An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

Applications : 09.HA0045 M7 Naas to Newbridge Bypass Upgrade Scheme

: 09.MA0012 Kildare County Council (M7 Naas- Newbridge Bypass Upgrade) Motorway Scheme Order 2013

Applicant : Kildare County Council

Site Inspections : 13 th and 19 th March, 6 th , 15 th and 17 th May 2014

Oral Hearing : 23 rd and 26 th May and 6 th June 2014

Inspectors : Mairead Kenny

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 101

Contents INTRODUCTION...... 6

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT AND SITE CONTEXT ...... 7

SELECTED PLANNING HISTORY ...... 11

North-West Quadrant Naas ...... 11

Road Schemes ...... 12

PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT...... 13

European and related provisions ...... 13

White Paper Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system 2011 ...... 13

Regulation (EU) No. 1315/2013 – TEN-T...... 14

The Core Network Corridors – Trans European Transport Network 2013 ...... 15

The European Communities (Road Infrastructure Safety Management) Regulations ...... 15

Other Policy ...... 15

National Plans and Policies ...... 16

Smarter Travel – A New Transport Policy for Ireland 2009-2020...... 16

National Spatial Strategy...... 16

NTA Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy 2011-2030 (Draft) ...... 16

NTA Integrated Implementation Plan 2013-2018 ...... 17

Road Safety Strategy 2013-2020...... 17

Infrastructure and Capital Investment 2012-2016 – Medium Term Exchequer Framework ...... 18

Regional and local plans...... 18

Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2010-2022 ...... 18

Kildare County Development Plan ...... 18

Naas Town Development Plan 2011-2017...... 18

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 101

OBSERVATIONS...... 19

An Taisce...... 19

Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht...... 20

Health Service Executive...... 20

Inland Fisheries Ireland ...... 20

Irish Aviation Authority ...... 21

National Transport Authority ...... 21

Annette and Ciaran Parker and Grainne and Michael Forde (Observation Active on 21th July 2014) ...... 21

Fintan Flood (Observation active on 21 st July 2014)...... 21

Harry and Maura Coyle...... 22

Joe and Karen Evans ...... 23

Kerry Group Services International Ltd...... 23

Mary Coyle ...... 23

Old Abbey Manor Residents Association...... 24

Oral and Trevor Nuzum and others of Caragh Road ...... 24

Brendan and Carol Carton (Observation active on 21 st July 2014)...... 24

Brendan and Gertie Coyle ...... 25

Catherine Morrin...... 26

Edward Kinirons...... 26

Gerald and Shauna Kehoe ...... 26

John Kehoe ...... 27

Origin Enterprises Ltd ...... 27

ORAL HEARING ...... 27

Overview...... 27

Day 1 ...... 29

Opening Comments...... 29

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 101

Applicant’s submission ...... 29

Day 2 ...... 35

Observers’ submissions...... 37

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT ...... 50

Whether the scheme is required in order to comply with EU Regulations ...... 50

Other policy provisions ...... 54

Smarter Travel ...... 54

Requirements to assess the impact on other modes ...... 57

Induced traffic...... 58

GDA Strategy...... 59

Other Policy Provisions ...... 60

Capacity and Safety...... 62

The nature of the problem...... 62

Drop in lanes and capacity issues...... 63

Alternatives / Demand Management...... 64

Provision for Pedestrians, Cyclists and other users...... 65

Funding and Phasing ...... 65

Conclusions ...... 66

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 67

Ecology...... 68

Hydrogeology ...... 70

Hydrology ...... 72

Soils and Geology...... 74

Material Assets ...... 75

Human Beings ...... 76

Landscape and Visual Impacts...... 77

Cultural Heritage...... 78

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 101

Noise ...... 78

Air Quality and Climate ...... 84

Waste ...... 87

Cumulative Impacts ...... 88

APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT ...... 88

COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER...... 92

PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND LEGAL POINTS...... Error! Bookmark not defined.

European Communities (Road Infrastructure Safety Management) Regulations ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Requests for Adjournment ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Other cases...... Error! Bookmark not defined.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION...... 94

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 101

INTRODUCTION This report concerns the proposed M7 Naas – Newbridge Bypass Upgrade Motorway Scheme 2013. The report considers two concurrent applications MA0012 and HA0045 made by Kildare County Council on its own behalf and on behalf of Naas Town Council.

