detailed investigation. He said a significant amount of information had come into the public domain following the publication of the EIS, including the additional information requested from the Board, the views expressed by Dr. Good on behalf of the NPWS and the views expressed by Dr. Sheahan, Ms. Stack Shanahan, and Mr. Sweetman, Dr. Ó Gráda and others.

Mr. Flanagan said the power to compulsorily acquire land is a separate and distinct issue and he referred to Section 213 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 which states that compulsory purchase powers could be used where it gives affect to or facilitates the implementation of the Development Plan.

Mr. Flanagan said that he saw the oral hearing as Stage 3 out of four steps which would commence with the EIS and then the written forms of submission and observation. He said the fourth step was the right of An Bord Pleanála to seek information from the developer at any stage and after that the Board makes its assessment at the conclusion of the EIA and has the right under the Act to approve the proposed development, with or without conditions or modifications or part thereof and the same in relation to the compulsory purchase order.

Mr. Flanagan said they had sought to amplify and clarify information in the EIS and he noted that Section 16 of the Roads Act refers to the establishment of the NRA which was to secure the provision of a safe and efficient network of national roads . He noted under Section 19 it asks the County Council to

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 164 of 246 Cork County Council

take that responsibility on behalf of the NRA. He stated in this situation there is a national road that serves local, regional and indeed national requirements.

Mr. Flanagan noted Section 143 of the Planning and Development Act which requires the Board to have regard to policy at all levels and noted that this was amended in 2006. He said Macroom was a very important part of a national road network and he noted that the Board was mandated to have regard to the National Spatial Strategy and the Regional Planning Guidelines. He said the options that had been mentioned by Mr. Sweetman about diversion to the M1 and M3 in Meath from the N2 did not pertain in this case and that the situation on the ground was that public transport improvements would be achieved from a bus service with an enhanced road network.

Mr. Flanagan referred to the County Development Plan of 2009 and in particular Chapter 2 which sets out the over-arching policies and objectives of the plan. With regard to Dr. Ó Gráda’s submission on the duty to secure the objectives of a plan in Section 15 of the Planning and Development Act, he would not accept that a page and a half of the document could be taken out of 400 pages and that it be submitted that it was a material contravention of the plan. Mr. Flanagan referred to the Sharpe judgement and handed a report on this to the hearing which is tabbed LA26 .

Mr. Flanagan stated that when one looked at the scenic route, he would say it was clear from the wording that it was to protected, subject to appropriate assessment, which had been done.

In relation to the ambush site, he stated that Dr. Borgonovo had accepted that source work had been done and he would have no qualms if he differed in his conclusions. He did feel that there had been an effort to say that no work was done and no source material was referenced and he believed that that was unfair to the people who did their work.

Mr. Flanagan said the Council were obliged to make an assessment and in the EIS they would say that the ambush site was of regional importance, but they equally accepted that at local level there may be a view that it is of even higher importance and that would have to be acknowledged. However, he said under the EIA, one is obliged to take a community-wide assessment. He said that was in no way intended to offend any individual or the significance that individual members of the community may feel in relation to the significance of the site. He said this would apply both to landowners and to interest groups.

Mr. Flanagan said he wished to note the fact that others who made submissions were in favour of the route in the knowledge that it would affect the ambush site. He said there were views within the local community that differ.

Mr. Flanagan stated that in relation to further information, the Board did not ask the Council to republish. He said the information was made available for

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 165 of 246 Cork County Council

inspection and it would have been a matter for the Board to direct the Council to re-publish.

Mr. Flanagan said that mention had been made of the document Smarter Travel and he said the key goals were on pages 27 and 28 of the document.

Mr. Flanagan stated that they talked mainly about economic competitiveness, reducing congestion in bottlenecks and in the context over period to 2020, leading less use of cars where that can be achieved. He stated that there was nothing in Smarter Travel that was not already reflected in the existing county plan of 2009.

In relation to the submission by Dr. Sheahan and Ms. Stack Shanahan, while reference was made to CPO issues, he noted that the OPW own the castle. He said the OPW were a consultee in relation to the process. He said he had respect from an environmental point of view that Dr. Sheahan and Ms. Stack Shanahan had a view on the connectedness between the castle and the house, he would disagree with the sense of connectedness that they proffered in their analyses. He said this was because there had been significant disconnects to- date.

In relation to mitigation measures, the Council had sought during the oral hearing to reflect the views and make the commitments more targeted. He said that under surface water and drainage, they had identified that re-fuelling would be at least 50 metres from any watercourse and he confirmed that the crushing plant would be located 300 metres from sensitive sites.

Mr. Flanagan said if the Board was disposed to approving the proposal, the Council had indicated there is to be mitigation at the location of the ambush site which would be determined in liaison with the landowner, the National Graves Association and Daimh Staire Acadamh Fodhla. He said in other situations where mitigation was involved there would be liaison with the local community.

Mr. Flanagan said in relation to a strategic environmental assessment, he would rely on the judgement in respect of the Friends of the Curragh Case and he would submit that Strategic Environmental Assessment has no application to the current application for approval under Section 51 of the Roads Act. He noted that SEA was carried out for the County Development Plan of 2009.

Mr. Flanagan said that with respect to compensatory habitats, there was a difference between the CPO and approval of the scheme. He said there was enough land to build a road but it was a function of the County Council to acquire compensatory habitat or agree it with the landowners prior to commencement of construction. He said it was different from the Ballybofey (Scheme) situation where, because of the report of the Inspector and concerns that there should be three more local overbridges, the Council did not have enough CPO land to build a road that the Board had in mind. He said there was nothing in the EIA legislation to suggest that the approval cannot apply to areas outside the CPO.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 166 of 246 Cork County Council

Mr. Flanagan said there was a potential for the millrace to be developed in line with the requirements of the Inland Fisheries and he would make the point that approval is not sufficient in itself in respect of the requirement to comply with a derogation license where this applies. He said that in those circumstance the fact that certain mitigation measures are not within the CPO would not be a bar on the Board granting approval.

Mr. Flanagan said there were 98 CPO objections and six remained. He would say that this reflects a very strong sense that the public at large had worked together with the County Council to ensure that the proposal proceeds. He said it indicated a very high degree of cooperation between those most directly affected.

Mr. Flanagan said in relation the EIS submissions there were seven which were not in favour of the road proceeding (in its current form). He said this need to be taken also in the overall context of the other submissions on behalf of other members of the community. He stated that there was overwhelming community-wide support for the proposed development.

Mr. Flanagan said it was the right solution and the County Council were seeking approval for a safe and efficient road that serves local, regional and national needs and which was urgently required.

4.4.18 Closing of Hearing In closing the hearing, the Inspector first addressed the hearing through Irish and thanked all those who took part in the hearing and in particular local people who asked questions and made submissions.

During the course of the hearing opening remarks and closing remarks were made in Irish by persons making submissions and these were replied to by the Inspector. In the transcript the submissions made in Irish are noted and in general, remarks and comments were translated into English by the Inspector where these comments and remarks were not repeated in English by those who made them.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 167 of 246 Cork County Council

5.0 ASSESSMENT

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The proposal is for the construction of a total of approximately 22 kilometres of new Type 2 Dual carriageway road located entirely in County Cork . There are four junctions proposed and a number of bridge crossings of rivers.

5.2 OVERVIEW AND NEED FOR THE SCHEME

5.2.1 Introduction and Context

The need for the scheme has been advanced based on current and projected traffic volumes, Government policy documents including the NDP (2007- 2013), NSS, Transport 21, Cork County Development Plan and Local Area Plans.

The EIS sets out the need for the scheme and was elaborated upon in evidence given at the Oral Hearing held on from Tuesday May 18th to Friday, May 21 st , 2010.

The main issues with the current route concern safety and congestion. The current N22 has sections of poor alignment and there is very significant congestion in the town of Macroom. By comparison with other towns in Ireland, Macroom would need a bypass for through traffic.

5.2.2 Traffic Volumes

Traffic volumes predicted were re-examined by the Local Authority and a base year of 2005 is given in the EIS. Trends for 2009 / 2010 were noted and traffic levels generally would appear to be somewhere equating to 2005 / 2006 levels.

Traffic volumes to the east of Macroom are slightly above the capacity of a two-lane road. It was explained at the hearing that with the cross section chosen of type 2 dual carriageway ( see Volume 3 EIS, figure 5.2 ) the additional cost over a single carriageway would be of the order of 10% and the cross section required 21.5 metres as against 18.3 metres for a single carriageway. It was also explained that in relation to impacts of embankments, the major impact would occur from the height of the embankment, and not because it was a dual carriageway. The Local Authority also noted that even if a single carriageway was selected, there would be a need for climbing lanes over 10 kms out of the 22 kms proposed.

Based on traffic volumes, it is considered that a type 2 dual carriageway is justified for the immediate bypass of Macroom from Coolcour to immediately west of the Gurteenroe junction (R 582)

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 168 of 246 Cork County Council

Traffic volumes on the proposed new N22 west of the R582 are much reduced. The automatic traffic counter for the N22 at Baile Bhuirne gives a 2009 AADT of 6,205 while the 2006 figure is 6,244.

It would appear that there is an ongoing problem with the Baile Bhuirne traffic counter as there are no records on the NRA website beyond February 2010 while other counter sites were more up to date . The figures for the first two months of 2010 would have been skewed due to very bad driving conditions. While the Local Authority stated there was an increase in February 2010 over 2009, the calculated AADT by the NRA indicated an actual decrease of 13% which would not be reliable and the probable current figure for 2010 would appear to be of the order of 6,000 AADT.

AADT of 6,000 would not justify a new route based on likely traffic volumes.

The traffic pattern during the day was examined for the N22 traffic counters at Ballincollig (AADT 19,572 for 2009) and at Baile Bhuirne (AADT 6,205 for 2009). This indicated that the ratio of AADT to peak hour daily flow for hour ending 18.00 was 10.5 for Ballincollig and 12.4 for Baile Bhuirne . It would be common to take a factor of 10 for the ratio of AADT to peak hourly flow, which is borne out for Ballincollig and reflects commuter traffic impacts. However, for Baile Bhuirne it shows that traffic volumes are spread more evenly during the day. An examination of the hour ending 13.00 shows that in Ballincollig the mid-day traffic volume is approximately 60% of peak, while in Baile Bhuirne the figure is 81%.

The conclusion here is that AADT figures for Baile Bhuirne could be discounted to reflect the lower ‘peaking’ impact of the traffic. If the normal peak hour to AADT ratio were applied, then the Baile Bhuirne AADT would be of the order of 5,000 AADT, rather than the actual figure of 6,205 as the traffic is spread more evenly throughout the day.

An examination of the 2009 figures show a 60% higher figure in the summer peak as against the winter level. If a 50% transfer was achieved to a new bypass route, the volumes on a bypass would not exceed 4,000 AADT. The EIS predicts traffic for 2012 (vol 3, figure 3.1) at 9,500 AADT on the bypass route at Baile Bhuirne and 500 on the downgraded road between Baile Bhuirne and Baile Mhic Íre. It describes the local flow as ‘nominal’. The predicted traffic level of 9,500 AADT appears very unlikely for 2012 based on recent and current trends. Higher traffic flows are predicted for the downgraded N22 closer to Macroom.

It is noted that the proposed route crosses the current route at Carrigaphooca. (Chainage 13+000 approximately ) and this will be referred to later in this assessment.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 169 of 246 Cork County Council

5.2.3 Junction Strategy

The proposal is for a junction at either end of the scheme namely at Coolcour, east of Macroom and to the west of Baile Bhuirne. Intermediate junctions are proposed at Tonn Láin (ch 5+100) and Gurteenroe (ch 16+200). Looking at the traffic volumes on the regional roads which intersect the existing N22, Gurteenroe would have the highest traffic flows but the next highest flows on the R 618 to Coachford does not have a junction. It would appear that to provide a junction / access for that road would be physically difficult given the proximity of the river Sullane.

For the scheme as proposed, the junction strategy appears reasonable.

5.2.4 Safety Issues

The Local Authority stressed the improved safety arising from the use of a median barrier to divide traffic and noted the overall higher safety record of dual carriageways over single carriageways. Improved horizontal and vertical alignment would also contribute to improved safety. The poor alignment of parts of the current route was highlighted as was the high number of serious accidents on the route west of Macroom. It is not clear whether the accident locations were at the section with the worst alignment or not. Accidents can be associated with relatively good alignments which are close to bad bends but either way, when the route is taken together, the accident rate is high. What requires to be factored in is that the residual network, in this case the downgraded N22, remains in use for local traffic and for some traffic seeking to access the new road from areas outside the immediate corridor.

5.2.5 Route Selection for Road scheme

The progression of the Constraints stage and the Emerging Route Corridor was outlined at the hearing by Mr Cunningham. It is noted from the EIS also that extensive non-statutory consultation took place from 2001 to 2006 when the route corridor was being developed.

The alternatives considered were outlined at the hearing and the rationale for alterations was explained. The moving of the route to the north to avoid Cascade Wood arose from the decision of the DEHLG to add to the St Gobnet’s Wood SAC in 2007. The issues that were taken into account in relation to the IRA ambush site at Cúil na Cathrach were also explained to the hearing. Both of these issues are referred to later in the assessment in relation to landscape and Visual Impacts and also under the heading of Cultural Heritage.

5.2.6 Overall Justification for Scheme

On traffic and congestion grounds it is considered that there is justification for a type 2 dual carriageway to bypass the town of Macroom. West of the

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 170 of 246 Cork County Council

Gurteenroe junction, the likely traffic volumes would not justify a dual carriageway and the proposal is considered premature on that basis. The alignment of the current road is sub-standard in many places, but, as the ‘old’ road would still be used in a post ‘new’ road situation, the perceived safety gains might not be as clear-cut as claimed by the Local Authority.

It is noted that at Carrigaphooca, the proposed scheme crosses the existing N22 at a relatively shallow angle and it would appear that the scheme could be connected to the existing route at that point, perhaps by use of a roundabout. From the evidence and information submitted at the hearing however it is not clear that this could in fact be done.

5.3 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

5.3.1 Human Beings, including Agriculture and Material assets Apart from socio-economic and Gaeltacht issues which are referred to later, the scheme is considered to adequately address impacts on human beings and both agricultural and non-agricultural impacts.

5.3.2 Ecology

The EIS gives extensive coverage to terrestrial and aquatic ecology. It is noted in relation to the Kerry Slug that while it would not be desirable to run a roadway through the habitat of the Kerry Slug the proposal gives the opportunity to provide controls and mitigation measures. It is noted that there are a number of agricultural activities which would not be subject to control and which would not require planning permission so that the commitments given in relation to the habitat would give a degree of certainty which might not otherwise be available. Ecological mitigation measures generally are considered to be appropriate.

5.3.3 Geology, Hydrogeology and Groundwater The impacts on geology are considered acceptable. It is noted that the impacts on individual water supplies are potentially major but that these impacts are acceptable with mitigation by way of alternative supplies. The monitoring regime proposed is considered appropriate.

5.3.4 Landscape and Visual

Volume 2 of the EIS identifies five sections along the route in Chapter 9.0 (paragraph 9.5) and these are at An Sliabh Riabhach and Baile Bhuirne at the western end of the scheme, Cúil na Cathrach open pasture between Baile Mhic Íre and Carrigaphooca, with two sections at the crossing of the rivers Laney and Sullane at the eastern end of the scheme. The residual effects assessment (9.5.1) is described as a local adverse residual landscape and visual impact.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 171 of 246 Cork County Council

The comment is made in the EIS that the urban environments within the existing towns and villages which will be bypassed by the road development, would be improved.

The landscape impacts were also described in the direct evidence of Mr Carter at the oral hearing and adverse impacts were acknowledged. In broad terms, the areas significantly impacted are west of Carrigaphooca and at the river crossings to the east of| Macroom. While a site inspection is not conclusive and as stated in the EIS, the issue of landscape and visual impacts has a measure of subjectivity, the description of the impacts is considered to be fairly described.

In relation to the eastern end of the scheme, the rationale for choosing the route in the chosen corridor is accepted as reasonable. The bypassing of Macroom is considered to be an appropriate solution to the problems of congestion in the town. Therefore the impacts involved in the areas at the eastern end of the scheme are considered acceptable.

In relation to the areas between Carrigaphooca and the western end of the scheme, it is considered reasonable to note particularly the relatively low likely traffic use for the section of the route. Therefore, while the mitigation proposed is appropriate, the balance of positive impacts arising from the improved journey times of a new route and the negative landscape and visual / aesthetics impacts do not justify the provision of a new route bypassing Baile Bhuirne and Baile Mhic Íre from Carrigaphooca.

5.3.5 Socio-Economics The EIS, evidence at the oral hearing and the majority of the submissions ascribe significant community and socio-economic benefits to the town of Macroom arising from the construction of a bypass. The consultation carried out with businesses in Macroom confirm this opinion. It is considered that the town of Macroom would benefit from the construction of a bypass.

In relation to the villages of Baile Bhuirne and Baile Mhic Íre it is noted that the business survey was the reverse of the Macroom result and a majority of businesses felt that they would lose trade with a bypass. Given the small scale of both villages, it is more likely that the dependence on passing trade is greater than in a larger settlement. The hotels in both villages are on the N22 and are currently very accessible. There would appear generally not to be serious congestion in either village as there is no significant cross traffic.

What is evident in both Baile Bhuirne and Baile Mhic Íre is that the overall road pavement condition appears poor and that roadway improvements would benefit both villages. The road length from the start of the proposed scheme corresponding to the combined villages of Baile Bhuirne and Baile Mhic Íre is approximately 5 kms.

It is questionable whether a bypass would, as the evidence of the Local Authority suggests, provide opportunity for development and enhance

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 172 of 246 Cork County Council

community linkages in the area. It states that “the villages on the route can claim back their identity, attracting visitors from the new N22”. On the other hand, it could be argued that there would be danger of decline if sufficient passing trade were lost and this could lead to the villages being less vibrant and therefore less attractive.

From a socio-economic viewpoint, the positive impacts of bypassing Baile Bhuirne and Baile Mhic Íre may not outweigh the potential negative impacts, and this observation is based mainly on the critically small size of the business element of both villages, coupled with the results of the business survey carried out by the Applicants.

With reference to Gaeltacht Mhuscraí, the report of Mr Cronin on behalf of the Local Authority stated that the road development would offer “new opportunities for strengthening the use of Irish in the region” and he concluded that the scheme “should be of definite benefit for the language in the Gaeltacht areas it passes through”. This conclusion is open to question as an alternative point of view would be that by bypassing the entire Gaeltacht area, there would be a by-passing of the community and might lead to isolation coupled with decline.

Overall, from a socio-economic point of view, potential positive and negative impacts appear finely balanced but are not considered to be sufficiently clear- cut to recommend the scheme be rejected based on socio-economics. It might be that an alternative proposal for the western part of the route could incorporate measures which would reduce the extent of bypassing of the villages of Baile Mhic Íre and Baile Bhuirne to overcome some of the negative impacts.

5.3.6 Gaeltacht Maidir leis an tuairisc a chuir an Chomhairle Chondae ós comhair na h- éisteachta, níl sé thar a bheith cinnte nach mbeadh droch-thioncar ar Gaeltacht Mhúscraí tar éis an fhorbairt bóithre atá beartaithe a bheith tógha

Deireann an tuairisc ón Ráiteas Thioncair ar an Timpeallacht (RTT) gur dea tioncar é an trácht a thógaint amach ó Baile Mhic Íre agus Baile Bhuirne. Tá sé sin fior, ach braitheann na bailte ar siopadóireacht agus cuairtéoirí agus ní féidir forbairt sna tsráidbailte a chur chun chinn gan dóthain gnó agus trádáil sa limisteár.

Tá baol ann go gcaillfí méid suntasach gnó agus cuairtéoirí agus de bharr sin nach mbheadh dóthain gnó faghta a beith inbhuanaithe agus nar féidir é a choimeád ar siúl.

Is féidir an cás a chuir gur fearr do Baile Bhuirne agus Baile Mhic Íre agus do Ghaeltacht Mhuscraí idirgabháil a bheith ann le na daoine a bhíonn ag taisteal tríd an limisteár, ná bheith fágtha ar thaobh leis an seacbhóthair in úsáid.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 173 of 246 Cork County Council

5.3.7 Cultural Heritage

A large part of the time of the oral hearing was devoted to issues of cultural heritage, with particular reference to the IRA ambush site at Cúil na Cathrach and to the potential impacts relating to Carrigaphooca Castle. Given the level of detail involved and the strength of feeling with which both issues were approached the assessment of the impacts arising from the road proposal are worthy of individual assessment and this is done under sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.3 below. With regard to the other issues relating to cultural heritage, the contents of the EIS are noted, with particular reference to Technical Report 8 of Volume 4B.

The EIS identifies a large number of sites and categorises them under various headings. It is noted that additional investigation was carried out in a number of instances. Overall the mitigation measures described in the EIS and at the hearing are considered appropriate and the impacts are considered acceptable.

One item that is noted is the addition of the Civil War monument at Catrrigaphooca Bridge. This item which is referenced CH5 is in the cultural Heritage Brief of Evidence but is not in the EIS. The incident which resulted in 8 fatalities to is mentioned in general literature in relation to the Civil War (Wikipedia-- timeline of civil war ) and appears to be a well known event from the general period in question. This monument is mentioned as it is less than 7 kms from the site of the IRA Ambush at Cúil Na Cathrach. It would appear, looking from the outside, that as both occurrences related to the same time in history and are both on the N22 route, there should be comparable recognition afforded to both.

A general point arising is that there would appear to be a socio-economic and community gain potential in combining the remembrance and better understanding of the Civil War incident, the IRA Ambush and the much longer and diverse history associated with Carrigaphooca Castle and Stone Circle.

It is not the function of this assessment to examine historical issues with regard to achieving greater community or cross-community understanding which is desirable in any area. However, it would appear that there could be a community benefit and perhaps a potential tourism opportunity arising from an initiative which would appear appropriate to the Local Authority to establish a group of interested parties to explore the possibility of combining the remembrance aspect of the diverse cultural heritage to enhance understanding of events.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 174 of 246 Cork County Council

5.3.8 Air Quality, Noise and Vibration

It is considered that the impacts arising in relation to air quality, if subject to the proposed mitigation measures, are not likely to be significant. The compliance with the NRA design goal for all except two receptors is noted and considered to be acceptable. It is considered that measures to deal with potential vibration impacts which would be construction related are satisfactory.

5.4 ASSESSMENT OF INDIVIDUAL SUBMISSIONS AND OBJECTIONS

5.4.1 Objection of Mr Peter Sweetman Mr Sweetman asked questions during the course of the hearing and referred to a number of legal cases in his submission. It is considered that the objection does not give grounds for rejection of the proposed development.

5.4.2 Objection of Ms Stack Shanahan and Dr Sheahan The objections of Dr Sheahan and Ms Stack-Shanahan are taken together with that of the Society of the Descendents of the Irish Brigade in Europe which was presented by Dr Sheahan. The issues raised related to impacts on the general area of Carrigaphooca with particular reference to the castle. The submission also drew attention to the Civil War Monument at Carrigaphooca. While this report recommends refusal of the proposed development based on impacts arising with regard to the western part of the route which includes Carrigaphooca, the objections of Dr Sheahan and Ms Stack Shanahan do not give grounds for rejection of the proposed development.

5.4.3 Objection of Daimh Staire Acadamh Fodhla

This objection relates mainly to the proximity of the proposed route to the IRA ambush site. It is clear from the evidence at the hearing that there was considerable discussion between the Local Authority and the objectors over a number of years. From the available documentation, it would appear that the Local Authority have followed a reasonable line in the matter. However, the depth of feeling on the matter as is clear from the transcript and the submission would indicate the desirability of further discussions between the parties. As the recommendation in this report is that the likely future traffic flows in the section of the route in which the ambush site lies do not support the provision of a new dual-carriageway, there would be opportunity for such discussion if a reappraisal of the western part of the proposed road was undertaken.

From a site inspection, it would appear that the general area of the site would have been very suitable in military terms for an ambush, given the armaments

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 175 of 246 Cork County Council

and equipment available at the time of the ambush. The roadway, which appears to be unaltered since 1920, is lower than the ground to the north. The terrain which is described in the Landscape and Visual reports as having rocky outcrops would offer suitable cover for an ambush party. It would therefore appear to have particular suitability as a location to illustrate the ambush from a military history point of view.

Based on the evidence produced at the hearing the objection does not give grounds for rejection of the proposed road development.

5.4.4 Objection of Mr Michael Joseph Twomey Mr Twomey’s objection is similar in general terms to that of An Daimh Staire Acadamh Fódhla but includes issues regarding the proposed CPO acquisition. It is not considered to give grounds for rejection of the proposed development.

5.4.5 Objection of Ms Eileen Lucey This objection relates to drainage and to the SPA extension of the Mullaghanish to Musheramore Mountains pSPA. The objection is considered not to give grounds for rejection of the proposal.

5.4.6 Objection of Michael and Nora Mc Carthy The submission made related specifically to the impacts on the Mc Carthy residence near Gurteenroe junction. It is considered that the objection does not give grounds for rejection of the proposal.

5.4.7 Objection of Ms Sheila Coughlan The submission related to the impacts on the farm and residence of Ms Coughlan, close to the Laney river crossing. It is considered that the objection does not give grounds for rejection of the proposal.

5.4.8 Submission of NPWS The NPWS made a submission in respect of the EIS on 15 th December 2009 and were represented at the hearing by Dr.Jervis Good , Regional Ecologist. Dr Good’s written submissions at the hearing are tabbed NPWS 02-03. If an approval was to be granted, the conditions required by NPWS should be incorporated into the Approval. In relation to the extension of the boundary of the Mullaghanish – Musheramore Mountains pSPA, while Dr Good was clear on the status of the proposed extension, it would be prudent to have confirmation from NPWS as to the current boundaries, given the ongoing process involved which includes provision for an appeal system.

5.4.9 Submission of Inland Fisheries Ireland Mr Mc Partland attended the hearing on behalf of the South Western Regional Fisheries Board (now Inland Fisheries Ireland). The requirements of Inland Fisheries should be incorporated into any Approval. In respect of the compensatory channel works negotiated between the Local Authority and the Fisheries Board is shown on drawing tabbed LA 12 .

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 176 of 246 Cork County Council

5.4.10 Submissions of Community and Business Groups and elected representatives. Haulage interests, business groups and the Mayor of Macroom made submissions at the hearing in favour of the proposed bypass.

5.5 SUMMARY. The overview is that the section of route which bypasses Macroom and takes in the junction at Gurteenroe is a necessary and desirable scheme. It is considered to be justified on likely traffic usage and significant positive impacts in relation to the environment in the town of Macroom. The positive impacts are considered to outweigh the negative landscape impacts predicted.

However, it is considered that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed bypassing of Baile Mhic Íre and Baile Bhuirne which includes over 15 bridge type structures is justified. The road scheme as proposed in the western end of the study area would have unacceptable landscape and visual impacts in the area above and to the north of Baile Mhic Íre and Baile Bhuirne.

It is also considered that having regard to the significant proportion of passing trade in the villages of Baile Mhic Íre and Baile Bhuirne that the negative socio-economic impacts of bypassing these villages might not be outweighed by the positive impacts of removing through traffic.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 177 of 246 Cork County Council

6.0 RECOMMENDATION - PROPOSED ROAD DEVELOPMENT ( File Reference number HA0025)

I recommend that the Board should reject the proposed Road Development under section 51 of the Roads Act (as amended).

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Having regard to:

(a) the Environmental Impact Statement and the evidence tendered and submissions made during and prior to the Oral Hearing in relation to the likely effects on the environment of the proposed road development, (b) provisions of the Cork County Development Plan and Macroom Local Area Plans, (c) the National Spatial Strategy, national Development Plans, Transport 21 and ‘Smarter Travel’ (d) the Cork Area Strategic Plan and South West Regional Planning Guidelines (e) the existing and likely future traffic flows,

it is considered:-

(i) that it has been demonstrated that the proposed road scheme, designed to dual-carriageway standard is justified for the eastern part of the route from Codrum to Coolcour,

(ii) that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed road scheme, designed to dual-carriageway standard is justified for the western part of the route from Codrum to Baile Bhuirne,

(iii) the western section of the route passing to the north of Baile Mhic Íre and Baile Bhuirne would be likely, when set together with the lack of justification for the road, to result in significant adverse visual and landscape impacts,

(iv) to sever the western section of the proposed road from the remainder would require adjustments to the alignment and to junction arrangements and,

that approval should be refused.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 178 of 246 Cork County Council

7.0 RECOMMENDATION – COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER (File Reference KA0014)

As the recommendation in relation to the Road Development is that it should be rejected, I recommend that An Bord Pleanála reject Cork County Council Baile Bhuirne Macroom (Baile Bhuirne to Coolcour) Compulsory Purchase Order, 2009.

______Daniel O’Connor Engineer Gd I 09/12/2010

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 179 of 246 Cork County Council

APPENDIX I Objections to CPO

No Ref Surname Address Chain Comm. Agent

1 122a. Mc Sweeney Denis Kippaghs Self 201 Joseph B’vourney &Mgt Marion 2 226a. Thompson KJ & MT (Essex) 6 points Self 201 Bealahglashin old & Bridge cottage 202a. Macroom E 201 3 158 Mc Donnell John 5 pts N Nagle 4 165 Buckley Pascal & Clonfadda 16 pts John Rebecca Macroom Crowley 5 198 Casey John Keel, Macroom Do do 6 136 Casey Monica Toonlane Do do Ballymakeera 7 154 Corkery Hannah Do Do Do Maria 8 132 Corkery Jackie Mr Do Do Do 9 156 Creed Larry Carrigaphooca Do Do 10 141 Creedon Tadgh Coomnaclohy Do Do B’vourney 11 106 Cronin John Slieveragh Do Do B’vourney 12 212 De Burca Dr Sliabh-Riach Do Do Mairéad B’vourney & James 13 138 Grant Colm Ballymakeera Do Do 14 157 Healy Michael Carigaphooca Do Do 15 164 Hickey Dan Clonfadda Do Do 16 166 Hickey John Do Do Do 17 201 Horgan Kitty & Firville, Do Do Frances Macroom (mr & mrs ?) 18 162 Horgan John Kilmeedy, Do Do Millstreet 19 183 Kelleher Con Mountmassey Do do 20 188 Kingston Thomas Coolyhane, Do Do Macroom 21 116 Lane Thomas & Cappagh West Do Do Breeda Ballyvourney 22 129 Lehane John Ballymakeera Do Do 23 197 Looney Mary Coolyhane, M Do Do 24 109 Lucey Concubhar Slieveragh Do Do

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 180 of 246 Cork County Council

Ballyvourney 25 168 Lucey James Cooldrum, M Do Do 26 126 Lucey Michael Ballymakeera Do Do 27 104 Lynch Diarmuid Clonkeen, Do do Killarney 28 103 Lynch Donal Old Killarney Do Do Rd, Derynasaggart Ballyvourney 29 190 Lynch Killian Ballyverane,M Do Do 30 104 Lynch Mary & Old K’ny Rd Do Do Connie Derrynasaggart 31 185 Lynch Mrs Ballyverane, Do Do Sexton Sylvia Macroom JP 32 155 Mc Carthy Denis Farranduff, Do Do Crookstown 33 110 Mc Sweeney Edward Slieveragh Do do Ballyvourney 34 211 Moussett Francois Coolehane Do Do & Macroom Margaret 35 187 Mulcahy Brendan Lee View Do Do & Macroom Kathleen 36 189 Mulcaghy Donal Ballyveerane,M Do Do 37 137 Myers Billy Toonlane Do Do Ballymakeera 38 161 O’Callaghan Donal Glounanarrig Do Do Clondrohid,M 39 128 O’Connell Diarmuid Ballymakeera Do do 40 207 O’Connor Mr & Mrs Sleaveen East Do Do Stephen & Macroom Frances 41 131 O’Donoghue Mrs Patsy Ballymakeera Do Do* -96 42 200 O’Leary Ml & Rita Coolyhane,M Do Do 43 150 O’Riordan Frank & Lissacreasig Do Do John Macroom 44 159 O’Shea Mrs Carrigaphooka Do Do Josephine 45 109 O’Sullivan Murt & Derrynasaggart Do Do r o w Gobnait Ballyvourney 46 225 O’Sullivan Mrs Nora Bandon Do Do 47 191 Purcell David Coolehane, M Do Do 48 107 Roche Mrs Nora Slieveragh, Do Do Ballyvourney 49 108 Roche Partalan Slieveragh Do Do 50 220 Roche Mr & Mrs Slieveragh Do Do Sean & Ballyvourney Norann

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 181 of 246 Cork County Council

51 112 Twomey Martin Slieveragh, B Do Do 52 142 Uí Prionséas Coolavokig, Do Do Cheallaigh Bean Lissacreasig 53 178 Vaughan James Killnamartery, Do Do Macroom 54 202 Coughlan Shiela,jnr Unmera, 20+ Sever Mc 293 Macroom Visual Cutcheon flood Mulcahy 55 113 Creedon Patrick J Kippagh Sever John F 208 Baile Bhuirne Row Walsh Drainage Solicitor Noise Visual 56 224 O’Donoghue Gerard Ovens s.tank at Self 131 B’mka Arb ref 57 202 Mc Carthy Patrick Ballymakeera E Well, land Self of D O’ Connell 58 122 Mc Sweeney Denis J & Kippaghs Value Self Mgt Ballyvourney Water Marian Barriers 59 169 Mc Carthy Mr & Tearbeg, 14+ Visual Mc 170 Mrs M Macroom Noise Cutcheon P230 EIS Agric Mulcahy Flood – reasses 60 209 Maloney Joanne Dev pot JF Walsh 61 215 Lucey Eileen Slieveragh, Sever Timothy Ballyvourney Access Lucey Struct Solr damage Macroom Flood 62 119 Hegarty Mary Home Farm 3 pts— F B A Frances Ballyvourney excess Fermoy RA Collins 63 100 Lehane John & Slieveragh 5 pts Do Christine 64 172 O’Leary Peter Teerbeg, Mac Excess Do 65 139 Twomey Ml Jos jnr Coolnacaher Ambush Do not with Lissacreasig site sever DOShea 7 pts 66 154 Corkery Denis Inchinalinane 8 pts Do Lissacreasig excess sever 67 120 Twomey Michael Cappach East 7 pts Do Ballyvourney proximity 68 143 Moynihan Sean Coolavokig Underpass Do Access,,,,

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 182 of 246 Cork County Council

69 118 Twomey Pat Kippaghs View Do Ballyvourney access 9pts 70 219 Mc Mullan Julie Derrynasaggart 4p Do fencing 71 179 Creedon Peadar Inchinashingane Access 4p Do

72 124 Lynch Jerry & Ullanes East Excess Do Eileen Ballymakeera sever 7p 73 149 Twomey Daniel Coolavokig Well Do fences excess 5p 74 140 Ketch Catherine Coolnacaheragh 5p prox to Do Collins Peter house 75 181 Leahy Peter Drogheda 2 p excess Do + address 76 182 Leahy Ted Coachford 5p Do planning issue + 77 125 Cronin Sean Killeen Sever Do Ballymakeera Access Water 8p 78 173 Casey John Teerbeg 8p land Do excessive proximity

79 222 Dineen Padraig Coolcur Access, Do proximity Services Safety *eng ret 80 221 Elliot Wm & Coolcur As above Do Majella 81 123 Sullivan Tadg Coolea 7p excess Do +sever 82 151 Kelleher Joan Lissacreasig 9paccess Do Killnamartery prox, well 83 144 Moynihan Ger Coolavokig 6p – 4.5m Do underpass 84 146 O’Callaghan Liam Coolavokig 6p – Do u/pass or overpass 85 184 Kelleher Michael Upper Massey 9p access Do 86 147 Lehane Mary c/o Millstreet 4p access Do John Lehane 87 125 Hoare Mairead & Ballymakeera 4p water Do 127 Daniel proximity

88 115 Dineen Maura Augheris 11p row Do

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 183 of 246 Cork County Council

Ballymakeera O Sull’s Beara Walkn group ++ 89 213 Ciaria Mgt Gurteenroe 6p prox Do Macroom access to ret prop* 90 148 Lynch Stephen & Coolavokig 7p excess Do Eileen Lissacreasig access 91 121 Lucey Patrick Cappagh 3p access Do Ballyvourney water 92 206 Casey Tim Carriganine 5p * + Do functional gravel pit 93 177 Kelleher Jim Cedar Falls, 9p access Do Gurteenroe removal of 100 yr old beech* 94 192 Purcell Ml F & Coolehane 7p access Do Mary C excess + 95 111 Hoare James Gurtyrahilly, 9p std + Do Ballymakeera fencing standard + sheep impacts 96* 131 O’Donoghue Patricia Ballymakeera 10 p + cul Do (also de sac 41) 97* 108 Roche Partalan Slieveragh 10p Do (also access 49) 98* 107 Roche Nora Slieveragh 2p Do(also 108 proximity 48)

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 184 of 246 Cork County Council

Objectors to EIS

Ref Objector /Org 101 All clients Same 16 points deficiencies John Crowley as in EIS and other issues Consulting CPO 102 DEHLG Kerry Slug, otter, bats Rónán ,heath cudweed, Whelan archaeology / architecture 103 An Taisce Justification spec N9,48 Ian Lumley –ecology—tot 23 points 104 Carrigaphooca Vistas from castle and E Stack Castle Manor – from stone circle—2 Shanahan Officers of the Irish nat monuments <200m E Stack Brigades in Europe Tec Report 5 AH21 or Shanahan 1692-1792 25 Sheehan 105 Carrigaphooca Drawing vol3 pt1 pg Dr Gerard & Castle Demesne 21—Kilcrea avoided Mrs Eileen 12 +650 to 950 Sheehan 106 Donal Buckley Ml Purcell & son solr 107 National Graves Impact on Cúil na Matt Doyle Association Ireland Caheragh Ambush Site 108 Peter Sweetman Sullane River self Freshwater pearl Mussel—Art 3 and 5 of EIA Directive 109 Michael Joseph Ambush Site –incorrect FBA Twomey Jnr references—desecration 110 SWRFB Perm habitat loss Ml Mc Owengarve, Foherish Partland +11 111 Daimh Staire Ambush Site Michael Acadamh Fodhla 26/01/1921 Purcell & Son Letter NRA to Denis O’Shea

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 185 of 246 Cork County Council

APPENDIX II

List of Items handed in at hearing

A. LOCAL AUTHORITY

• LA 01 Opening Statement of Mr Matt Cunningham

• LA 02 Brief of Evidence of Mr. Stephen Pyatt on air quality

• LA 03 Brief of Evidence of Mr Mervyn Keegan on Noise and Vibration

• LA 04 Brief of Evidence of Mr Paul Mc Ewen on Geology and Hydrogeology

• LA 05 Brief of Evidence Mr Neil Evans on Surface Water Quality and Drainage

• LA 06 Brief of Evidence Mr Tim Carter on Landscape and Aesthetics

• LA 07 Brief of Evidence Mr Con Curtin relating to Agricultural Land

• LA 08 Brief of Evidence of Ms Faith Bailey

• LA 09 Brief of Evidence of Mr Paul Murphy on Planning and Geoff Webber, socio-economics

• LA 10 Evidence of Mr Matthew Hague on ecology including Habitats, Flora, Fauna and Fisheries

• LA 11 Speaking Notes Dr William Sheehan, Day 3 of hearing

• LA 12 Aerial Photograph of Mill Race location for compensatory fishery work.