The report should be read in conjunction with the accompanying report of Mr John Desmond, Planning Inspector. Mr Desmond’s report addresses the traffic and transport impacts of the scheme, the appropriateness and validity of the traffic modelling, the need for the scheme, the alternatives investigated and the strategic road function and road safety aspects of the scheme.

In brief, the scheme provides for widening to three lanes of 13.5 km of the M7 motorway from Junction 9 Maudlins / ‘The Ball’ at Naas to the M7/M9 diverge at Junction 11 Great Connell. The scheme incorporates re-location of J10 Newhall, upgrading of the drainage network and resurfacing of the existing three-lane dual carriageway between J9 and J8 Johnstown. It will require the acquisition of land, closure of direct accesses, extinguishment of public rights of way and other changes and works.

Application MA0012 seeks approval by the Board of a motorway scheme under section 49 of the Roads Act 1993, as amended. The Board may approve the scheme with or without modifications or may refuse to approve the scheme.

The motorway scheme relates to a road development which is before the Board under application HA0045. That application has been made under section 51 of the Roads Act 1993 as amended. The Board may approved the proposed road development with or without modifications or may refuse to approve it. This application was accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A Habitats Directive screening report submitted made a finding of no significant effects.

A related scheme is also before the Board at this time. That is the Osberstown Interchange and Sallins Bypass (OISB), HA0046 and the associated CPO cases KA0031 and MA0013. If approved this scheme would connect with the Naas- Newbridge scheme at a location between J9 and J10 where a new interchange would be provided. The proposed Sallins Bypass would link the proposed Osberstown Interchange and the Clane Road. The applicant states that it would not be feasible to operate the proposed OISB prior to the M7 Naas – Newbridge Bypass Upgrade Motorway Scheme 2013.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 101

DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT AND SITE CONTEXT Purpose of Scheme

The scheme is stated to address congestion at a bottleneck in the national motorway network and thus deliver a vital element of Ireland’s compliance with European regulations. The scheme will protect previous investment in the motorway network and will provide for economic, social and environmental benefits. These include road safety, time saving, water quality improvements to the Liffey, flood attenuation and reduced noise pollution to existing receptors. The scheme is also noted to facilitate the potential addition of the OISB which is unable to proceed due to congestion on this section of the motorway.

Overview

The site comprises part of the dual carriageway and motorway in the general vicinity of Naas and Newbridge, specifically between Junction 8 Johnstown to Junction 11 Great Connell near Newbridge.

The stretch of road between Junction 8 Johnstown and Junction 9 Maudlins (Naas/ ‘The Ball’) is dual three-lane all purpose road subject to a 100kph speed limit. At the western side of J9 Maudlins the road is a dual two-lane motorway and a speed limit of 120kph applies. Junction 11 further south-west is where the M7 and M9 merge / diverge.

The upgrade concerns the provision of a third lane in both directions between J9 and J11 and other works including a new interchange at Newhall at Ch.6+600, which is 800m south of the existing J10 Newhall interchange. J10 serves Newbridge.

The scheme is entirely within the existing road fence line except at the proposed Newhall Interchange and at Ch. 4+600, 7+800 and 11+400 where new attenuation ponds are to be installed. The additional traffic lanes will be put in place in the existing wide median and the centre of the new road will be marked by a concrete safety barrier.

Between J8 and J9 minor reconfiguration works are proposed. Further details of works and site context are set out below.

Great Connell to the proposed Newhall Interchange

At the southernmost end of the scheme the M9 merges with the M7, both dual two- lane motorways. At this location in 2013 a ghost island was put in place as a short- term measure to improve traffic flow for northbound traffic. From J11 Great Connell to the proposed Newhall Interchange (Ch. 0+000 to Ch. 6+500) lands either side of the motorway are mainly rural in character and the dominant land use is agriculture.

Construction of the scheme commences at Ch.2+400 and the proposed third lane at this location is stated to assist the movement of merging traffic. Between Ch.2+500

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 101 and Ch.3+800 the road runs parallel to the Grand Canal about 100m to the south- east.

At Ch.3+800 the motorway passes under Lewistown Road which is on an existing overbridge which will be unaffected. Similarly at Ch.4+900 an existing farm accommodation bridge is unaffected.

At Ch.0+400 is a housing estate known as Old Abbey Manor 1. Groups of individual houses are located at Corbally Road Ch.1+800 and south of the Grand Canal around Ch.3+300 2. A small group of houses are present at Ch.4+000 and at nearby Lewistown Road. A group of one-off houses are at Ch.5+100. There are a number of houses in the general vicinity of the proposed Newhall Interchange at Ch.6+600 3.