• LA 13 Aerial Photography of Route with altered contrast colours to illustrate road more clearly

• LA 14 Traffic Modelling Report

• LA 15 Photographs of Carrigaphooca per Mr Carter

• LA16 Ambush Alternative 9 Drawing Cúil Na Cathrach

• LA 17 Viewpoint No. 5 Montage of Cúil Na Cathrach Ambush Site

• LA 18 Errata including drawing

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 186 of 246 Cork County Council

• LA 19 FONSE Report Habitats Directive ref 5001-NE02974-NER-01

• LA 20 Interim Advice Note UNECE

• LA 21 UK Empirical Loads for Nitrogen Appendix 1

• LA 22 Addendum to Mitigation and Measures for Kingfisher (LA22a)

• LA 23 Map indicating possible sources of materials

• LA 24 Ammendments to CPO Schedule

• LA 25 Legislative Background from final submission by Local Authority

• LA 26 Sharpe legal case

• LA 27 Appendix 1 and 2 to Landscape and Visual Brief of Evidence

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 187 of 246 Cork County Council

STATUTORY BODIES

NPWS 01 Derogation Licence in relation to the Kerry Slug under EC Habitats Regulations 1997 – 2005

NPWS 02 Statement read by Dr Good at hearing regarding issues (7 No) raised by NPWS in Dec 2009

NPWS 03 Statement read by Dr Good regarding extension of SPA at Mullaghanish Musheramore Mountains pSPA

NPWS 04 Copy of circular letter PD 2/07 and NPWS 2/07

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 188 of 246 Cork County Council

OBJECTORS :

Obj 01 Submision of Daimh Staire Acadamh Fodhla

Obj 02 Submission of Mr Joseph Twomey, jnr

Obj 03 Letter / statement of National Graves Association

Obj 04 Submission of Dr Sheahan /Ms Stack Shanahan

Obj 05 Submission of Mr Connolly, McCutcheon Mulcahy on behalf of Michael and Nora Mc Carthy

Obj 06 Submission of Mr Connolly, McCutcheon Mulcahy on behalf of

Obj 07 Submission on failure to meet route selection criteria by Dr Sheahan

Obj 08 Closing Statement of Dr Gerald Sheahan

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 189 of 246 Cork County Council

SUBMISSIONS IN FAVOUR OF PROPOSED ROAD DEVELOPMENT

Sub 01 Cork 2 Kerry Gateway Action Group

Sub 02 Lee Valley Enterprise Board

Sub 03 Submission by Cllr Evelyn Mc Sweeney, Mayor of Macroom

Sub 04 Irish Road Haulage Association

Sub 05 Letters of support from Businesses

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 190 of 246 Cork County Council

APPENDIX III

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

1.0 Structure of the EIS

1.1 The EIS document is in four volumes as follows: -

• Volume I – Non-Technical Summary (Summarised in Section 3.0 above). • Volume II – Main Text. • Volume III – Figures. • Volume IV – Technical Reports.

The EIS refers to the Roads Regulations 1994 (SI No. 119 of 1994) and Article 8 which prescribes the types of proposed road development which include “construction of a new road of four or more lanes, or the realignment or widening of an existing road so as to provide four or more lanes, where such new, realigned or widened road would be eight kilometres or more in length in a rural area, or 500 metres or more in length in an urban area. It also refers to the construction of a new bridge or tunnel which would be 100 metres more in length.

It concludes that EIA was required for the proposed N22 Baile Bhuirne to Coolcour Road Development.

The scope of the EIS is outlined in Section 2.2 including the main subject titles. It also notes that statutory and non-statutory bodies were consulted through all stages of the progression of the road development.

1.2 Traffic (Section 3.0, three pages)

The EIS took 2005 as a base year model and notes that daily traffic volume east of Macroom was 13,200 combined two-way traffic per day while west of Macroom it was 9,750, and the traffic flows on the R582 to Millstreet was 5,050 vehicles and the R618 towards Coachford was 3,025 vehicles. It notes that with respect of Macroom, 57% would be through-traffic that does not start or end in Macroom or the immediate area around it.

The EIS indicates the traffic growth forecast methodology gives predicted traffic flows for the opening year of 2012 and a design year of 2027. These are indicated in Figure 3.1 of the EIS, Volume III. The 2012 predictions would indicate that a new road would attract 8,700 vehicles per day with 7,600 per day immediately west of Macroom on the existing N22. 2027 predictions are based on a 28% overall increase in traffic.

The EIS notes the benefits to cyclists and pedestrians, particularly in Macroom.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 191 of 246 Cork County Council

2.0 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND OUTLINE OF ALTERNATIVES

This section which is 4.0 in the EIS comprises eight pages and covers the constraint study, route corridor selection and preliminary design stages.

2.1 Constraint Study Stage

The EIS notes the constraint study covered the 37 kilometres from Ovens to Baile Bhuirne. It notes that the study area was 11 kilometres in width. First public consultation was in January 2001.

2.2 Route Corridor Section Stage

The EIS goes through the sequence of events in this stage commencing with the workshop in April 2001. It notes that there are two routes selected from Macroom to Baile Bhuirne and a further four separate routes from Macroom to Ballincollig. It notes that 1,400 people attended the public consultations in June 2001 and 2,778 questionnaires were returned. It states that the views of the respondents and any information relevant to the route corridor selection was recorded and used, in part, in establishing a preferred route corridor.

The EIS refers to a workshop in August 2001 which developed link corridors also.

In relation to the emerging preferred route, the EIS gives an assessment of the different sections and notes the preferred route is green between nodes 1 and 3 on the western tie-in to Baile Bhuirne. It notes 3-6 are Baile Bhuirne to Ballyveerane the route selected was yellow. The EIS notes the constraints in the different routes. A third round of public consultation was undertaken in April 2002. The EIS states that the emerging preferred route and a draft of the route corridor selection report was presented to local councillors and affected landowners. It notes that over 520 people attended a public exhibition in April 2002 in Macroom, Baile Bhuirne and Ovens.

2.3 Development of the emerging preferred route

The EIS refers to alternatives to alternatives which were assessed in the route corridor selection report. There are seven alternatives referred to in the section between Baile Bhuirne and Coolcour.

2.4 Preliminary Design Stage

The EIS notes that the preliminary design is for a type 2 dual carriageway which is in line with current NRA policy and standards.

Table 4.2 notes the changes in the development of the preliminary design. Southwards realignment is noted from chainage 0+300 to chainage 1+300 and a major realignment to the north from chainage 2+040 to 4+100. It is noted that the design at that stage incorporated a roundabout and it was this plan that was in a public exhibition in July 2006.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 192 of 246 Cork County Council

Table 4.3 refers to route corridor deviations starting at chainages 2,600, 15,400 and 21,400. It notes also that July 2006 the possibility of a 2+1 road was noted. It states that the preliminary design had three compact grade- separated junctions and one roundabout.

The EIS states that the road development was developed to minimise impacts to the ambush site at Cúil na Cathrach at chainage 6+500.

The EIS notes that in September 2007, the intention of the DEHLG to extend the designation of St. Gobnet’s Wood SAC was notified which would then include the area of Cascade Wood. It states the decision was based on the presence of Sessile Oak and the Kerry Slug.

The EIS notes that at one stage in the development of the preliminary design, a link road was proposed at chainage 19+000 to give access to and from the mart area of Macroom. The EIS states that as the design was developed, the traffic and economic assessment of the link road indicated that it would not be cost effective. It states that with the provision of two junctions namely at Gurteenroe and Coolcour, the assessment was that traffic levels would not require a third junction did not justify the additional cost of the construction of the link road. The EIS states that the link road was not part of the proposed road development and was not assessment within the EIS.

Section 4.4.9 of the EIS refers to the summary of alternative routes considered and the reasons for changes made. It states that specific changes included the route corridor deviations to reduce landscape, cultural heritage and ecological impact. It notes this route was further realigned to the north of Cascade Wood to avoid impacts on the woodland, following the proposed extension of the St. Gobnet’s Wood SAC. It notes that further alternative routes were examined at Cúil na Cathrach and the route was eventually realigned further west to minimise impact on the ambush site.

3.0 PROPOSED ROAD – DESCRIPTION (EIS VOLUME II SECTION 5-1 TO 5-14)

The EIS describes the main elements of the road proposal which it describes as follows: -

• 6.6 kilometres parallel to and north of the existing N22 from the Baile Bhuirne grade-separated junction to Cúil na Cathrach. Note that Baile Bhuirne grade separated junction does not provide for full movements.

• Cúil na Cathrach for six kilometres route runs in an easterly direction south of the existing N22 to Carrigaphooca.

• From Carrigaphooca the route travels north-easterly through the Gurteenroe grade-separated junction at the R582 and then crosses the

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 193 of 246 Cork County Council

River Laney and River Sullane before re-joining the existing N22 at Coolcour which is two kilometres from Macroom.

• Tonn Láin grade separated junction with full access provides for access to Baile Bhuirne, Baile Mhic Íre and the existing road network. Noted also that Coolcour is a roundabout joining to the existing N22.

The EIS states that the preliminary design has a design speed of 100 km/h and would have two lanes in each direction separated by a safety barrier. It notes that Figure 5.3 is divided into 13 sheets which indicate the preliminary design (Volume III, EIS) and Figure 5.4 is in six sheets with a smaller scale and indicates the preliminary design overlaid onto aerial photography.

The EIS describes the different sections of the route as follows: -

• Baile Bhuirne to Tonn Láin – this section is 5.5 kilometres in length and it crosses county roads at chainage 0+200 and 1+800. These would require two bridges and a river bridge is required to cross the Bohill River at chainage 1+820. It states that the alignment cross An Cheapach Thoir. The bridge at chainage 3+900 would be required to accommodate the traffic on the realigned road at that point and an accommodation bridge at chainage 3+300 would provide access for two landholdings across the mainline. From an examination of sheets 1-3 of Figure 5.3, there would appear to be a requirement for 15 bridges in total including bridges for a river crossing and accommodation bridges.

• Tonn Láin to Carrigaphooca – this section is approximately eight kilometres in length and crosses the ambush site at Cúil na Cathrach which is at chainage 6+600. Sheets 3-8 indicate that there would be 15 bridges including accommodation under bridges on this section.

• Carrigaphooca to Gurteenroe – this section is approximately three kilometres in length and would include a bridge crossing of the Foherish River and four other bridges.

• Gurteenroe to Coolyhane Bridge – the route continues from chainage 16+900 and there are six bridges indicated on Figure 5.3 (Volume 3, EIS). It notes the route changes to a south-easterly direction where it is in cut.

• Coolyhane Bridge to Coolcour – the last four kilometres of the route have larger bridges over the Sullane River and also a bridge at Ummera at chainage 20+100 is required to bridge over the R618 onto Newbridge.

The EIS summarises that the new route would cross the national route N22 twice and also two regional roads and 16 county local roads and a number of accommodation access roads. Table 5-1 lists the local roads and access crossings. The river bridge crossings are at: -

• Chainage 1+800 – Bohill River – two number 53 metre spans. • Foherish River – chainage 13+780 – single span 43 metres. ______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 194 of 246 Cork County Council

• Laney River Bridge – chainage 19+900 – single span 45 metres. • Sullane River Bridge – chainage 20+700 – twin spans of 48 metres each.

The EIS describes the traffic signs and lighting standards to be applied and notes that there would be no facilities for pedestrians or cyclists on the proposed road development main line. It notes that consultation had taken place with the relevant utility companies and included powerlines, telecommunications and water services.

The EIS notes that the preliminary design details are presented in Figure 5.3, Volume 3 of the EIS.

The EIS describes the methodology for culverts including incorporation of benching for mammal passage and also requirements for provision for fish passage.

The EIS notes that the ecological surveys suggested that all watercourses are likely to contain otter. It is noted that the requirement of Inland Fisheries Ireland in relation to culverts would be adhered to.

In relation to road drainage, the EIS states this would be by way of grassed swales, combined filter drains and sealed drainage systems where specifically required. It notes that ponds would be used to provide run-off attenuation and pollution control. It states the road drainage would be in-line with compliance with NRA and OPW Guidelines and Standards. The EIS states that petrol and oil separators would be used at high-risk accident locations which would be at outfalls in the vicinity of junctions and roundabouts.

Section 5.2.14 describes the Owengarve Diversion .

The diversion of the river is stated to be required chainage 0+300. It states that the methodology chosen would minimise the impact on the watercourse. It also states that an alternative methodology could be used if assessed by NPWS and the IFI as being an improvement which would further minimise the impacts to the diversion of the watercourse.

The EIS states works would be carried out between March and September and only in dry weather. It describes the construction of the new channel and the use of sandbags for the break-out points. It also refers to the use of rock armour and the methodology for construction and for making the diversion alive.

The EIS describes the methodology for reducing siltation and the use of silt traps. It also notes the use of a sediment entrapment mat. The EIS states that an ecologist would be employed by the contractors to supervise all stages of the works. It states that the detailed design of the new channel would be developed with the IFI and NPWS and undertaken in-line with the NRA Guidelines for the crossing of watercourses during construction of national road schemes and international best practice.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 195 of 246 Cork County Council

The EIS describes the land take and extinguishments and states that the total permanent land-take would be approximately 191 hectares for the full 22 kilometres of road development. It notes localised road realignments would include Clondrohid Road, Tonn Láin, Dromduff Road and Masseytown Road.

In relation to proper demolition and the land-take it states that there would be three residential properties acquired which would include one which was derelict and two inhabited. Derelict property is at chainage 1+775 and the two inhabited properties would be at chainage 1+800 and 16+200.

3.1 Construction of the proposed road development

The EIS estimates the construction period as approximately 30 months with a total cut volume of 2.3 million m 3 and a fill volume of 2.4 million m 3. It notes that the demand for concrete would be greatest during the bridge construction works. The EIS states that because of the design and build nature of the road development, the amount of material could vary from the amount expected to be excavated for the preliminary design. It states that the need for some off- site disposal of peat material could not be ruled out. It also states that it was likely that the mass haulage of earthworks would be carried out along the haul routes within the fenced-off area required for a construction and that the local road network would be largely unaffected by the bulk of the earthworks.

The EIS states that the contractor would be responsible for any approvals for locating compounds outside of the CPO boundary. In relation to construction traffic it states that primary access to the site would be from the existing N22 and that there would be measures to reduce the impact of construction noise and dust.

In Section 5.4.5, temporary road diversions are noted and these would include

• An Sliabh Riabhach Bridge chainage 0+200. • An Chepeach Bridge chainage 1+900. • Na Cilliní Bridge chainage 3+900. • Baile Mhic Íre Bridge chainage 4+400. • Cúil na Cathrach Bridge chainage 6+700. • Accommodation access chainage 7+400. • Sullane Bridge chainage 9+500. • Clonfadda Bridge chainage 14+300. • Gurteenroe Bridge chainage 16+200. • Kilnagurteen Bridge chainage 16+900. • Coolyhane Bridge chainage 19+500.

Section 5.5 of the EIS deals with environmental management during the construction phase and refers to NRA Environmental Construction Guidelines with respect to badgers, bats, crossing of watercourses, dealing with wetland archaeological heritage, preservation of trees, air quality and noise and vibration.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 196 of 246 Cork County Council

The EIS refers to a construction and demolition waste management plan and also to an environmental operating plan and in relation to on-going operation and maintenance, it notes the requirement for a maintenance and environmental management plan. It states that the items to be included will be:-

• Treatment of attenuation ponds. • Maintenance of swales. • Road sweeping. • Lighting maintenance. • Highway drainage maintenance including gulley emptying, and • Landscape maintenance.

4.0 PLANS AND POLICIES – PLANNING CONTEXT

The EIS refers to the national, regional and local planning policies which include: -

• NDP. • Reform of the Structure of Funds 2000 – 2006 and the Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion. • Southern and Eastern NUTS II. • NSS. • Department of Transport – Statement of Strategy, 2008-2010. • Transport 21. • Sustainable Development, a Strategy for Ireland (1997). • Making Irelands’ Development Sustainable (2002). • Ireland, National Climate Change Strategy, 2007-2012.

The planning documents include: -

• South-West Regional Authority, Regional Planning Guidelines of May 2004. • Cork Area Strategic Plan 2001-2020. • North and West Cork Strategic Plan 2002-2020. • Cork County Council CDP 2009. • Macroom Electoral Area Local Area Plan – September 2005. • Macroom Development Plan 2009-2015.

The conclusions of this chapter of the EIS are that the road development would give an overall positive benefit to the area and was in compliance with the broad objectives of the Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion (EC 2004). In relation to the national level, the EIS states that the development was in compliance with national policy objectives and at a regional level, it would contribute to accessibility, safety and economic regeneration of objectives through the improvements to the Cork – Tralee corridor.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 197 of 246 Cork County Council

At local level, it states the road development was included within the CDP, Macroom Electoral Area Plan and Macroom Town Development Plan. It states that it would increase the attractiveness of the area for both local residents and potential visitors. It states that there might be a minor negative impact on certain local business activities from the possible decline and passing trade. It states that overall, the road development secures compliance with plans and policies at all levels.

5.0 SOCIO-ECONOMICS

The assessment of socio-economics is based on collection and analysis of data, multiple business surveys and consultation with local planning authority staff.

5.1 Existing Environment

Section 7.2.1 of the EIS gives the background which states that the towns through which the current route passes experience heavy traffic flows on the main shopping streets which can be very disruptive. It notes that although not located along the existing route, the assessment is concerned with the village of Cill na Martra which is approximately three kilometres south of the existing N22.

The EIS states that in certain parts of Macroom the road narrows to a width which restricts the passing of two large vehicles which causes increased congestion on an already overused road. It states that Baile Bhuirne and Baile Mhic Íre are two contiguous settlements, lying to the west of Macroom and also experience similar heavy traffic flows resulting in congestion, particularly in the peak periods.

In relation to population it states that the 20.1% increase in population in the urban area of Macroom in 2002-2006. The EIS states that wider Macroom rural area had an increase of 7.3% over the same period. It notes that Baile Mhic Íre and Baile Bhuirne did not have published data for the period, but the comparison of 1996 and 2002 illustrated a population growth of 12.8%. The EIS states that the figures suggest a similar high rate of growth within the outlying villages.

The EIS refers to the settlement pattern and notes that Baile Mhic Íre and Baile Bhuirne are designated as a key village in the Macroom Electoral Area Local Area Plan. It notes within the area is Cill na Martra, designated as a village and fulfilling an important role as a service and employment centre in the Gaeltacht Mhuscraí.

The EIS refers to housing and states that there would be 750 houses per annum between 2001 and 2006 in the Ring Town area. It refers to the Draft Joint Strategy of 2007 which estimates a growth rate of 2.46% in relation to households over the period 2006-2020 and would represent a predicted growth in housing units of some 4,707 between 2006 and 2011.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 198 of 246 Cork County Council

Section 7.2.5 refers to commercial activity and it is noted that there are 130 commercial outlets within Macroom Town. It notes a number of developments that were either completed or due for completion including extension of the Cork Co-Op Mart, site development The Old Neville Bakery and proposed development at Murray’s Field.

It states that Baile Mhic Íre and Baile Bhuirne are the largest settlements within the Gaeltacht Mhuscraí and are seen key settlements and notes that Uduaras na Gaeltachta has a number of industrial premises in Cill na Martra.

Section 7.2.6 refers to employment and unemployment and lists a number of enterprises. It notes large-scale redundancies affecting 180 jobs through the closure of Delta Off-Site Solutions in September 2006.

5.2 Assessment of Effects

This section refers to a commercial survey which gave different viewpoints in relation to the proposed development between businesses in Macroom and businesses in Baile Mhic Íre and Baile Bhuirne. In the case of Macroom, 76% felt the current situation had a negative effect on business and the same percentage felt that the road development would have a positive effect. With reference to Baile Mhic Íre and Baile Bhuirne, 53% believe that the current situation was of benefit to the business and the same percentage felt the proposed road would have a negative effect.

In relation to Cill na Martra, the business surveyed indicated that a junction was sought which would allow direct access to the proposed road development at or near to the existing junction.

Section 7.3.2 refers to impact assessment and states that the reduction in traffic and in particular HGVs would create a safer environment. It states that access to Cill na Martra and the area surrounding the settlement would be maintained via the existing road network. It states that the down-grading of the existing N22 could allow for an increase in development potential which would be subject to review by the local planning authority.

The EIS states there would be no significant impact on the status of Irish Language as a result of the construction or operation of the road development. Table 7.3 notes the sectors affected by construction and the significance of the impacts. Table 7.4 refers to the sectors affected by operational phase and these include tourism, business and commercial activity, residential amenity and retail businesses. The table lists potential positive and negative impacts.

In relation to mitigation measures, construction management is stressed which would include negotiation with landowners. It refers to traffic management and states that tourist attractions in the area should be signposted from the proposed road development based on the NRA policy on the Provision of Tourist and Leisure Signage on National Roads (2007).

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 199 of 246 Cork County Council

The conclusion of this chapter states that during construction there would be short-term impacts both positive and negative and that in the longer term the road development would remove a large volume of traffic from the current route and this would reduce congestion within the towns along with creating a safer, quieter and cleaner town centre environment.

This section recognises the potential to impact negatively on certain businesses which rely on passing trade and it states that the down-grading of the existing route and the increased amenity may also allow for further development within the towns in relation to housing, commercial and retail. It states this growth would bring associated spend increases within the centres.

Overall, the EIS states that the road development would have a moderate positive impact on the social and economic environment of the study area.

6.0 AGRICULTURAL LAND (PAGES 8-1 TO 8-4)

The chapter considers the potential effects on the existing agricultural practices and business and Table 8.1 gives the significance criteria and the existing environment is described in Section 8.2. This notes that the average farm size was 31 hectares which is smaller than the County Cork average farm size of 37.5 hectares based on CSO data.

Table 8.2 gives the land use statistics and it is noted that there are 72 farms affected of which 54 are classified other grazing livestock.

6.1 Assessment of Effects for Construction and Operation

The EIS notes that there would be 182 hectares of agricultural land required for the construction and operation of the road development. It states that 72 individual farms together amount to 2,236 hectares and the land take would therefore be 8% of the affected area which would represent a significant impact on affected farms. Reference is made to Appendix 4.1 of Volume IV of the EIS for individual farm impacts. The EIS notes that 40 farms are affected by severance and this would create 49 new farm segments. It states the temporary impacts would occur during the construction phase including temporary noise and dust generation. It states that mitigation measures for surface water sources would be put in place and these were described in Chapter 10.

6.2 Mitigation Proposals

The EIS states that in the construction phase that boundary fencing would be erected to delineate the site boundary and prevent disturbance to adjacent land. It stresses the need for good communication with farmers to facilitate the organisation of farm enterprises. In relation to the operation phase, the EIS states that a consultation with landowners had been taken into consideration in the preliminary design of accommodation roads. It states that permanent access arrangements to some severed parcels of land would form part of the

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 200 of 246 Cork County Council

negotiations with affected landowners. It states that the road development crosses watercourses and field drainage systems and the drainage sign for the road development had taken suggestions for agricultural land drainage into consideration.

6.3 Conclusion

The EIS indicates the levels of impact for the various farm types in Table 8.3 and it is noted that five farms have severe impacts and 24 have major impacts out of the total of 72. Table 8.4 gives a summary of overall impacts for land areas within enterprise categories. This indicates that of the 2,236 hectares of total farmland in the 72 farms, 688 hectares would have major impact and 114 hectares would have severe impact. It also notes that 291 hectares would have non-significant impact.

7.0 LANDSCAPE AND AESTHETICS (PAGES 9-1 TO 9.10)

The EIS describes the methods of assessment and refers to baseline studies and landscape character appraisal and on visual receptors. In relation to the assessment of affects, it refers to the sensitivity of the landscape resource, the magnitude of the affect and the identification of residual effects that could not be eliminated through mitigation.

The EIS notes that landscape and visual effects are assessed separately, although there are closely related topics. It notes that landscape effects are concerned with the potential effects of change upon the baseline landscape resource, while visual effects are concerned with the potential effects of change to existing views for a range of visual receptors including local residents and visitors.

It notes that in relation to assessment of landscape and visual impacts there is inevitably a degree of subjective analysis.

7.1 Existing Environment

The potential impact of the proposed road development is considered in relation to designated landscape areas within county development plans and other plans: -

• Cork Area Strategic Plan 2001-2020 – key goal to minimise the impacts on ecologically sensitive areas and on built heritage and cultural landscapes. • North and West Cork Strategic Plan 2002-2020 – to generate and increase the appreciation of the unique qualities – environmental, heritage and cultural of each part of north and west Cork. • CDP 2009 includes: -

Protection of the visual and scenic amenities of areas identified as scenic landscape. This includes the area west of Macroom between Codrum and

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 201 of 246 Cork County Council

Carrigaphooca. It notes that two designated scenic routes exist within the study corridor, one being the existing N22 between Codrum Crossroads through to Baile Bhuirne.

In relation to landscape character appraisal, the EIS states there are 16 distinct landscape types and 76 separate landscape character areas within Cork County.

Table 9.1 sets out the definitions of landscape character area assessment criteria.

7.2 Description of the Road Development Setting

Section 9.2.4 describes the landscape through which the proposed road development passes from east to west and this is shown on five sheets on the Figure 9.1, Volume III of the EIS. The EIS notes that to the immediate east of Macroom, the road development rises to a hillside between Firville and Ballyveerane on minor embankments, but mostly in cutting. It notes that at Coolyhane, a bridge is provided to connect the severed local lane. At this point it states that mature vegetation would be lost as a result of construction at the Coolyhane Bridge.

The EIS describes the proposed road development from Coolyhane as being on embankment as it begins to cross a broad ridge of undulating pasture fields. It notes that passing along the ridge in deep cutting, there would be a loss of hedgerow vegetation.

The EIS states the landform drops between Gurteenroe and Teerbeg and to the east of the R582, the junction is cut deep into the edge of the ridge slope. It notes as the road development heads towards Carrigaphooca and Lissacressig, it passes mainly on embankment through an area characterised by enclosed pasture, interspersed with large rocky outcrops. It states the proposed road then drops to cross the existing N22 to the west of the Foherish River with the loss of some mature vegetation associated with both feature.

The road development continuing west from Carrigaphooca is briefly in cutting and on embankment before returning to grade running parallel to existing N22. The EIS states that beyond Lissacressig, the main line is on embankment close to the Sullane River with embankment slopes sitting next to the River Bank. It states that the road development continues through the area of Cúil na Cathrach open pasture on embankment which is characterised by larger, more rugged rocky outcrops and small regular fields.

The route passes into the Baile Mhic Íre open pasture character area near the Baile Mhic Íre Bridge where the road development sits on embankment. It states that further west at Na Cillíní Bridge is provided at chainage 3+900 and the route moves into cutting briefly before continuing on a high embankment passing into Baile Bhuirne open pasture. The EIS states that beyond Baile Mhic Íre the route passes across elevated undulating pasture of large rectilinear fields on high embankment and shallow cutting before crossing

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 202 of 246 Cork County Council

towards Baile Bhuirne. It notes that pockets of woodland and mature hedgerow field boundaries would need to be removed as a result. The crossing of the valley associated with the Bohill River is noted at chainage 1+850. The EIS notes that at the western end at An Sliabh Riabhach, the road development cuts across the middle of the ridge in deep cutting before continuing mainly on low embankment towards the tie-in with the existing N22.

Section 9.2.6 describes the existing night-time landscape and notes that the town of Macroom does create some noticeable areas of sky-glow. It states that outside of Macroom at the industrial estate at Hartnett’s Cross there is existing lighting next to the road development. It also states there are no other significant sources of lighting until the edge of Baile Mhic Íre at Tonn Láin. It states that however lighting on the public house Lissacressig is prominent in views from the existing N22 and properties in close proximity.

7.3 Assessment

The nature of landscape impacts is described and features identified include hedgerows, woodlands, landform, cultural heritage features and other features including watercourses, rock outcrops and stonewalls.

The EIS states that the road development itself would directly impact upon the landscape character through which it passes. The secondary or indirect effects are described as improving the townscape quality and general urban environment. It states that from a cumulative point of view, the proposed road development would result in an adverse and landscape impact. It states that the road development would enhance the quality of the urban environment within the main town of Macroom and the more rural settlements of Baile Bhuirne and Baile Mhic Íre.

Operational landscape and visual impacts were identified as including maintenance operations, road development lighting and vehicle lights and movement. It states the visual environments of Macroom, Baile Bhuirne and Baile Mhic Íre would be improved by lessening concentrated traffic volumes and therefore reducing visual disturbance.

7.4 Mitigation Proposals

The EIS states that landscape mitigation measures would include planting, reinstatement and visual screening. It refers to Figure 9.3 (six sheets) where specific measures are shown. It is noted from the specific measures that they are listed as SLM 1 – SLM 4 covering grassland, scrub, woodlands and hedgerows. The measures are indicated on Figure 9.3 throughout the length of the scheme. The Section 9.4.5 describes road development lighting and in the EIS it states that the lighting assessment demonstrates that due to the orientation of properties and vegetation within property boundaries, few

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 203 of 246 Cork County Council

properties would be directly impacted by glare from vehicle headlights on the proposed road development.

7.5 Summary of Landscape and Visual Assessment

The EIS states the majority of areas are assessed as being of good and very attractive landscape value. It also notes an area designated as scenic landscape between chainages 13+000 to 16+150 and this is between Carrigaphooca and Gurteenroe. It notes the route corridor runs through dramatic landscape setting afforded by several ridges and to the western end of the route of Doirenasagart Mountains. It notes the area is valued by both local people and tourists for those characteristics.

The EIS states that the design process had sought to define an alignment which minimised environmental impact as there were inevitable adverse effects on a number of environmental features, including landscape. It refers to the landscape mitigation plan and also to report number 5 of Appendix 4a of the EIS which covers landscape and aesthetics and runs to over 90 pages.

The EIS states that sections of the road development that had been judged as receiving a significant impact on local landscape area would be as follows: -

• Chainage 0+532 – 1+850 on the Sliabh Riabhach enclosed pasture. It states the ridge pasture is quite apparent in long distance views especially when travelling along the existing N22. It notes that the depth of cutting across Sliabh Riabhach Bridge would form a large landscape scar that would create a significant change in the existing rural landscape character.

• Chainage 1+850 – 2+910 – Baile Bhuirne open pasture. The road development is predicted to impact on the area by way of introducing a highly engineered aspect into an area that is sparsely populated, not intensively farmed and has large areas untouched by agriculture or development.

• Chainage 5+500 – 9+500 – Cúil na Cathrach Open Pasture. The EIS states the road would impact upon the area of relatively undisturbed rocky outcrops that exist in concentration throughout the area.

• Chainage 19+450 – 20+200 – Macroom Lowland Pasture. The EIS states the road development would impact on a narrow corridor of rural low- lying pasture adjacent to the Sullane River affecting the setting of Bealick Mill and the existing Laney River Bridge and also the existing Sullane River Bridge.

• Chainage 20+200 – 21+800 – Sullane River Floodplain. The road development would pass through local landscape character areas where the impact of the scale of the road development would be most detrimental.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 204 of 246 Cork County Council

The EIS states that despite only five areas potentially being affected to a significant degree, a number of areas would suffer a moderately significant impact including: -

• Chainage 2+850 – 5+500 – Baile Mhic Íre Pasture. • Chainage 13+000 – 13+780 – Carrigaphooca Ridge. • Chainage 13+780 – 16+150 – Teerbeg and Codrum Enclosed Pasture. • Chainage 16+150 – 17+750 – Masseytown Ridge Pasture and Kilnagurteen Open Pasture.

The EIS states the proposed road development would have its highest levels of adverse visual impact on views from residential properties. It refers to Appendices 5.3 and 5.4 in Volume 4A which gives individual assessments of the potential significance of visual impact to be experienced by 318 individual properties and the results are summarised in Tables 9.2 for daytime and 9.3 for night time. These show that 43 properties would have significant daytime impacts after year 15 and that 60 properties would have significant visual impacts at night time in the summer of year 15.

The EIS describes the residual effects and states that despite the mitigation strategies, the road development would have a local adverse residual landscape and visual impact. By way of contrast, it states that the urban environments within the existing towns and villages would be improved. It states the road development would have some residual adverse effect on some areas of local landscape character in particular those that are considered sensitive to development of a roads’ nature. It states there would be residual adverse effect on a number of local visual receptors which are located in an intrinsically rural and dark landscape which is where roads are currently narrow with high vegetation forming a corridor to the roads and where there are no large-scale engineered roads or structures within the local landscape.

8.0 SURFACE WATER QUALITY AND DRAINAGE (VOLUME, 2, PAGES 10-1 – 10-13)

The EIS describes the methodology and the information sources which include the OPW, ESB and EPA. It states that for water quality assessment existing physico-chemical and biological water quality data have been collected and biological quality surveys of the main water course in the area had been undertaken. It notes that assumptions had been made as to the baseline water quality of smaller minor tributary streams.

The EIS states that hydrological and hydraulic studies were carried out for the Rivers Laney, Foherish, Bohill and Owengarve. It notes the sections of the Sullane that were judged to be potentially impacted were also assessed. It states that hydraulic computer models of the watercourses were constructed to define the extent of the existing one-in-one hundred year floodplain of the rivers and information is presented in the flood risk assessment report for the proposed road development.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 205 of 246 Cork County Council

Section 10.2.4 list the significant criteria and Table 10.1 gives the criteria where estimating the significance of potential impacts.

8.1 Existing Environment

The surface water features in the study area shown on Figure 10.1 of Volume 3 of the EIS. It states that none of the watercourses crossed by the proposed road development are designated as salmonid but the Sullane River is a first order tributary of the River Lee which is a designated salmonid river under the quality of Salmonid Waters Regulations, 1988.

The EIS describes the River Sullane and notes there will be one crossing at chainage 20+700. It notes that the River Sullane serves a number of functions including recreational use, a source of potable water supply for Macroom of up to 3,180 m 3 per day and for the discharge of effluent from Macroom, Lissacressig and Baile Bhuirne Wastewater Treatment Works.

The EIS states that consultations revealed there were few recurring flooding problems associated with the Sullane and the last significant flooding occurred in 1986. This caused flooding at Baile Bhuirne, Baile Mhic Íre and in the Masseytown region. It noted that the area adjacent to the mills at Baile Bhuirne is subject to localised flooding to the east and flooding can result in the existing N22 becoming temporarily impassable.

In relation to the River Laney, the proposal is to cross this at one location. It states the river supports good stocks of brown trout and has habitat for the freshwater pearl mussel. It states that otter populations are also likely to utilise the watercourse. It states consultation with OPW had confirmed that occasional flooding around the Laney/Sullane confluence is confined to lower lying pasture land.

The EIS states that the River Foherish is a first order tributary of the River Sullane and would be crossed by the proposed road development at one location (Carrigaphooca). It states the river receives discharges of effluent from the Clondrohid Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Clondrohid Creamery.

The EIS states there are no recurring problems of significant flooding within the river catchment and in terms of hydrology and flood risk, the River Foherish is considered to be of low sensitivity.

The EIS states that the Bohill River is considered to be of medium sensitivity and at the proposed crossing; there are no properties at risk of flooding.

The EIS states that Owengarve River requires a single crossing by the road development and there are no recurring problems of significant flooding.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 206 of 246 Cork County Council

The EIS refers to the Carrigadrohid Reservoir which was commissioned in 1957 and is used for electricity generation. It states that the water feature is considered to be of medium sensitivity to change.

The EIS states that examples of areas of wetland that would be directly physically impacted or located in the vicinity of Teerbeg, Clonfadda and Codrum. It notes that significant area of wetland habitat occurs at the Sullane Delta in the vicinity of Coolcour.

The EIS states that a sensitivity of streams of ditches is judged to be medium in terms of water quality as while biological water quality surveys of five of the streams indicate favourable baseline water quality, those streams are important only at a local scale.

8.2 Construction Impacts Assessment

The EIS states that construction activity has the potential to affect various attributes of the surface water environment. In relation to water quality impacts, it notes the potential to add significant sediment loads to watercourses. It notes the potential impact on the freshwater pearl mussel.

Flood risk impacts are noted which could arise from the storage of construction materials and construction of watercourse crossings. The increase in the area covered by impermeable surfaces within the Sullane Catchment is noted. The EIS states that prior to mitigation there would be likely to be a negative impact of low significance for a majority of watercourse with significant adverse impacts where the proposed road development crosses tributaries that have been identified as being more sensitive for example at chainage 16+089 and chainage 17+930.

8.3 Assessment of Affects in the Operational Phase

The EIS lists pollutants such as oils and hydrocarbons and salts for herbicides from road maintenance as having implications for water quality. It notes that significant pollution impacts in receiving waters is restricted primarily to roads carrying more than 30,000 vehicles per day with a threshold flow of 15,000 vehicles per day at which surface water run-off may result in some noticeable impact. The future traffic flows on the proposed road development are stated to be below the threshold flow of 15,000 AADT. The EIS notes that a total of 18 attenuation ponds are proposed, all of which are situated such as not to encroach on the one-in-one hundred year floodplain of the River Sullane or its major tributaries.

Section 10.5.2 refers to pollution resulting from accidental spillage and states that spillage of potentially polluting material is more likely to occur if a HGV is involved in accident. It states that there are three junctions in the proposed road development and that access would not be permitted elsewhere and this would improve the safety and considerably reduce the likelihood of accidents occurring compared with the existing N22. It also said that as the result of

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 207 of 246 Cork County Council

reclassification of the existing N22, the overall likelihood of accidental pollution incident occurring on the existing route will also decrease.