The proposed Newhall Interchange is to be at the location of the existing regional road R445 over the motorway. The R445 provides access to the north / eastern side of Newbridge town and environs and was once part of the N7 to Newbridge. Works to develop the new interchange include the provision of two roundabouts along the R445 and the construction of on-off slip roads at either side to the motorway below.

At Ch.4+600 approximately two new attenuation ponds are proposed. These are to cater for an existing capacity constraint problem which results in flooding at times of heavy rainfall. The ponds will act to provide attenuation and water quality improvements.

At the proposed Newhall Interchange works are required to extend an existing culvert and another culvert is to be enlarged. Development at this location also provides for a stilling pond and fish pass pools. Under existing conditions water levels in Lewistown stream are maintained by a sluice gate which is a barrier to fish movement and is alleged to cause flooding 4.

At the proposed Newhall Interchange a new attenuation pond would be constructed. At this location also additional lands are to be acquired for temporary use as a construction compound 5.

In general between Great Connell and Newhall the existing drainage is largely retained. Surface water outfalls are presently untreated and will be fitted with oil and

1 Written submission relating to noise issues - withdrawn.

2 At this general location are the places of residence of two of the outstanding objectors (Cartons at Ch.3+200 and Parkers at Ch.4+000).

3 This includes the Coyles’ properties subject of oral and written submissions. These were withdrawn during the hearing.

4 Submission of Edward Kinirons Plot 111a.101. Objection withdrawn.

5 This is the location of lands owned by Dennis Trailers and Origin Enterprises.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 101 petrol interceptors. Throughout the scheme filter drains in verges will be reconstructed. New pipes to be installed will be over-sized to provide on line attenuation of storm flows. The pipes will cater for the increased permeable area and make allowance for increased intensity of rainfall. Flow restricting devices will be installed upstream of watercourse outlets and discharge will be to existing run-off rates. Spillage isolation penstocks are also to be provided at various locations.

Newhall (existing interchange) to Johnstown

At the existing Newhall interchange (Ch. 7+400) land uses include the M7 Business Park to the north-west 6. To the south-east beyond the Bundle of Sticks roundabout is Newhall Retail Park and nearby are some auto sales outlets and the Aldi Logistics Centre. Both junctions to the south-east (Bundle of Sticks) and to the north-west are deemed to be deficient in size and no longer fit for purpose. The five arm roundabout to the north-west of the motorway at the top of the northbound slip road is described as contributing to the AM peak congestion resulting in queues onto the motorway. Southbound traffic departing the motorway in the evening encounters congestion at the Bundle of Sticks roundabout. This situation is set out by the applicant in justification for the new interchange. The existing slip roads at Newhall Interchange will be closed off and landscaped.

Presently there is an unusual arrangement for southbound access onto the M7. The existing southbound slip from the Bundle of Sticks roundabout is a two way road known as Due Way. This includes a junction between the Rathasker Road and the one way M7 slip road as well as providing access to commercial premises. The arrangement is considered to be confusing to motorists who do not anticipate two- way traffic while accessing a motorway. Under the scheme a direct slip is proposed from the R445 onto the southbound carriageway.

At Ch.7+800 water quality and control will be achieved by the provision of a new attenuation pond which will accommodate water from the existing stream which flows under the motorway at this location.

The existing over bridge at Ch.8+450 which takes the R409 Caragh Road will be unaffected. There is a group of houses at the east of that bridge. At Ch. 8+500 approximately is Osberstown Industrial Park and the Naas Wastewater Treatment Works.

In Naas town itself in the vicinity of this part of the scheme the development of Millennium Park is noteworthy and at this location the construction by Kerry Group of a major facility is ongoing. Other significant commercial developments in the area include the Monread Industrial Park, the Global Retail Park and the Monread

6 Nearby also is a small cul de sac with a few one off houses where Nuzums and others reside. Objection withdrawn.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 101

Shopping Centre. These premises are mainly served by the Western Distributor Road which runs broadly parallel to the motorway at this location.

At Ch.10+350 there is an existing farm accommodation road which will be unaffected by the scheme. It connects to lands in the vicinity of Osberstown House, a protected structure. It is at this location that the Osberstown Interchange is proposed under the concurrent application for OISB. The Sallins Bypass would commence at this location also traversing the original estate grounds of Osberstown House, which are now in separate ownership.

At the southern side of the overbridge at Ch.10+350 is a large attenuation pond which has been referenced in written observations as an amenity for employees, including employees of the future Kerry Group premises under construction at Ch.9+800.