Section 10.5.3 refers to flood risk impacts and notes that the introduction of new in-stream structures would have the potential for elevated water levels and an increased risk of out-of-bank flows. It notes that drainage culverts have been sized using computer modelling and CIRIA guidelines. It notes that a minimum capacity culvert of 900 millimetres was utilised for assessment of the design flows which resulted in a smaller culvert sizing.

Section 10.5.4 refers to the crossing of the River Sullane and its floodplain. It states that the road would involve a storage loss equal to approximately 4,900 m3 and would have a water level increase of up to 18 centimetres with minor effects on baseline water levels predicted along a 392 metre stretch of the river (see also paragraph 4.2.5 of the main report and the evidence of Mr. Evans at the oral hearing).

The EIS states that further downstream, a new crossing of the river is proposed at chainage 20+700. It states this would have two-span bridge of 48 metres each span with a central pier and maximum localised water level increase of up to 25 centimetres would result. The EIS states that a total storage volume along that reach of the river is estimated at approximately 2,250 m 3. The EIS describes this as a very small proportion of the total floodplain storage that is available. The EIS states that no additional buildings have been identified that would be directly affected by the predicted increase in water depths and inundation extents.

It is stated that the only impacts relate to marginal increases in flood water levels at the Macroom Sewage Treatment Works, which is inundated in the baseline situation and marginal increases in the localised flooding that occurs on the existing N22 road in the current situation.

Section 10.5.5 refers to the Carrigadrohid Reservoir Crossing and notes that the volume of the reservoir would reduce by 15,980 m 3 but that in relation to its current total surface area of 9km 2, the reduction in storage is negligible and flood water level increases of just 0.01 m are predicted.

In relation to the River Laney crossing at chainage 19+898, the proposed structure is 35 metre single-span bridge with a minimum soffit level of 66 mOD.

The EIS predicts water levels of the existing Laney Bridge to increase by seven centimetres and this would translate to a maximum increase in the baseline flood extent of approximately 10 metres on the right-hand floodplain. It concludes that a crossing of the River Laney by the proposed road development has an insignificant impact on baseline flood risk.

The EIS states that the structure crossing the River Foherish would be approximately 500 metres upstream of the existing N22 crossing at

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 208 of 246 Cork County Council

Carrigaphooca Bridge and this would be a 40 metre single-span bridge, with a minimum soffit level of 84 mOD.

Section 10.5.8 describes the Bohill River crossing which would have a minimum soffit level of 162.22 mOD. It notes that embankments associated with the proposed access tracks would encroach into a limited floodplain and would result in a very minor loss of floodplain storage of 22 m 3 volume. It states the crossing of the Bohill River by the proposed road development is concluded to have a negligible impact on baseline flood risk.

Section 10.5.9 describes the Owengarve River which requires to be permanently realigned. It states the river drains a small, relatively steeply sloping catchment, flood flows are stated to be largely contained in bank and no discernable impact on baseline flood risk is anticipated.

The EIS states in relation to proposed access tracks that an assessment of the potential inundation of the tracks during a one-in-one hundred year flood event has been undertaken. It states the track adjacent to the Bohill River and the right bank of the Foherish River would remain dry during the event and minor inundation to a depth of approximately 31 centimetres is predicted on the left bank track during a one-in-one hundred year flood event. It states alongside the Sullane River at Lynch’s Crossroads, the track would be protected from inundation by a ridge of high ground. It states that inundation of the remaining tracks adjacent to the Sullane River at Firville and Hartnett’s Cross is predicted.

The EIS refers to surface water drainage impacts and concludes there would be no effect arising from the surface water drainage system being proposed.

8.4 Mitigation Proposals

The EIS describes construction impact mitigation proposals which include use of precast concrete where possible instead of cast in situ concrete, carrying out in-stream works in dry conditions, avoiding the discharge of mixer washings, monitoring concrete usage and refuelling of plant and other equipment remote from any watercourse or drain.

The EIS refers to the storing of spill kits during construction and sets out the methodology for using them.

Section 10.6.2 refers to operational impacts and describes the operation of swales and attenuation ponds.

Section 10.6.3 refers to mitigation of flood risk impacts during construction and operation which involves storing of equipment and materials outside the indicative floodplains and ensuring that culverts are appropriately sized.

The EIS refers to the mitigation of drainage impacts and states that following consultation with the Macroom Area Engineers Office, it was agreed that attenuation would generally not be required where discharges are to be

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 209 of 246 Cork County Council

received by a major watercourse which would be for example the Sullane River. It states that at sensitive locations and where regular flooding had occurred in the past, a combination of infrastructure design to minimise potential for increasing flows would be incorporated in the proposed road development surface water drainage system. It states that swales and filter drains would slow down flows and maximise the amount of road run-off that infiltrates to ground or is lost via evapotranspiration. It states in relation to attenuation ponds that these would function to limit the discharge of surface water road drainage to greenfield rates.

The EIS refers to mitigation of other impacts and refers to the NRA guidelines for crossing of watercourses during construction of national road schemes. It refers to the need for culverts for otters which it states would be adjacent to the main culvert and would have a minimum diameter of 600 millimetres. It states if separate culverts are not provided, then the culverts would incorporate ledges at suitable level to ensure usability.

9.0 ECOLOGY (HABITATS, FLORA, FAUNA AND FISHERIES) – VOLUME II EIS, PAGES 11-1 TO 11-33)

The methodology is described which includes a description of the surveys, consultations, and desk top reviews.

9.1 Desktop Review

The EIS states the desktop review of the road development corridor was carried out in order to identify the presence of designated sites and these are indicated in Volume III of the EIS. The reference is to Figure 1 but this would appear to be correctly titled 11.1. It notes that consultations were carried out with NPWS, DEHLG, Fisheries Boards, Marine Institute, the ESB and the Cork County Council Heritage Officer.

9.2 Habitat Survey

These are listed as follows: -

• Four season bat surveys – 2004 – 2008 including night-time bat detector assessment with specific examination of buildings and river bridges for the whiskered, natterer’s and lessor horseshoe bats.

• Terrestrial mammal survey – in accordance with NRA guidelines for the treatment of badgers prior to the construction of national road schemes – hedgerows, field drains, riverbanks and scrub searched for signs of badger, red squirrel and otter.

• Hedgerow survey.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 210 of 246 Cork County Council

• Bird surveys – concentrated in the Sullane Delta and the western uplands in the vicinity of Sliabh Riabhach.

• Freshwater ecology – data used to assess the general status of streams and rivers and the Carrigadrohid Reservoir from an ecological and fisheries perspective, to assess the potential impact of the development on water quality and aquatic flora and fauna and to suggest amelioration measures.

• Bryophyte and fern survey – April 2007 conducted in the Bohill River gorge with Cascade Wood.

• Kerry Slug (geomalacus maculosus) survey – April 2007 and November 2007.

• Freshwater pearl mussel survey – 2007.

9.3 Existing Environment

Designated sites are listed on Table 11.1 and those within five kilometres of the proposed route are included. They include the Gearagh, St. Gobnet’s Wood, Mullaghanish Bog, Killarney National Park, Mullaghanish to Musheramore Mountains SPA, Prohus Wood and Lough Gal.

The EIS states that significant areas of semi-natural habitat identified during a field survey were classified as sites of ecological interest (SEI) except for hedgerows and small areas of highly modified woodlands or isolated areas of scrub.

The EIS states that 26 sites of ecological interest had been identified and these were described in Table 11.2. The habitat mapping is in Volume III and it is Figure 11.2 which has 16 sheets. It is noted that Table 11.2 lists from east to west while Figure 11.2 is west to east sequentially.

The EIS states that a total number of hedgerows and treelines within the land take for the road development are 183 which are about 16.5 kilometres of hedgerows and treelines. It states the overall quality of hedgerows within the study area is quite low.

In relation to flora, it notes that the proposed road development passes through OS National Grid 10 kilometre squares W17, 26 and 27. It states a rare of protected plant species list for the squares was generated through a desktop survey and identified a mudwort cudweed, heath cudweed, bird cherry and round-leaved cranespill. Details of the species are given in Section 11.3.4. Section 11.3.5 refers to fauna and covers bats which are described in summary as follows: -

• Lesser horseshoe bat – recorded from four sites within the study area, but not found during winter surveys.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 211 of 246 Cork County Council

• Whiskered and Brandt’s bat – found throughout he study area with a high density in the Macroom area with the summer roost in an outbuilding of Mount Massey Ruins. • Natterer’s bat – can be easily overlooked in bat detector surveys due to the relatively weak signals that it registers and are considered to be present throughout much of the study area. • Daubenton’s bat – species recorded feeding along the River Laney, Sullane and at Laney Bridge. • Brown long-eared bat – considered to be common and widespread within the study area. • Leisler’s bat – uncommon along the road development but a number of individuals heard either feeding or emitting social calls. • Common Pipistrelle – encountered throughout the study area. • Soprano Pipistrelle – recorded commonly throughout the study area. It states that some known roosts in the vicinity of Macroom are very large and one to the south-east of the town which is outside the study area holds an excessive 1,700 individuals at times and maybe the largest in Ireland.

Section 11.3.5.2 refers to other mammals and covers the following: -

• Badger – 15 sites were located and the badger population of the study area is considered to be of local importance, higher value. • Otter – indicates the presence of a strong otter population throughout the suitable habitats of the entire study area with otter signs found along the River Sullane, Foherish and Laney. • Red squirrel – direct evidence of red squirrel in Cascade Wood and the Bohill River corridor. • Other mammals include deer, hedgehog, pigmy shrew and Irish stoat as well as Irish hare. For other mammals, the study area as a whole is considered to be of local importance and lower value.

9.4 The EIS notes bird species recorded in the vicinity of the road development which are of high conservation concern and these include the hen harrier, merlin, lapwing, black-headed gull, curlew and kingfisher. It states that it is likely the kingfisher breeds on the Rivers Laney, Sullane, Foherish and Bohill. It states that no highly suitable breeding habitat for hen harrier, lapwing, curlew, black-headed gull or merlin occurs within the study area.

The EIS notes the barn owl as being confirmed at Mount Massey, a peregrine being recorded in the vicinity of Prohus Wood in April 2005 and a single whooper swan recorded at the Sullane Delta in October 2004. It states that noteworthy species recorded included the Jay Dipper and spotted fly-catcher. It describes the location supporting the barn owl as being of county importance. The EIS also regards the Sullane Delta for wintering wildfowl and waders as being of county importance.

In relation to other fauna, it states that rocky habitats were potentially suitable for viviparous lizard and it also notes the presence of the Kerry Slug which is listed under Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 212 of 246 Cork County Council

9.5 Aquatic Ecology

Table 11.3 describes the 13 potentially affected waterbodies and their location. It notes that the ESB carried out electro-fishing surveys in 2001 in the main channel of the Sullane, Laney and in the Foherish River. It states the Lee Reservoir is described as a year-round coarse fishery with bream and rudd being the main species in the lower reservoir and pike in the upper or Inischarra reservoir. It notes that EPA biological water quality monitoring data 1971-2002 indicated unpolluted conditions and in most instances have indicated pristine or close to pristine conditions for the Sullane, Laney and Foherish Rivers.

The EIS states that Brook Lamprey have been recorded as spawning in the Sullane and the Freshwater Pearl Mussel has also been recorded in the Sullane, Foherish and Laney Rivers. In relation to the freshwater pearl mussel, there is a high level of nutrient enrichment recorded in all three rivers which is negatively affecting the species and the EIS states there is a decline in the populations in all three rivers which has likely commenced over the past 20 years. It states the most likely cause is increased fertiliser application in the catchment and drainage leading to rapid loss of nutrients and silt into the rivers.

The EIS states the exceptionally high quality of salmonid habitat combined with an unbroken record of virtually pristine water quality rendered the Sullane and its tributaries of regionally or arguably of national importance.

9.6 Potential Impacts

The EIS states that impacts were assessed according to the criteria described in the Guidelines for assessment of ecological impacts of national road schemes (Revision 2, NRA 2009).

In relation to designated sites, the EIS states there would be no direct impacts on any designated sites as a result of the road development. It refers to the Cascade Wood portion of St. Gobnet’s Wood cSAC as being within 150 metres of the centreline of the proposed road development. It states that the proposed road development may act as a physical barrier to the movement of some species. In relation to the Mullaghanish to Musheramore Mountains SPA, this is adjacent to the road development. It states that none of the protected bird species breed within 1.2 kilometres of the proposed road development within the SPA.

The EIS refers also to Prohus Wood pNHA as being 111 metres from the road development but separated from it by the Sullane River. It states there would be no significant impact on the site.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 213 of 246 Cork County Council

Section 11.4.2 refers to appropriate assessment and at the screening report carried out which is referred to as a separate report entitled “Habitats Directive Assessment Screening” and finding of no significant affects (FONSE) Report. A copy of this report was submitted at the hearing and is tabbed LA19.

The two Natura 2000 Sites located within 500 metres of the proposed development route are St. Gobnet’s Wood and the Mullaghanish to Musheramore Mountains SPA. The EIS notes that the most likely sources of adverse impact which would arise from a road development included fragmentation, severance of connections with adjacent habitat, NOx deposition and groundwater/hydrology impacts. The EIS states that each of these impacts have been explored in terms of the effects on the qualifying interests identified for the cSAC and SPA and the screening report concluded there was no likely significant effect upon the qualifying interest of the Natura 2000 Sites as a result of the proposed road development.

It states that the NPWS confirmed in October 2009 that they agreed with the conclusions of the FONSE Report and it was therefore not necessary to proceed to undertake appropriate assessment.

The impact on habitats is outlined in Table 11.3 and references are to Figure 11.2 of Volume 3 of which there are 16 sheets. The assessment of impacts includes significance at local, county and national level. There are 25 sites of ecological interest (SEI) listed. Significance at the national level is noted for SEI 3 or the mixed woodland at the River Sullane.

In relation to hydrological impacts, direct impacts were identified in Section 7.4.2 of Technical Report 7 at Codrum Wood, Teerbeg Wetland, Coolavokig Stream and Cúil na Cathrach East and on the riparian woodland at the Sullane Delta, the River Sullane, River Laney, Ballyveerane Valley, Foherish River and the Bohill River corridor. The EIS states there is potential that minor hydrological impacts might occur in those areas which could be either positive or negative in terms of biodiversity. It notes that the poor fen area within Cúil na Cathrach east has more than 110 metres from the land take of the proposed road development.

The EIS states that it is not considered that hedgerows are a highly significant component in the landscape with respect to flora and fauna. It assesses the impact of the proposed road development on hedgerows as being no significant at the local level.

9.7 Flora and Fauna

The EIS states there would be no significant impact to any plant species listed in the red book data list.

In relation to fauna, the EIS describes impacts on bats, otter, badger, deer and red squirrel. It notes there is one bat roost identified at chainage 1+900 which would require to be demolished. It states that bats are highly vulnerable to collision with motor vehicles when crossing roads and it is noted that the

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 214 of 246 Cork County Council

lessor horseshoe bat while not as abundant as other species has existing commuting lines crossing the mainline of the road development and require mitigation. Further details are given in Section 7.3.5 of Appendix 4A of the EIS and locations of bat activity are shown and Figure 11.3.

The EIS notes the impact of increased noise levels in affecting the ability of bats to hear social calls by their own species and also notes that traffic collision would be a potential impact and refers to Section 11.5.3 for mitigation measures.

In relation to otter, the EIS states that in the absence of mitigation the impacts could be potentially significant at a national level. The EIS describes the potential impacts on badger and notes the requirement for a licence for the destruction of setts where these occur.

In relation to deer, the EIS states that Sika deer were recorded in the Toonlane area in the western part of the study area. It states also that red squirrel is known to occur in Cascade Wood.

In relation to birds, the EIS states that construction of the road would result in an overall temporary loss of breeding and feeding habitat for common or widespread bird species. It states in the absence of mitigation, impacts on the rivers and therefore on kingfisher and dipper are potentially significant. It states that barn owls breed at Mount Massey ruins which is within 200 metres of the main carriageway of the road. The EIS refers to the Sullane Delta as holding important post-breeding and wintering populations of waterfowl.

The EIS states that suitable nesting habitat for both hen harrier and merlin occur along the fringes of an extensive immature spruce plantation approximately 1.2 kilometres to the north of the proposed road development. It states no highly suitable breeding for curlew occurs in the vicinity of the proposed road development within the Mullaghanish to Musheramore Mountains SPA (SEI 26).

In relation to invertebrates the EIS states that the Kerry Slug is found in Cascade Wood and the surrounding area.

The EIS states that other than direct impacts in the form of habitat loss, habitat fragmentation and road causalities, a number of indirect negative impacts on fauna are possible as a result of construction of the proposed road development.

The EIS describes the impact of disturbance and barrier affects.

9.8 Aquatic Ecology

Section 11.4.7 notes the potential impacts on the river environment arising from construction operation of the proposed road. It notes the impact on the

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 215 of 246 Cork County Council

freshwater pearl – mussel arising from suspended solids and it lists the locations of the crossings and the impacts on the different river bodies which would be potentially occurring. Table 11.5 gives a summary of the potential impacts without mitigation measures for 16 locations. The impacts significance rating is listed at national, international and county level.

9.9 Mitigation

In relation to general mitigation measures, the EIS states that many impacts associated with severance of habitats and the creation of barriers to free passage of fauna are not practically mitigable. It states that for otters and badgers and other species, underpasses and culverts would be provided. In relation to air quality it states that dense planting of scrub adjacent to roads could reduce air pollution by filtering pollutants. It lists the types of trees and shrubs to be used and refers also to the use of grassland and hedgerows, woodlands and areas of scrub.

Section 11.5.2 mitigation measures for sites of ecological interest.

The EIS sets out the mitigation measures for the Sullane Delta (SEI 1).

The EIS notes this site is important for ducks and states that noise disturbance is during construction are not mitigable. It states that fencing and signage would be erected along the edge of the CPO and the area would be strictly out of bounds to site staff.

The EIS states that visual impacts would be largely screened from the main areas where waterbirds concentrate and in an operational phase, visual disturbance issues would be less likely to be of significance, as birds quickly become accustomed to predicable visual disturbances such as moving traffic. It notes that the proposed road development passes through Inish Carra reservoir between chainages 21+400 and 21+750 and the road would be on an embankment which would incorporate frequent culverts, design to allow free passage of water underneath. It states the specifications and locations of the culverts beneath the causeway would be agreed with South Western Regional Fisheries Board during the detailed design stage of the road design programme.

In relation to the other sites of ecological interest, the EIS states that loss and severance of habitats would be mitigated with the incorporation of replacement planting into the landscape planting mitigation design.

The EIS refers to bat mitigation and the establishment of vegetation cover and states that the side of the road would be heavily planted running past the roost building north of Baile Bhuirne between chainages 2+600 and 2+900. It states two areas which the proposed road development comes closest to other roost are the brown long-eared bat roosting at Lissacresig (chainage 8+750) and the lessor horseshoe bat at Clonfadda (chainage 14+400). The EIS states that planting would be especially dense in those two areas. It states that dense linear planting of shrubby vegetation would be carried out along the southern

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 216 of 246 Cork County Council

side of the proposed road between 17+200 and 17+735 which would help guide bats to the crossing and it notes that mitigation planting for barn owl would also be carried out in that area.

The EIS states that the bridge over the Bohill River would allow a clear passage for bats under its span with a minimum of two metres which would be required for species such as whiskered, natterer’s and pipistrelles. It states that three drainage culverts were oversized so that they could also act as underpasses for bats and these were at chainage 14+035, 15+035 and 17+720.

The EIS notes the requirement to check mature trees for bats prior to felling, the erection of bat boxes and the avoidance of lighting in areas with important bat populations. It also states that all measures would be reviewed by a bat specialist to ensure that mitigation measures identified were properly installed and addressed.

In relation to badger mitigation, the EIS states that a licence would be sought for the removal of badger setts and there would be mitigation of the impacts of blasting. It lists six locations of badger mitigation measures with respect to setts and these are at chainages 7+820, 8+500, 11+230, 14+600, 17+980 and 19+110.

The EIS refers to Figure 11.5 of Volume 3 of the EIS which gives mammal mitigation measures and includes locations for mitigation in relation to otter. The EIS states that no specific mitigation is proposed for deer. In relation to red squirrel, it states that at the Bohill River the carriageway is raised above ground levels sufficiently to allow passage of red squirrel beneath the carriageway.

In relation to birds, it states a pre-construction survey for nesting kingfisher and dipper would be conducted at locations where the species are believed to occur. It states where a kingfisher dipper nest would need to be removed, it would carried out in accordance with mitigation compensation enhancement as identified by the kingfisher key card detailed in the NRA Guidelines.

It states that a pre-construction survey for barn owl is required and that at Mount Massey planting of continuous lines of trees and shrubs would be carried out.

In relation to invertebrates, the EIS lists measures to reduce the magnitude of impact on the Kerry Slug. These would include: -

• Collection of individual slugs prior to site clearance within the land take between chainages 0 – 532 and 3+000.

• Attention to trees felled and use of felled logs as habitat piles.

• Review of site clearance proposals in terms of shade and humidity in adjoining Kerry Slug habitat.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 217 of 246 Cork County Council

• Using new planting to maintain micro-climate conditions.

• Vigilant supervision in relation to adjoining Kerry Slug habitat by way of fencing.

• Assessment of the likely risks of the Kerry Slug gaining access to working areas.

In relation to aquatic ecology, it notes that the key factors in erosion of sediment control would be to intercept and manage off and on site run-off as proposed in the mitigation strategy. It notes the requirement for a contractor to prepare and maintain an environmental operating plan.

9.10 Predicted Residual Impacts

In relation to designated sites, the EIS states that with mitigation measures implemented at the crossing of the Bohill River to prevent any indirect impacts on St. Gobnet’s Wood cSAC, no residual impacts are predicted on any designated nature conservation sites. In relation to sites of ecological interest, the EIS predicts significant residual impacts at local level in the following areas: -

• Coolyhane Valley – SEI 5. • Ballyveerane Valley – SEI 6. • Teerbeg Wetland – SEI 8. • Glananarig Woodlands – SEI 9. • Inchinlinnane – SEI 11. • Toonlane – SEI 18. • Cappagh Woods – SEI 20. • Cascade Woodland Complex – SEI 21.

The impacts described are in terms of habitat loss and severance.

The EIS states that residual impacts on hedgerows are not seen as significant at the local level and it also states there is no evidence there would be any residual impacts on flora species of conservation concern.

In relation to fauna, the residual impacts on bats are predicted as follows: -

• Cascade Wood – significant residual impact at a county level.

• Cappagh – significant residual impact on the local level.

• Killeen – significant residual impact at the county level.

• Toonlane – significant residual impacts at the local level.

• Lissacressig – significant residual impact at the local level.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 218 of 246 Cork County Council

• Clonfadda – significant residual impact at the local level.

• Mount Massey - significant residual impact at the local level.

• Coolihane - significant residual impact at the county level.

The EIS predicts residual negative impacts on the badger territories and particularly on the group that had its main setts destroyed at chainage 8+250. It assesses the residual impact on the badger population in the broader context as significant at the local level.

The EIS states that with mitigation implemented, impacts on otters would be largely eliminated and there would be no residual impacts.

In relation sika deer, the assessment is of a significant residual impact at the local level.

In relation to red squirrel, the prediction would be significant residual impacts at the county level at Cascade Wood and as a minor significant residual impact at the local level elsewhere.

The EIS states that it was considered unlikely that temporary disturbance would result in any long-term negative impacts on the population of non- breeding wildfowl and waders in the area. It states there would be a temporary residual impact on a small part of the area in relation to the Kerry Slug.

Section 11.6.4 of the EIS deals with aquatic ecology residual impacts and Table 11.17 indicates the residual impacts on the aquatic ecological features and in the 16 locations listed the residual impact significance rating is given as not significant.

9.11 Compensation Measures

Table 11.8 outlines the proposed compensation measures for impacts on fish movement. These relate to work on the Owengarve River which is to the western end of the proposed road development. The EIS states that with mitigation measures implemented, impacts will not be significant with the exception of three impacts: -

• Significant impact at a local level on 200 metres of good salmonid nursery and spawning habitat on the Owengarve River which would be bio- engineered to maximise salmonid habitat value.

• Loss of approximately 2.2 hectares of reservoir that is classified as a significant area for coarse fish spawning. It rates the impact on species and/or habitats of ecological value as not significant.

• Significant impact at a local level but not above, due to the loss of 200 metres of good riparian habitat on the Ballyveerane Stream.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 219 of 246 Cork County Council

10.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE

The EIS states that the study area was divided into three sections and this covers the three parishes of Ballyvourney, Clondrohid and Macroom. Table 12.3 gives the parishes and townlands within the study area and under Ballyvourney this includes An Sliabh Riabhach, An Ceappeag Thior, An Ceappag Thiar, Ni Cillinini, Baile Mhic Íre, Tonn Lain, Cúil na Cathrach and Cúil an Bhuachaigh. The Clondrohid Parish includes Lissacressig, Inchin Linnane, Carrigaphooca, Killaclug, Glananarig, Clonfada and Teerbeg. The Macroom parish includes Codrum, Gurteenroe, Kilnagurteen, Ballyveerane, Coolihane, Bealick, Sleveen East, Ummera and Coolcour.

The EIS sets out the methodology used and refers to records and aerial photographs. It states that by way of background isolated clusters of prehistoric sites going back 6,000 years were noted. In relation to the receiving environment, 50 RMPs went back to the prehistoric period and the largest site was the monastic settlement of St. Gobnet’s to the south of Ballyvourney. The medieval period is represented by three castle sites including Carrigaphooca Castle which is an RMP site, a national monument and an RPS.

The EIS states that there are 39 archaeological heritage sites within the receiving environment all of which are listed on the record of monuments and places. It states the total of 24 sites of archaeological potential were identified along with 60 built heritage sites of which three are registered protected structures.

Table 12.1 gives the record of protected structures within the receiving environment and these include two bridges, the Macroom foundry and Carrigaphooca House and Carrigaphooca Castle.

The EIS refers to the NIAH garden survey and Table 12.2 indicates the impacted demesnes from the NIAH garden survey. This includes Carrigaphooca House and Demesne, Codrum, Mount Massey, Coolyhane, Firville and Coolcour.

Table 12.4 gives the archaeological heritage sites within the study area and Table 12.5 gives the areas of archaeological potential within the study area. Table 12.6 refers to sites of archaeological potential and Table 12.7 gives the built heritage sites within the study area.

Table 12.8 is titled aerial survey sites within the study area and the reference is to Coolyhane and the classification given is of a possible enclosure.

Table 12.9 lists the cultural heritage sites within the study area and these are listed as CH2 which is Cúil na Cathrach ambush site and CH3 which is Bealick / Coolyhane / Umnura / Sleveen East which is noted as being the reputed site of a 10 th century battle.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 220 of 246 Cork County Council

The EIS notes that a survey of the excavations bulletin had indicated no previous archaeological field work being undertaken within the study area. It states that as part of the assessment it was decided in conjunction with the National Monument Section of the DEHLG and the National Museum to undertake archaeological due physical survey and testing at the reputed site of the 10 th century battle site at Bealick along with the geophysical survey at Carrigaphooca Castle and the site of a ringfort in Baile Mhic Íre.

In relation to the geophysical work at Bealick and the EIS states the magnetic data suggests that stones may have been erected relatively recently, within the last 500 years but only an excavation could prove this. The EIS states that if the road development proceeds across the survey area, the geophysical survey suggests it would impact on 12 ditches. The EIS states that a geophysical survey could not provide a 100% record of the underlying archaeology and only an intrusive investigation could determine that. The EIS refers to the archaeological test at Bealick and this referred to chainage 19+125 – 19+410. The EIS states that there was a high degree of confidence in the accuracy of the testing results and which was that no finds, features or deposits of archaeological significance were noted with the tested area.

In relation to the geophysical survey at the Carrigaphooca Castle, the EIS notes that the castle is recorded as a national monument in state care. It states field work was carried out in January 2007 under licence no. 06R0203. It notes the castle is located 200 metres to the south of the proposed road development.

The EIS states there are no clear indications in the data to suggest that archaeological features are present in the area to the north of the remains of the castle. The EIS refers to a gradiometer survey and notes that the possibility that archaeological features associated with the monument or present within the survey area should not be dismissed. It states the landscape is thought to have been subject to significant clearance, drainage works and improvements and that consequently archaeological features may remain undetectable using conventional methods of geophysical prospection. It states that no clear pattern emerges from the data to support a more conclusive archaeological interpretation for anomalies. It states a natural soil/geological origin is expected for many of the anomalies highlighted from survey.

The EIS refers to a geophysical survey of Baile Mhic Íre ringfort (AH8) and notes several ill-defined anomalies of potential interest but states that it is suggested that the potential ringfort has been levelled to such an extent that it would remain undetectable using conventional geophysical techniques.

Section 12.5.2.5 refers to the IRA Ambush Site at Cúil na Cathrach. This site is referenced CH2 and is marked on the third edition OS Map. The EIS gives details of the literature search and a description of the ambush which took place on the 25 th February 1921. In the EIS it is defined as being of regional importance. The issue was the subject of submission at the oral hearing and evidence was given by two historians on the matter.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 221 of 246 Cork County Council

Section 12.5.4 gives a summary of the study area. It states there are total of 96 sites of archaeological and historical value located within the study area and 12 are stated to be defined by a zone of archaeological potential subject to statutory protection under the National Monuments Act. It states a further 31 areas of archaeological potential have also been identified, 24 of which are formed by rivers or streams. The EIS states that a total of 11 sites of archaeological potential have been identified and a total of five Fullachtaí Fiadh sites were also identified. The EIS states there are 39 built heritage sites and two cultural heritage sites.

Section 12.6 describes the assessment of impacts.

The EIS states that 96 archaeological, architectural or cultural heritage significance sites are located in or partially within the study area. It states 12 were designated as archaeological heritage sites and are recorded as RMP sites. It states 12 areas of archaeological potential surrounding those sites would be adversely impacted on by the proposed road development. It states two sites; AH8 and AH12 would be directly impacted upon. It notes that the road would possibly directly impact on AH36 which is a souterrains site, but this had not been determined during the course of the assessment and may not be located within the area.

In relation to the Doonroe at Bealick (AH34). It states that due physical survey and archaeological testing which was carried out within the area of the proposed CPO, discovered nothing of archaeological significance.

In relation to Carrigaphooca Castle and Stone Circle (AH21 and 22) it notes the castle is located 200 metres to the south of the route and it states that as part of the assessment a geophysical survey was undertaken within the area surrounding the castle especially to the north where the proposed route would follow the existing N22. It states no anomalies of definite archaeological origin were identified during the survey within the CPO of the proposed route as it passes the castle. It notes the stone circle is also located over 150 metres to the south of the proposed route and to the east of Carrigaphooca Castle.

The EIS states the geophysical survey was also undertaken at the site of a ringfort in Baile Mhic Íre (AH8) but no features of definite archaeological origin were noted at the site during the survey.

The EIS notes that 31 Areas of Archaeological Potential (AAP) were identified in or partially within the proposed CPO. It notes that 24 of those sites were watercourses which would be crossed by the proposed route.

The EIS notes that watercourses and some of the rivers were crossed by single span bridges and there would be no impact on the riverbeds. It states that the crossing of the Sullane in the townland Ummera/Coolcour would be a double span bridge which would impact on the riverbed. The EIS refers to the IRA ambush site (CH2) which is on either side of the existing N22. It states mitigation would involve a full metal detector survey within the ambush area.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 222 of 246 Cork County Council

It states the total of 24 Sites of Archaeological Potential (SAP) was identified within the receiving area of the proposed route.

The EIS states 60 built heritage sites (BH1-60) were identified during the course of the assessment. It states of those 35 were located in or partially within the proposed CPO of the route and 15 would be significantly impacted upon. Three structures were listed within the Record of Protected Structures for County Cork and these were: -

• Laney Bridge (BH55). • New Bridge (BH56). • Carrigaphooca House (BH28) – 100 metres to the north of the route.

Two other structures were allotted a regional importance due to the high quality of architecture and these were: -

• Large farm (BH15) – chainage 2+270 with imperceptible impact. • N22 road bridge at Carrigaphooca (BH31) – chainage 13+390 listed as being of moderate impact and this is the location of a civil war monument to the national army.

The EIS states that the remaining structures consist of relatively small structures and include a number vernacular farms and farmhouses, two old field systems, four small bridges, three old roads and several demesne entrances. It states that the proposal is to have detailed written and photographic records of any such structure that would be removed as part of the proposed road development so that they would be fully preserved by record.

Tables in the EIS are as follows: -

• Table 12.10 – archaeological heritage impacts – AH1 – AH39 which include Carrigaphooca Tower House (Castle) and multiple stone circles. • Table 12.11 – areas of archaeological potential – AAP1 – AAP31. • Table 12.12 – sites of archaeological potential – SAP1 – SAP24 including SAP22, possible settlement platform at chainage 18+255 with profound impact potential. • Table 12.13 – aerial survey sites impacts – AS1 – AS6. • Table 12.14 – built heritage sites impacts and significance – BH1 – BH60 – with five of regional importance which include three bridges, one country house and one vernacular farm. • Table 12.15 – potential impacts on cultural heritage sites – CH1 – CH3 including IRA ambush site at Cúil na Cathrach chainage 6+490 – 6+870.

11.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES

The EIS lists proposals: -

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 223 of 246 Cork County Council

• Cultural heritage mitigation to be undertaken in compliance with the provision on the National Monuments Acts and relevant codes of practice. • All sites listed in Appendices 8.1 – 8.6 of Volume 4 of the EIS which would be directly impacted by the proposed route would be archaeologically investigated with targeting of sites CH2 – CH3; AH1, 4, 8, 9, 12, 19, 20, 27, 32, 35 and 36; AAP1 – 31; SAP1 – 5 – 7 – 8 – 11 – 12 – 14 – 15 – 16 – 17; AS5; BH4, 39, 54, 59, and 32. • Sites whose settings would be altered as a result of the construction of the proposed route would have a full written and photographic record and includes CH2, all the archaeological heritage (AH) sites listed for investigation, AAP4, SAP3 and 25. • Underwater archaeological assessments to be carried out on a listed number of waterways. • Photographic and written record of any structures of built heritage value to be significantly or profoundly impacted upon. • Natural screening to be provided to preserve the setting of sites of cultural heritage value including AH4, 21, 22, 29 and BH28. • Extensive programme of archaeological site testing to be carried out on the remainder of the road development. • A programme of metal detecting to be carried out around the area of CH2, the site of the IRA ambush. • Proposed to highlight CH2, the IRA ambush site to the passer-by either on the main line or along the existing section of the N22. • All proposed works to be carried out in consultation with the project archaeologist, DEHLG and the National Museum of Ireland. Also all investigations to be carried out under the terms of the National Monuments Acts. • Reporting, publishing and archiving in relation to preservation by record would be as per the National Monument Section of the DEHLG and in consultation with the National Museum. • All mitigation measures to be subject to approval by the road development appointed project archaeologist and all known monuments in close proximity to development that would not be significantly or profoundly impacted upon would be cordoned off during the site works to the satisfaction of the road developments appointed project archaeologist.

12.0 AIR QUALITY, NOISE AND VIBRATION

Chapters 13 and 14 cover air quality and noise and vibration in Volume 2 of the EIS.

The air quality assessment is described as including: -

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 224 of 246 Cork County Council

• Dust deposition in relation to construction assessment. • Localised air quality assessment. • Index of overall change and exposure. • Regional air quality assessment. • Nutrient nitrogen deposition assessment.

12.1 Air Quality Existing Environment

The EIS states that monitoring data from Glashaboy and the Douglas Road in Cork supplied monitoring data. It states the monitoring results for PM 10 and NO 2 indicate that the equivalent annual average concentrations at all sites are below their annual average limit of 40µg/m 3.

12.2 Impacts on the Environment

The dust assessment considers sensitive areas and is stated to be based on a significance criteria presented in the NRA Guidelines 2006. It states the impact of dust emissions from the construction of the proposed road development is considered as major. 211 properties were identified within 100 metres of the proposed road development that may have significant dust impacts.

In relation to localised air quality assessment, this calculated the concentrations of benzene, carbon monoxide, NO 2 and PM 10 at 17 identified local representative sensitive receptors. These are shown in Figure 13.1 of Volume 3 of the EIS. It states the predicted DMRB air quality concentrations are below AQSR limit values for all pollutants for the base year. It states that over time all pollutant concentrations are predicted to decrease. It also notes that as a result of the operation of the road, concentrations of pollutants along the existing N22 would be reduced.

The EIS refers to the index of overall change of exposure and this was calculated for oxides of nitrogen and PM 10 . It states the index is based on the identification of a number of sensitive receptor locations within 50 metres of the carriageway of all road links that would experience a significant change in traffic which would be plus or minus 10% for the existing network and the proposed road development. It states the overall assessment indicate a negative score for 2012 which would be an overall improvement in air quality as a result of the operation of the road development.

The EIS refers to regional air quality assessment and concludes that any mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions would be as part of a national policy for climate change.

Section 13.3.5 gives details of the nutrient nitrogen deposition assessment . The results of the assessment which focused on the ecological areas of St. Gobnet’s Wood, Prohus Wood and the Mullaghanish to Musheramore Mountains as these were within 200 metres of the proposed road development. It notes this is shown on Figure 11.1 of Volume 3 of the EIS. Table 13.1 gives the NO x concentrations in designated ecological areas in 2012 and a further

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 225 of 246 Cork County Council

table which has the reference number gives nutrient nitrogen deposition rates in designated ecological areas in 2012.

3 The NRA Guidelines state that NO x levels of 30 µg/m would result in impacts to the habitat types of the designated sites. The tables indicate that all three sites are well below the limit value. It notes the largest increase is found in Mullaghanish to Musheramore Mountain site where NO x concentration 3 increased by 4.46 µg/m which would result in an average annual NO x 3 3 concentration of 14.3 µg/m which is below the 30 µg/m limit value for the protection of vegetation.

In terms of nitrogen deposition, the EIS states that the NRA Guidelines states that the critical load levels of the habitat types were between 10 – 20 kg of nitrogen per hectare per year. It states the proposed road development would not result in any significant increase in nitrogen deposition and the levels are well below the critical load levels. (This issue was raised with the MPWS and further references were given at the oral hearing, see LA19 and LA20).

12.3 Mitigation Measures for Air Quality

The EIS states the mitigation measures would include wheel washing of vehicles, spraying of exposed areas, avoidance of properties if possible with haul routes, locating crushing plant away from sensitive sites, location of stockpiles away from site boundary and monitoring of dust to be undertaken during construction to ensure the effective application of the mitigation measures.

It states no mitigation measures are considered necessary during operation of the road development as there are no predicted exceedences of the AQSR limit values.