Canal Bank Road is crossed by the existing motorway at Ch.11+200 at which location is the Grand Canal , a proposed Natural Heritage Area, an old mill and a few one-off houses. Existing culverts at the canal crossing are not affected by the scheme. Other residential development in the vicinity of a proposed attenuation pond at Ch.11+400 is Osberstown Cottages 7.

The existing route from Sallins to Naas (the Clane Road R407) crosses the motorway at Ch.11+700 and joins the Western Distributor Road at a roundabout.

At the junction of that roundabout is an emerging urban landscape including the existing residential development, a very large Tescos and Millennium Park. There is a group of houses at Clane Road (Ch. 11+700) which includes the edge of Sallins village.

At Ch.13+050 is an existing farm accommodation road which will be unaffected.

The next major feature along the route is the existing Maudlins junction which includes an overbridge connecting the R445 to the M7/M9. This will not be affected.

The scheme will tie in to the existing two way three-lane N7 between Ch.14+200 and 15+200. In addition to the three main lanes in each direction there will be an auxiliary lane in each direction between the on and off ramps of J9 and J8.

The footbridge at Johnstown (Ch. 14+700) is not affected.

General Comments

Throughout the scheme the following will apply :

- A low noise surface will be installed

7 Evans and Kehoes live in this general area. Objections withdrawn.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 101

- All fences will be inspected and repaired

- Minimal planting will be removed

- A concrete crash barrier will be put in place in the median.

At selected locations the following will be undertaken :

- Noise barriers will be installed

- Lighting will be provided.

The proposed Scheme does not cross the Liffey but many of the minor watercourses crossed are tributaries. The Liffey is noted to be ‘at risk’ and its status decreases from Good in the vicinity of Great Connell to Moderate north of the Osberstown WWTP. The Morell runs beneath the N7 just north of Maudlins Interchange.

I refer the Board to the specific discussion of construction and operational phase impacts and mitigation measures set out in the applicant’s submissions including the EIS and at the oral hearing.

SELECTED PLANNING HISTORY North-West Quadrant Naas Within the north-west quadrant of Naas a number of significant permissions have been granted including those noted below.

Under planning reg. ref. 99/500154 permission was granted by Naas Town Council on 25th February 2000 for development of 110 hectares of industrial and warehouse uses, now Millennium Park This included a new interchange at Osberstown. In addition a new roundabout at the junction of Sallins Road and Monread Road and a new road network including a bridge over the Grand Canal was also proposed and these have been completed. A condition of the permission required that the applicant prepare all necessary documents for the interchange and construct and maintain the interchange until taken in charge. The reason for the condition identified a need to provide the interchange due to serious traffic hazard as the road system is seriously deficient and would be unable to accommodate the additional traffic generated.

Under planning reg. ref. 13/500018 permission was granted by Kildare County Council to Kerry Group for a Global Technology and innovation Centre which is a major facility and is now under construction.

Under planning reg. ref. 06/500189 permission was granted for a private day hospital close to the proposed Osberstown Interchange. The permission was extended and will now expire in 2017.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 101

Under planning reg. ref. 07/500040 permission was granted for a distributor road system which has been constructed.

Road Schemes HA0018 M7 Osberstown Interchange The Board on 26 th February 2010 refused to approve an application for consent for the M7 Osberstown Interchange Motorway Scheme. The Board noted that the proposed interchange was stated by the applicant to be interconnected with the proposed Sallins Bypass and decided that the planning of the proposed interchange should be undertaken in a comprehensive manner with the planning for the Sallins Bypass, even if both projects are to be separately implemented.

The detailed decision referenced sections from the EIS including:

- The transport objectives of the proposed interchange include providing relief to the existing congested M7 interchanges at Newhall and Maudlins

- Provision of a public transport link between Naas and Sallins

- Connection of the M7 and the railway

- The proposed Sallins Bypass currently going through a planning process

- The design and location of the interchange is influenced by the Bypass.

A submission by the NRA dated 23 rd December 2009 is quoted in Mr Desmond’s report – this notes the significance attached by the local authorities to the interchange in terms of regional transport linkages and notes the need to upgrade Newhall Interchange which will be deferred by the Osberstown Interchange. It identifies the intention of the NRA to upgrade the M7 to three lanes. It is also clearly stated that the Authority will not be contributing to the cost of the proposed interchange.