12.4 Noise and Vibration

The EIS sets out the methodology used in assessing the impacts of noise and vibration and in Section 14.3 describes the existing environment. This deals with potential impacts from construction and operation and Table 14.1 gives the subjective assessment of changes in noise levels in terms of perceived change in loudness. It refers to noise prediction models which are stated to incorporate the calculation methodologies outlined in the CRTN produced by the UK Department of Transport. 12.5 Mitigation for Noise and Vibration

The EIS lists the mitigation measures which can be applied during construction which include noise screens at rock breaker or piling rigs, control of piling and blasting and compliance with NRA vibration limits. It also notes the requirement to comply with BS5228 and the operational practices required for such compliance.

12.6 Mitigation for Noise and Vibration during operational phase

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 226 of 246 Cork County Council

The EIS notes the NRA design goal of 60dB L den and the conditions required for mitigation. It states that the conditions ensure that mitigation measures arising out of the process are based on the impact of the actual proposed scheme under consideration. It states that mitigation measures are considered when the proposed road development has a net negative impact and that noise mitigation design must be undertaken for noise sensitive properties that fulfil each of the three criteria outlined in the guidelines.

Technical Report No. 10 of Volume 4B of the EIS refers to noise and vibration and includes Table 10.5 which is the predicted noise levels for ground floor receptors for 162 properties. These are also indicated on Figure 14.1 of Volume 3 of the EIS and it is noted that the numbering system commences at the eastern part of the scheme.

In Volume 2 of the EIS, it notes that 98 noise sensitive properties at one point five metres receiver height out of the 162 properties assessed would experience a positive impact in terms of a quieter noise climate. Table 14.2 gives the list of indicative noise barriers to be implemented on the proposed road development. These show a total of 17 barrier locations ranging in length from 120 – 405 metres.

12.7 Residual Impact

It states that an increase in traffic noise would be experienced at a number of properties in close proximity to the proposed road but the mitigation measures would ensure the traffic noise levels comply with the NRA design criteria. It states that there are two properties where it is not possible to meet the NRA design criteria and these were listed as properties N9 and N48. It states that the design criteria could not be reasonably achieved at those locations on account of the proximity of the locations to the proposed road development. N9 is at approximately chainage 19+300 and is on the north of the Sullane River and N48 is at chainage 4+000 in Slievereagh Townland close to an overbridge.

The EIS states there would be a positive impact through the reduction in ambient noise levels in many locations. This would be due to the diversion of the traffic from the existing N22.

13.0 NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND USE AND AMENITIES

Section 15.1 of the EIS gives the introduction and methodology to this section and Table 15.1 gives the significance criteria. In relation to the existing environment, the EIS notes the area surrounding the settlements of Macroom, Baile Mhic Íre, Baile Bhuirne and Cill na Martra is predominantly rural with scattered farms and residences and also a number of small businesses.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 227 of 246 Cork County Council

The EIS notes that the effects of construction and operation are considered in a number of different chapters and refers in this chapter to the acquisition of property where one non-residential property is to be acquired and three residential properties of which one is derelict would be also acquired. It notes the affected properties are at chainage 1+775, 1+800 and 16+200.

There are 17 properties listed where direct impacts in terms of access and land-take are involved and this is shown in Table 15.3. It notes there would be a direct impact to a yard used by a haulage firm for parking of heavy goods vehicles at the Gurteenroe Junction.

It notes in the EIS that the road development would not require any land-take from any community facilities or recreation or amenity facilities.

The EIS states that planning applications that could be affected by the road development or would affect the road development themselves had been identified. It notes the local planning authority has maintained a sterile zone for planning applications within the area of the preferred route corridor since 2002.

Local road realignments are listed:-

• Clondrohid Road – to be realigned from chainage 4+850 and would tie into the existing N22 by means of an off-line roundabout.

• Toonlane Road – realigned from drainage 5+900 to continue along the proposed parallel access road for 550 metres and tie into the remaining existing Toonlane Road.

• Dromduff Road – realigned at chainage 18+000 north of the main line and serving as the Ballyveerane Road Bridge.

• Masseytown Road – the road would remain open to local traffic at chainage 19+500.

13.1 Mitigation Proposals

The EIS lists a number of issues which related to the conduct of the contract and the communications with landowners and also the requirement to maintain access during the construction phase also. It lists the affected rights of way in table 15.2 and these are at 7+450, 7+800, 8+700, 17+750 and 18+665 to 18+ 810.

The conclusion in this section states that the proposed road development has minimised the requirement of demolished property. It states four local roads would be realigned by the proposed road development and alternative routes would be provided. Overall the EIS states there would be a minor adverse impact to non-agricultural land use and amenities.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 228 of 246 Cork County Council

14.0 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY

14.1 Chapters 16 and 17 of Volume 2 of the EIS deal with geology and hydrogeology and in Section 16.1 the assessment criteria are set out including the definitions of significance of affect.

In relation to geology, it states there are no recorded quarries along the proposed road development and reference is made to the GSI published data showing the solid geology of the road development as being predominantly of the Devonian old red sandstone and Waulsortian limestones east of Macroom. It notes there are a number of possible sources of contamination within the study area including the former Shanakill landfill south-east of Macroom and the Macroom Iron Foundry that was located behind Bealick Mill.

Section 16.2.1 refers to drift geology and Table 16.2 gives the general sequence of drift geology along the proposed road development. This refers to topsoil, peat, sand and gravel.

In relation to solid geology, Table 16.3 lists the formations and their description. Table 16.4 gives the anticipated solid geology at various stages along the route covering the different formations which would be encountered.

Table 16.5 lists the GSI recorded faults along the selected route and 17 faults are recorded.

The EIS states that the initial and subsequent ground investigation comprised cable percussive boreholes with rotary-cored follow-on, dynamic probing, trial pitting, scan line logging and a geophysical survey.

The EIS states that Waulsortian limestone was not encountered east of Macroom. It notes that at borehole BH48 which was completed to a depth of 13.55 metres, the geological formation could contain karst solution features. It notes that these formations for the potential to increase the vulnerability of aquifers to rapid movement of groundwater.

Section 16.2.4 refers to contaminated land and the Shanakill landfill which is now a picnic area and was closed in 1996 and is adjacent to the road development at chainage 21+100 to 21+450. It notes also that the Macroom Iron Foundary was located behind the Bealick Mill near chainage 19+850, at approximately 100 metres to the east of the road development and is adjacent to the confluence of the River Laney and the Sullane River.

14.1 The Assessment of Construction Effects

The EIS notes the attenuation ponds which were proposed which would discharge stormwater to existing watercourses at a controlled rate. It states that in general 80-90% of the sand and gravel deposits overlying the bedrock would be suitable for use as a granular fill once suitably processed. In relation to the effects relating to the cuttings and embankments, the EIS notes that the total cut volume is approximately 2.3 million m3 and the total of volume of fill

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 229 of 246 Cork County Council

required is 2.5 million m 3. It notes that the primary source of imported fill would be determined by the contractor and subject to the relevant statutory procedures. It states that the cuttings are likely to be excavated by mechanical means but deep cuts could require blasting.

The EIS states that a composition of the bedrock where geological faults occur may have implications for slope stability. It states that soil infill with structurally weak material within fractured zones may have occurred.

Section 16.3.3 refers to impacts relating to contaminated land and states that as the road is an embankment at the former Shanakill landfill site, there would be no associated contamination impacts to the site or to the road development. In relation to the former Macroom Iron Foundry, the EIS states that there would be potential for contaminates to migrate through a section of the preliminary design. It states that the road development is constructed on embankments through the area and existing conditions will remain unchanged. It states that generally the presence of contaminants along the route is likely to be low, due to the mainly greenfield nature of the area.

14.2 Assessment of Operational Effects

The EIS states that the majority of effects and geology would take place during construction. It mentions the possibility of polluted spray caused by vehicles travelling at high speed and also refers to fuel or oil spillages from motor vehicles. It states that ground contamination from those sources is likely to have a minor adverse impact on geology. It states the effects would mainly be concentrated within the road development boundary.

14.3 Mitigation Measures

The EIS states that mitigation would include investigation of potential contamination and applying strict working methods if contamination was identified. It states that where rock blasting was required close to existing residential or commercial premises, air quality and noise and vibration monitoring would be required also.

14.4 Conclusions Regarding Geology

The EIS states that no known geological sites with statutory protection and no known quarries lie within the vicinity of the preliminary design. It states that the overall environmental value or sensitivity of the various geological attributes within the study area is considered to be low and the magnitude of impact or the degree of change is due to the road development and the attribute is considered to be negligible.

14.5 Hydrogeology

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 230 of 246 Cork County Council

The EIS states that impacts on groundwater cannot be considered in isolation as there is a significant overlap between hydrogeology and agricultural land as well as surface water quality and drainage, ecology and geology. In relation to the potential impacts of the proposed road development it lists groundwater contamination due to accidental spillage or disruption of areas of contaminated land, draining of perched watertables which could in turn affect surface habitats and local groundwater users and also the disruption of groundwater flow due to temporary dewatering. In addition to construction impacts, the operational impacts could result from permanent disruption of groundwater due to permanent dewatering or groundwater contamination due to discharge of highway run-off to an aquifer.

Section 17.1.2 lists the assessment criteria and Table 17.1 gives the significance of impacts.

14.6 Existing Hydrogeological Environment

The EIS notes the geology of the area and that in the south-east the small outer layer of carboniferous of Waulsortian limestones is exposed along the hinge of the Macroom - Blarney think-line. It notes the limestones are potentially karstic in nature and thus require careful consideration both under drainage and geotechnical remits. It states the proposed route follows the northern side of the Sullane River Valley, within the foothills of the Derrynasaggart Mountains.

In relation to aquifer designations, the EIS refers to the GSI and Volume 4B and Technical Report No. 12. It states the vulnerability of all aquifer units is either extreme or high according to the classification methodology of the GSI. It states that it is important to consider that the designated aquifer vulnerability is not applicable in instances where construction works reduce or remove protective overburden horizons.

Section 17.2.3 refers to existing hydrogeological conditions and the EIS states that recharge to the sandstone bedrock aquifer is derived from direct precipitation to the land surface. It notes that annual rainfall is high and ranges between 1,100 to 1,200 millimetres per year in lowland areas.

The EIS refers to groundwater flow within the sandstone aquifer as occurring through bedding plain fractures and high angle joints sets that dissect the unit. It states that local river constitute the main receptors for discharging groundwater.

The EIS states that the Waulsortian limestones constitute a regionally important aquifer unit. It states the area of limestone traversed by the proposed route is particularly limited as the tributary of the Sullane River is likely to act as a hydraulic boundary to the groundwater flow system in the west.

Section 17.2.4 refers to groundwater development and source protection zones . The EIS states that the water requirements of most rural properties

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 231 of 246 Cork County Council

along the route are dependent on either local groundwater or surface water supply. It refers to a total of 149 groundwater features that have been identified and it refers to Technical Report No. 12 of Volume 4B of the EIS. It states that water supplies from deep boreholes do not appear to be common in the area which also suggests that groundwater is shallow across the proposed route.

In relation to public water supplies, it states that data from the GSI indicates there are four public supply sources from 1,200 metres of the proposed road. It notes that three of the features are some distance from the proposed road development. It gives references of A37, A38 and A66 and also GA 71 located 140 metres from the proposed route.

The EIS states that information from the GSI indicates there are no designated groups supply schemes in the survey area.

In relation to groundwater quality, the EIS refers to the monitoring carried out by the EPA. It states that at the time of drawing up the EIS, no water quality data was available. It states that baseline groundwater quality would therefore be defined after the installation of groundwater investigation boreholes prior to construction.

Referring to groundwater dependent features, the EIS states that the distribution, hydrogeological setting and magnitude of spring discharges and seepage zones would be mapped in detail along the route. It states that most springs feed into streams and ultimately flow into the Sullane River.

Section 17.2.7 refers to contaminated land and in addition to the Shannakill landfill and the former iron foundry the EIS states there is potential to encounter previously unidentified contaminated ground during construction. The EIS states that it is not possible to mitigate against the risk but appropriate measures taken when such materials are encountered would minimise any potential harm to the environment.

14.7 Assessment of Impacts

The EIS refers to aquifers and the sandstone and silt stones that dominate the solid geology along the route constitute either a locally important or a poor aquifer unit that is generally low yielding. The EIS states that both types of aquifer used for potable supply and are therefore considered to have a high importance. The EIS states that during the construction phase, impacts are more slightly to occur in the vicinity of deep cuttings.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 232 of 246 Cork County Council

The EIS states the route crosses 500 metre section of a regionally important karstic limestone aquifer in the extreme east of the route. It states that the aquifer at that point is extremely limited in extent and the proposed route is situated on an embankment. It states that as there are no karstic features identified, there is little risk of adverse impacts on the aquifer system. The EIS states the magnitude of the potential impact on that feature is therefore considered to be negligible.

The EIS states that initial groundwater level information established the existence of groundwater at shallow depths below ground level.

In relation to groundwater contamination, the EIS states there is extreme or high aquifer vulnerability across the route. It states this indicates that groundwater quality within the sandstone aquifer is at potential risk from surface contamination. It states that areas of highest risk are the major cuttings with risk also from accidental spillages.

In relation to highway drainage design, the EIS describes the use of attenuation ponds discharging to surface watercourses. It states that in sensitive areas such as at chainage 21+100 towards the east of the route, swales and combined filter drains would be lined with an impermeable membrane in such a way as to allow water to enter but prevent water infiltrating out onto the ground. It states that in this location the water would be conveyed along the ditch or drain to a point beyond the influence.

The EIS refers to groundwater users and states that no public group water supply schemes had been identified in the vicinity of the proposed road development. It states that most sources are associated with near surface spring discharges with no abstraction boreholes identified to date. It states that all private abstractions, springs and wells identified are of high importance. To assess the magnitude of impacts, the EIS states that screening approach has been adopted and features within 25 metres of the centreline have been provisionally classified as at risk of major impact with lesser impacts at distances as far as 500 metres from the centreline.

The EIS refers to the reliability of supply and states that this may be adversely impacted by any significant alteration to the natural groundwater flow system. It focuses on major cuttings and states the greatest vulnerability would occur where features are situated down hydraulic gradient in close proximity to a section of the route located in a major cutting. It refers to Volume 4B of the EIS and Technical Report No. 12. (Particular reference would be to Table 12.5 of this report).

The EIS states there are 149 identified supplies of which 35 were considered to be at risk of major negative impact and 31 of moderate negative impact. It states mitigation measures are provided in such locations and include the provision of an alternative source of water.

Reference should also be made to Figure 17.1 which is in three sheets in Volume 3 of the EIS which indicates groundwater features. Also of note is

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 233 of 246 Cork County Council

Figure 17.2 in five sheets which cross-references with Table 12.5 of Technical Report 12 of Appendix 4B of the EIS.

Section 17.3.3 refers to groundwater dependant ecological features. It notes there are seven designated sites within the study area. The four sites situated in the vicinity of the proposed road development include: -

• St. Gobnet’s Wood – located 150 metres to the south of the proposed road (Cascade Wood) and the habitat type is old oak woodland and as such not a groundwater dependent feature. Prediction is that it is unlikely that there would be any impact on the site.

• Mullaghanish to Musheramore pSPA – 60 metres from the centre line of the road. Road is on embankment and prediction is for no impact to the site.

• Prohus Wood (pNHA) – situated on the southern side of the Sullane River and not considered to be at risk from hydrogeological impacts likely to arise from the proposed road development.

• The Gearagh, cSAC – on the southern side of the Sullane River and not considered to be at risk from hydrogeological impacts.

The EIS states there are numerous areas of wet heath, wet grassland, marsh and other wet habitats which do not benefit from formal designation. It notes that several of those wet habitats lie close to the proposed road development and is therefore possible that some impact may occur, particularly if reliant on shallow groundwater and positioned in close proximity to a cutting.

In relation to spring discharges the EIS states that springs and seepages situated downstream of cuttings would be most at risk to significant adverse effects. In relation to watercourses, it states that these may be potentially adversely affected by reduced spring flow, but it would be only of minor significance as groundwater removed by dewatering will be discharged back to the local watercourses. The EIS states that there is a possibility of the presence of minor water-bearing horizons to be present, perched above the main watertable. In relation to impacts the EIS states that the significance of the potential dewatering is low and there is the potential for a slight negative impact.

14.8 Mitigation Proposals and Residual Impacts in relation to Hydrogeology

The EIS states the impact of the development on the locally important and poor aquifers would be significant and the impact on the regionally important karstic aquifer is considered to be slight. It states that impacts resulting from accidental spillage can be mitigated for by recognised and well-established industry guidance and measures. In relation to private groundwater users, the potential impact within 25 metres of the centre line is considered to be significant and the impact of features within 500 metres of a cutting is moderate prior to the implementation of mitigation measures. The EIS states

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 234 of 246 Cork County Council

that mitigation would be by provision of an alternative source of water supply which would include connection to main supply, piping of an alternative spring supply and deepening of shallow wells or installation of shallow replacement boreholes. It states also that adverse impacts on groundwater quality can be mitigated for by careful design of the proposed highway drainage.

In relation to highway drainage it states that careful consideration of potentially adverse impacts of drainage design would be undertaken during the design process.

In relation to groundwater dependant features, the EIS states that it is possible to assess the significance of the impact based on a worst case scenario, in which the magnitude of the potential impact on each feature is considered to be major. It states that wet grassland and heath lands areas are not uncommon within Ireland and the importance of the attributes as groundwater dependent features would be deemed to be low. It states that correspondingly the significance of an impact on those features is assessed as slight.

Section 17.4.5 refers to the monitoring of groundwater which it states would be introduced for at-risk sources from 12 months prior to construction, extending through construction and for a minimum of 12 months following road completion.

Section 17.5 gives conclusions which are that the proposed road development has some negative impact on the local hydrogeological regime. It notes that adverse impacts would result from temporary dewatering works, drainage design and from contamination during construction. It states that as the bedrock aquifer is not a principle aquifer unit in Ireland, small local impacts may be tolerated assuming the residual impacts on groundwater receptors are minimised. It states that it would be necessary to provide mitigation measures for users of features where they are at risk from profound and permanent impact. It states that data from monitoring would be used to determine what further mitigation measures would be required, if any.

15.0 INTER-RELATIONSHIPS AND INTERACTIONS OF AFFECTS

Table 18.1 of the EIS is a matrix showing general inter-relationships of environmental effects. The cross-referencing and the interactions are set out in relation to human beings, plans and policies, agricultural land, landscape and aesthetics, surface water quality and drainage, ecology, cultural heritage, air quality, noise and vibration, non-agricultural land use and amenities and geology and hydrogeology.

15.1 Mitigation Measures

This chapter summarises the specific mitigation measures identified within the proposed road development and gives a commitment reference number based on the chapter of the EIS in which it arises, it indicates the topic, chainage

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 235 of 246 Cork County Council

where relevant and the description of the measure. The table includes in excess of 232 specific commitments and these were subject to discussion at the oral hearing in many cases.

16.0 VOLUME III, EIS

Volume III consists of all the figures on A3 sheets and these are cross- referenced with the relevant chapters in Volume II of the EIS.

17.0 TECHNICAL REPORTS AND APPENDICES – PART I

Volume IV A of the EIS contains the technical reports and appendices in relation to the following: -

• Technical Report 3.0 – Socio-Economics. • Technical Report 4.0 – Agricultural Land. • Technical Report 5.0 – Landscape and Aesthetics. • Technical Report 6.0 – Surface Water Quality and Drainage. • Technical Report 7.0 – Ecology.