HA008 Newlands Cross Junction Improvement This was approved in 2008 and is presently under construction. The Board’s reasons and considerations referred to the existing and predicted traffic flows in the area. Conditions required compliance with the Final Schedule of Commitments, provision of a 1.8m noise barrier and stone walls, appointment of a liaison officer and early planting of trees. A note on the Direction referred to the hours of construction which were deemed acceptable.

Under 06S.ER2018 an application by South Dublin County Council for a scheme for the improvement of the N7 between Rathcoole and the Kildare County Boundary was approved by the Board in 2003. This scheme related to a 5.4km stretch of the road and improvements including the widening from two lanes to three lanes, closure of openings in the median and provision of a grade separated interchange at the County border at Steelstown. The Board in its reasons and considerations noted the current projected levels of traffic on this section of the N7, the number of openings in

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 101 the median and considered that the proposed road development is reasonable and necessary and in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. No conditions were attached.

ER2008 refers to an application by Kildare County Council for the N7 Naas Road Widening and Interchanges Scheme . This was approved in 2002 having regard to the need to cater for future traffic levels. Conditions included that noise shall not exceed a level of 68dB L A10 as measured over an eighteen hour daytime period.

The above two schemes were merged together into one Design and Build Contract the Naas Road Widening and Interchanges Scheme , a 15km length scheme between Rathcoole and Maudlins including widening, four new interchanges. The contractor was required to maintain during construction a flow of 62,000 AADT in two lanes of traffic.

An application by South Dublin County Council for consent to improve the N7 between Newland’s Cross and Rathcoole was granted by the Board. The Scheme is stated to have been completed by the time of the making of the application under ER2018.

Under ER2034 an application by Dun Laoghaire County Council for an upgrade to the M50 including the provision of an additional lane in both directions was approved by the Board in 2005. The Board noted that the scheme formed part of an integrated plan for the Dublin Region. Under condition 7 the local authorities were required to publish demand management measures within 4 years of the completion of the scheme, in the interest of protecting the capacity of the M50 over its design life.

PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT European and related provisions

White Paper Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system 2011 This paper considers how best to address European Transport needs for the future in the context of economic growth, climate change, existing bottlenecks and other issues. This is a wide ranging paper addressing funding, technology and all modes of transport. It notes that curbing mobility is not an option and the challenge is to break the transport system’s dependence on oil.

The strategy set out in Part 3.3 refers to the need for a ‘core network’ of corridors carrying large volumes of freight and passengers with high efficiency and low emissions. The core network should focus on the completion of missing links and on the upgrading of existing infrastructure.

Action will be concentrated on the components of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) network with the highest European added value namely cross border missing links, intermodal connecting points and key bottlenecks. It refers to

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 101 the deployment of technology to optimise the capacity and use of infrastructure. Completion of the TEN-T requires about €550 billion until 2020 of which €215 billion can be referred to the removal of the main bottlenecks.

Regulation (EU) No. 1315/2013 – TEN-T This follows on from the above. It notes that growth in traffic has resulted in increased congestion in international transport. In order to ensure the international mobility of passengers and goods, the capacity of the trans-European network and the use of that capacity should be optimised and, where necessary, expanded by removing infrastructure bottlenecks and bridging missing infrastructure links within and between Member States.

Recital 19 states that in order to establish the core network in a coordinated and timely manner, thereby making it possible to maximise the network benefits Member States concerns should ensure that appropriate measures are taken to finalise the projects of common interest by 2030.

Recital 20 states that it is necessary to identify projects of common interest which will contribute to the achievement of the trans-European transport network and which contribute to the priorities.

Recital 23 refers to the need to assess greenhouse gas impacts of projects of common interest in the form of new, extended or upgraded transport infrastructures.

Section 3 deals with road transport infrastructure and under Article 18 there is a requirement that Member States ensure that safety of road transport infrastructure is assured, monitored and where necessary improved in accordance with procedure provided for in accordance with the European Directive on Road Safety 2008/96/EC 8.

A19 sets out the priorities for road infrastructure development. In the promotion of projects of common interest related to road infrastructure priority will be given to improvement and promotion of road safety, use of ITS, innovation for promotion of low carbon and mitigation of congestion on existing roads.

Chapter 3 deals with the core network. These routes are of the highest strategic importance and shall reflect evolving traffic demand and the need for multimodal transport. The core network shall contribute to coping with increasing mobility and ensuring a high standard of safety as well as contributing to a low carbon transport system. Member States shall take appropriate steps for the core network to be developed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter by 2030.