17.1 Socio-Economics Technical Report

This report gives introduction and methodology and data on population and demographics and also figures in relation to housing completions. Table 3.8 has data from the DEHLG which indicates that in 2007, the Cork County area has 7,293 housing completions. In the report it says that in relation to Macroom, 45 houses were completed within the summer of 2006 with a further 396 under construction. It states there were a further 129 units with permission to be built within the town and it was estimated that 164 units could be accommodated on the existing zoned lands within the town.

The report also lists the distribution of commercial activity along the existing N22 and this is indicated in Table 3.6. The report also has a reference to house prices and Section 3.2.5 describes commercial activity. Further sections refer to employment/unemployment and to tourism. Section 3.3 relates to assessment and details of the commercial survey are given for Macroom and Baile Mhic Íre, Baile Bhuirne and Cill na Martra.

17.2 Agricultural Land Report

This report gives details in relation to land use statistics, soils and assessment of effects as well as reference to mitigation proposals. In the report, Appendix I gives the summary of individual farms and impacts.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 236 of 246 Cork County Council

17.3 Technical Report No. 5 – Landscape and Aesthetics

This report consists of an introduction and four appendices titled Appendix 5.1 – Appendix 5.4. The introduction outlines the methodology used on the assessment of affects. (It is noted that Appendix 5.1 is interposed within the introductory overview).

In the introduction definitions of landscape character and landscape planning are given and in Section 5.2.4 the overall description of the route is given. This description covers the route from east to west.

Table 5.2 gives the landscape character classification and evaluation and the existing night-time landscape is described in Section 5.2.6.

Section 5.3 of the main report is entitled assessment. This describes direct landscape impacts covering hedgerows, woodlands, landform and cultural heritage features.

The report covers the features of the road development and in this section which covers operational landscape and visual impacts there is a description of each section which should be read in association with Figure 9.1 of Volume III of the EIS. This breaks down the sections which are summarised in Table 5.3 of the report and these are as follows: -

• Chainage -532 - +750 medium landscape value with not significant impact. • -750 to 1+850 – medium landscape value – moderately significant impact with a note that An Slieve Raibhach Ridge has a sense of isolation with limited use and extensive views from the ridge. • Chainage 1+850 – 2+910 – moderate adverse effect on a high sensitivity landscape with an impact rating of significant. • Chainage 2+910 – 5+510 – medium landscape value with medium sensitivity and an impact rating of moderately significant. • Chainage 5+500 – 9+500 – large adverse effect on high landscape character sensitivity with impact rating of significant. • Chainage 9+500 – 13+000 – with slight adverse effect on medium landscape character sensitivity with an impact rating not significant. • Chainage 13+000 – 13+800 – with moderate adverse effect on medium landscape character sensitivity and impact rating of moderately significant. • Chainage 13+800 – 16+150 – moderate adverse effect with medium landscape character sensitivity and an impact rating of moderately significant. • Chainage 16+150 – 17+750 – two character areas of medium landscape value with impact rating of moderately significant. • Chainage 17+750 – 19+450 – slight adverse effect on medium landscape character sensitivity with rating of not significant.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 237 of 246 Cork County Council

• Chainage 19+450 – 20+200 – moderate adverse effect on high landscape character with impact rating significant. • Chainage 20+200 – 21+800 – large adverse effect on high landscape character sensitivity and impact rating of significant. • Chainage 21+800 – 21+900 – slight adverse effect and impact rating of not significant.

In the summary of the assessment, in Section 5.5 of the report the sections of road development judged to result in a significant impact on local landscape character are listed. The descriptions for the Slieve Raibhach enclosed pasture at the western end that the depth of cutting would form a large landscape scar that would create a significant change in the existing rural landscape character and the comment in relation to the Baile Bhuirne open pasture that the scale of the road development would be greater than existing elements within the area and therefore would be considered to be significantly detrimental to the rural quality of the area are both noted.

Appendix 5.1 is entitled methodology and consists of five pages and refers to definitions and descriptions of sensitivity and combines the significance of affect in Table 6.

Appendix 5.2 – Landscape Character Classification and Evaluation – six pages and gives details of landscape types and the evaluation of these types.

Appendix 5.3 – Visibility Schedules – this appendix consists of a table which lists the existing winter views and evaluates the potential magnitude of visual impact for years 1 and year 15 and then summarises the potential significance of visual impact. The table covers 36 pages and covers over 300 properties.

Appendix 5.4 – Night-Time Effects of Lighting upon Properties – this appendix is in tabular form also lists the existing view, potential visual effects of new lighting at year 1 and year 15 and the potential significance of visual impact in year 1 winter and in year 15.

17.4 Technical Report 6 – Surface Water Quality and Drainage

This report extends to 21 pages and has three appendices.

The report sets out the methodology in relation to water quality assessment including significance criteria, biotic indices and criteria for determining impact magnitude. It lists the water quality monitoring stations on the River Sullane. It notes that this river is of high sensitivity change due to the favourable status of its baseline water quality and given that this river is a major tributary of a designated salmonid River Lee.

The report deals with hydrology and flood risk and refers to the modelling studies for the one-in-one hundred flood analyses. It also lists the water uses which include a water treatment plant for Macroom with a maximum abstraction rate of 3,180 m 3/day. The location of the Macroom WWTP is given as being on the eastern edge of the town.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 238 of 246 Cork County Council

The report gives details of water quality, hydrology and flood risk and water uses for the Rivers Laney, Foherish, Bohill and Owengarve also.

Section 6.3.8 of the report refers to the Carrigadrohid Reservoir and the report also covers general drainage patterns on the existing road surface water drainage.

Section 6.4 of the report deals with construction effects and Section 6.5 deals of operational effects. It covers items including pollution resulting from accidental spillage, flood risk impacts and there is a specific section on the crossing of the River Sullane and its floodplain and of the Carrigadrohid Reservoir. The crossings of the other watercourses are also covered.

Section 6.6 deals with mitigation proposals which include mitigation of flood risk impacts. In Section 6.7 the conclusion is that there would be an overall localised minor beneficial impact on water quality because no mechanisms to treat highway drainage are present on the existing N22. The overall impact of the road development is assessed to be minor adverse.

Appendix 6.1 gives EPA water quality data including “Q-values for the different rivers”.

Appendix 6.2 – water quality standards – phosphorus regulations are outlined as are EC (Quality of Salmonid Waters) Regulations 1988.

Appendix 6.3 – culverts. This table gives details of the location, size and length of over 50 culverts on the route.

17.5 Technical Report 7 – Ecology (Habitats, Flora, Fauna and Fisheries)

This report consists of 104 pages with four short appendices. It covers the methodology, consultation, details of habitats, bats, mammal, hedgerow and bird surveys.

It refers to the bryophyte and fern survey of the Bohill River and Cascade Wood and studies in relation to the Kerry Slug and the freshwater pearl mussel.

Section 7.3 covers the existing environment including designated areas and details of these are given in Table 7.2.

Section 7.3.2 refers to the habitat survey and references the 26 sites of ecological interest which are numbered 1-26 and which are described from east to west on the proposed road.

Section 7.3.3 refers to hedgerows and in Section 7.3.5 the issues in relation to bats are listed covering the different bat species. Table 7.6 sets out the protected mammal record for the 20 kilometre grid square crossed by the proposed road development and list species, notes the grid squares and gives

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 239 of 246 Cork County Council

an indication of population found. In a final column it lists the level of protection afforded.

Table 7.7 lists 15 badger setts located within the study area and Table 7.9 is a winter wild fowl and wader survey of the Sullane Delta, Inis Carra Reservoir for 2004/2005.

Section 7.3.6 describes aquatic ecology and refers to fishery issues in the Sullane and other rivers. Table 7.10 gives the summary of existing environment at each Potential Impact Location (PIL). This covers 16 points and gives pollution status, presence of salmonids, reference to pearl mussel habitat, protected species and importance rating. Tables 7.11 and 7.12 referred to fish catches. Section 7.3.8 refers to the pearl mussel survey.

Section 7.4.2 refers to habitats and the impacts on the Sites of Ecological Interest (SEI).

Section 7.4.3 – 7.4.5 refers to hedgerows, flora and fauna including locations of bats, badger, deer, red squirrel and otter. It also refers to the breeding barn owl, and wintering wild fowl population.

In relation to aquatic ecology the assessment of significance of potential impacts is given in Section 7.4.6 and cumulative impacts are described in 7.4.7. It states that no large-scale development schemes are known of that could potentially contribute towards cumulative impacts on the significant habitat, flora or fauna features identified in the report.

On Page 74, Section 7.5 deals with mitigation and includes general measures and site-specific measures for the different SEI’s. Section 7.5.3 deals with mitigation measures for bats and other fauna and Section 7.5.4 deals with aquatic ecology measures including mitigation of hydrological impacts.

Table 7.25 gives a summary of mitigation measures for each potential impact location and the following pages gives explanatory notes in relation to specific locations.

Section 7.6 gives predicted residual impacts covering designated sites, habitats, flora and fauna. Table 7.26 indicates the residual impacts on the aquatic ecological features at the 16 potential impact locations (PIL) and the compensation measures to offset residual adverse impacts in relation to works on the Owengarve Stream are referred to on Page 98.

Appendix 7.1 – Scientific Names of Plant and Animal Species mentioned in the text. This appendix is in two pages and covers plant species, invertebrates, fish, amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal species.

Appendix 7.2 – Criteria for evaluating the ecological importance of sites and magnitude of impacts. This appendix is in tabular form and has a site evaluation scheme and a criteria for assessing impact significance.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 240 of 246 Cork County Council

Appendix 7.3 – National Parks and Wildlife Service Site Synopses. This appendix gives the synopses for the following: -

• Prohus Wood – site code 1248. • The Gearagh – site code 0108. • St. Gobnet’s Wood – site code 0106. • Mullaghanish Bog – site code 1890. • Lough Gal – site code 1067.

Appendix 7.4A is a summary of the potential impacts without mitigation measures on aquatic ecology and Appendix 7.4B is the residual impacts on aquatic ecology features.

17.6 Technical Report 8 – Cultural Heritage (note that Technical Reports 8-12 are in Volume IVB of the EIS)

This report contains 43 pages in the main section and has 11 appendices. Following the appendices colour photographs of the various archaeological and cultural heritage sites are included and these are listed as Plate 1 – Plate 179.

The report commences by stating that cultural heritage where used generically is an over-arching term applied to describe any combination of archaeological, architectural and cultural heritage features. It notes that archaeological heritage generally applies to items older than AD 1700.

Section 8.2 describes the baseline environmental study including methodology and sources of information. Table 8.2 lists the RMP sites within one kilometre of the proposed road development and Table 8.3 indicates the national monuments within one kilometre of the proposed road development which are the Tower House and multiple stone circle at Carrigaphooca. Table 8.4 has one site namely at Cashel at Cúil na Cathrach protected by preservation order and is greater than 150 metres from the alignment. Table 8.5 gives the recorded and protected structures (RPS) within one kilometre of the proposed road development and Table 8.6 lists the archaeological excavations within one kilometre of the proposed road development.

Section 8.4 describes the receiving environment and Table 8.8 lists archaeological heritage sites (AH1 – AH39). Table 8.9 lists the areas of archaeological potential (AAP1 – AAP31). Sites of archaeological potential are listed in Table 8.10 and Table 8.11 lists the built heritage sites from BH1 – BH60. Cultural heritage sites (CH1, CH2 and CH3) are listed in Table 8.13.

The report covers the various time periods from pre-historic, early medieval, medieval, post-medieval and the recent past. A description of the Cúil na Cathrach ambush is given on Page 22/23 and this information was elaborated upon at the hearing.

Section 8.4.7 gives the summary of previous archaeological fieldwork undertaken within the receiving environment which were under license.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 241 of 246 Cork County Council

In relation to cartographic analysis, the report covers the Barony Map of West Muskerry of 1655-6, estate maps generally from the 19 th century and ordnance survey maps starting with the first edition of 1845. The report covers bridges on the existing route and industrial sites including the Tuck Mill and Bealick Corn Mill and also a mill complex to the immediate north of Macroom. It notes the settlement of Baile Bhuirne was relatively small at the time of the first edition OS Map, but a flour mill and tuck mill are marked to the south of the police barracks on the banks of the River Sullane. The demesnes of Carrigaphooca House, Codrum West, Codrum House, Mount Massey, Coolyhane House, Firville and Coolcour House are noted to be all named and clearly depicted within obvious estate boundaries on the OS first edition map.

The report covers the second edition OS Map 1901 and also refers to the third edition OS Map of 1926.

Table 8.14 gives the record of Protected Structures which include Newbridge, Laney Bridge, the Macroom Foundry and Carrigaphooca House and Castle.

Table 8.15 is the NIAH heritage sites in the proposed road development area and it is noted that there are 39 archaeological heritage sites within the receiving environment. Table 8.17 lists the archaeological heritage sites along the proposed route and Table 8.18 gives the areas of archaeological potential along the proposed route.

Section 8.5.3 describes the geophysical survey at Bealick and Section 8.5.4 describes archaeological testing and the conclusion was that no finds, features or deposits of archaeological significance were noted within the tested area.

Section 8.5.5 describes the geophysical survey at Carrigaphooca Castle and this noted that a natural/geological origin is expected for many of the anomalies highlighted from the survey.

Section 8.5.6 deals with the geophysical survey at Baile Mhic Íre ringfort.

Section 8.5.8 gives conclusions in relation to the sites of archaeological and historical value, archaeological potential, built heritage and cultural heritage sites.

Table 8.24 lists the archaeological heritage impacts for 39 sites ranging from imperceptible to moderate with one listed as significant being the ringfort AH8 for which the geophysical survey was carried out at Baile Mhic Íre.

Table 8.25 lists the impacts on areas of archaeological potential and these range from slight to moderate with one listed as significant being a relic field system at chainage 850.

Table 8.26 lists the impacts on sites of archaeological potential and Table 8.27 lists the impacts on aerial survey sites.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 242 of 246 Cork County Council

The report covers the built heritage sites and the impacts and significance and these are given in Table 8.29 where impacts are listed as being between imperceptible and significant. In Table 8.30 a significant impact is predicted for CH2 which is the IRA ambush site.

Section 8.7 deals with the proposed mitigation measures which include protocol for investigation including consultation and the appointment of a project archaeologist.

Appendix 8.1 – Archaeological Heritage Sites located within the receiving environment and study area. This appendix gives a description in tabular form of each of the 39 archaeological heritage sites. It includes extracts where relevant from the first, second and third edition OS Maps. In each table the potential impact and mitigation is recorded.

Appendix 8.2 – Areas of Archaeological Potential Identified within the receiving environment and study area.

This appendix is similar to Appendix 8.1 and covers 30 areas of archaeological potential. The information supplied gives a description, location, photo reference, impact details and also includes extracts from the relevant OS Maps.

Appendix 8.3 – Sites of Archaeological Potential within the receiving environment and study area – this appendix is in the same format as appendices 8.1 and 8.2 and cover the sites of archaeological potential (SAP1 – SAP24).

Appendix 8.4 – Built Heritage Sites within the receiving environment and study area – this appendix gives the information for the 60 built heritage (BH) sites.

Appendix 8.5 – Aerial Sites Identified within the receiving environment and study area – covers six sites.

Appendix 8.6 – Cultural Heritage Sites Identified within the receiving environment and study area – three sites in this appendix which includes the IRA ambush site at Cúil na Cathrach.

Appendix 8.7 – Stray finds within the receiving environment. This refers to information on artefact finds from the study area as recorded by the National Museum of Ireland since the late 18 th century.

Appendix 8.8 – Legislative framework protecting the archaeological resource – this list the relevant legislation and procedures to be adopted.

Appendix 8.9 – Legislative framework protecting the architectural resource.

Appendix 8.10 – Impact assessment and the cultural heritage resource – this appendix gives the definitions and evaluation procedures.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 243 of 246 Cork County Council

Appendix 8.11 – mitigation measures and the cultural heritage resource.

Plates 1-179 covers all the items listed in the various appendices and included in the EIS. It does not include CH4 and CH5 which were referred to at the hearing but were not in the EIS.

16.7 Air Quality

This report has 16 pages and is followed by three appendices.

The report covers the methodology used, the description of ambient air quality, localised air quality assessment and the interaction of background concentrations with traffic data. Table 9.4 gives the distance of sensitive receptors relative to links and Table 9.5 gives a QSR limit values. Climate assessment is covered in Section 9.2.7.

Section 9.3 refers to the existing environment and Section 9.4 is the impacts on the environment at construction stage, base year of 2005 and a do-nothing and do-something scenario. Tables 9.13 to 9.15 cover modelled pollutant concentrations, local air quality assessment results for the do-nothing and do- something scenarios.

Section 9.5 of this report covers construction impacts on mitigation measures and Section 9.6 refers to operation and mitigation measures.

Appendix 9.1 gives a summary of the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002.

Appendix 9.2 details significant criteria.

Appendix 9.3 gives exposure index worksheets for nitrogen dioxides and PM 10.

16.8 Noise and Vibration

This report covers the methodology, a description of aspects of existing noise environment, assessment of impact, mitigation measures and an assessment of residual impact. Table 10.1 gives details of anticipated blasting requirements and Table 10.4 is titled Monitor Noise Levels compared to predicted noise levels. This table highlights differences when they are greater than 3dB.

Table 10.5 gives predicted noise levels for ground floor receptors for 162 premises. These include an indication of where mitigation is required.

Table 10.6 gives the predicted noise levels for first floor receptors.

Section 10.5 covers mitigation which include details of noise barrier design which is given in Table 10.7.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 244 of 246 Cork County Council

Appendix 10.1 gives the 24-hour ambient noise monitoring results and these are in a series of tables A 1.1 – A 1.8.

Appendix 10.2 – short period measurement results. Table B 1.1 – B 1.14 gives the information in tabular form with the monitoring location, the time, the monitored noise level and the comment on the location.

17.9 Geology

This report is in 10 pages and covers methodology, description of the existing environment with reference to ground investigations, assessment of effects. In Table 11.10 it gives the summary of cutting significance which shows the length of section, maximum depth and average depth to groundwater. It notes the importance and magnitude of the impact and in the last column indicates the significance. A further table which is also titled 11.10 gives a summary of embankment significance. Section 11.6 gives the conclusions which conclude that the overall significance of the road development on geology would be considered to be neutral.

18.0 HYDROGEOLOGY – TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 12

This report is on 15 pages and covers a similar format to the previous technical reports. It notes that it could not be considered in isolation as there is a significant overlap between hydrogeology and other potential impacts. The tables in this report include Table 12.4 which is the aquifer and vulnerability designation along the proposed road development and Table 12.5 lists the groundwater use along the proposed road development. The report also covers groundwater quality, groundwater dependant features and contaminated land.

Section 12.3 gives the assessment of impacts of the proposed road development and Table 12.6 lists the cuttings along the proposed road development. Table 12.7 gives the vulnerability of private water supplies and indicates whether these are an area of cutting or embankment.

Section 12.4 deals with mitigation proposals and residual impacts and the conclusions are that it would be necessary to provide mitigation measures by way of replacement supplies for users of features at risk from profound and permanent impact as indicated in Table 12.7.

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 245 of 246 Cork County Council

______04 HA0025 An Bord Pleanála Page 246 of 246