8 This was transposed into Irish law by SI 472 of 2011.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 101

For road infrastructure the requirements to be met are those set out in Chapter 2 and the requirements under (a) or (b) of Article 17 and development of rest areas on motorways and availability of clean fuels. Article 17 refers to infrastructure road transport infrastructure components and requires that they shall comprise high quality roads, parking and rest areas, coach stations etc. Of relevance to the current project is the requirement that high quality roads be adequately maintained to allow safe and secure traffic.

Chapter 4 refers to implementation of the core network through core network corridors. The focus shall be on modal integration, interoperability and coordinated development of infrastructure, in particular in cross border sections and bottlenecks.

Under A56 there is provision for the Commission to request a Member State to provide a reason for delay in the provision of core network. Under A54 there is provision for a review in 2023 of the implementation of the core network by 2023.

The Core Network Corridors – Trans European Transport Network 2013 The route between Belfast, Dublin and Cork is part of the TEN-T Network and lies within the set of core network corridors which are to be completed by 2030. The core network comprises the strategically most important parts of the network. It was selected at EU level and is a multimodal network and will be the basis for supporting project development and implementation. The multimodal core network will provide for transnational traffic and long-distance flows for freight and people and due to their integration will provide for a highly resource efficient infrastructure use.

The M7 is identified as part of the North Sea-Mediterranean Corridor. The document states that the ‘main missing link in the United Kingdom and Ireland are rail connections’. It states that in particular the connection between the Belfast-Dublin and the Dublin-Cork rail links is being developed under the ‘DART’ project. Associated maps indicate that the Roads in Ireland are completed.

The European Communities (Road Infrastructure Safety Management) Regulations The European Communities (Road Infrastructure Safety Management) Regulations 2011 gives effect to Directive 2008/96/EC which relates to the TERN (trans- European road network). Included in these regulations is a requirement to undertake road safety impact assessments at early stages of planning for significant road schemes. The consequences in terms of road safety of the different options and of any changes to modal split shall be considered.

Other Policy The Board will be familiar with the range of policy provisions and agreements made at international level which require to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. These include the Kyoto Protocol under which Ireland has agreed to limit net growth

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 101 of greenhouse gases and the Gothenburg Protocol which sets targets for national emissions limits including for emissions associated with road traffic.

National Plans and Policies

Smarter Travel – A New Transport Policy for Ireland 2009-2020 This policy document sets out 5 high level objectives, a range of specific targets to be achieved and 49 specific actions to be undertaken.

Smarter Travel recognises the economic importance of efficient movement of goods and people. It identifies a need to improve the efficiency of motorised transport with a view limiting the development of traffic jams and to reducing emissions. It sets a target of no increase in vehicle kilometers over 2009 levels and a reduction in selection of private car for commuting trips from 65% to 45%.

The fast tracking of establishment of park and ride facilities along major public transport nodes and at the periphery of major urban areas is a specific action.

National Spatial Strategy The future transport network is viewed in terms of strategic radial corridors such as the corridor to the south-west (the N7 / M7). Implementation of the road investment programme under the NDP is a key element in enhancing the regional accessibility and underpinning better regional development. Located within the Greater Dublin Area the towns of Naas, Newbridge and Kilcullen are Primary Development Centres. The NSS remains in force pending a review.

NTA Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy 2011-2030 (Draft) The document confirms the importance of roads. Section 11.1.2 refers to development of the road network. In general unless required to address issues such as safety concerns, provision of space for public transport priority or local servicing of development lands there will be a clear presumption against development of new road proposals. Alternative solutions such as demand management measures should always be examined to identify if they could effectively address the particular issue. Specific principles are set down in ROAD 1 and the implication of these principles in respect of strategic roads are that the Authority will seek examination and introduction where appropriate of traffic, mobility or new strategic roads that would facilitate unsustainable increases in car-based commuting traffic. Road proposals whose primary purpose is to address accident or safety issues will be supported providing such schemes are designed to an appropriate standard and avoid inappropriately increasing capacity that may encourage longer distance car- based commuting. Any major new national road scheme should consider and incorporate where appropriate demand management proposals as an integral part of

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 101 their delivery. Management of strategic roads for the GDA will be in accordance with ROAD 5.

NTA Integrated Implementation Plan 2013-2018 Section 3.1 refers to Transport and the economy. It notes the substantial increase in road congestion in the GDA which has arisen from the location of new development away from high capacity public transport networks accompanied by increased car ownership and use. The economic downturn has relieved congestion. As the economy recovers it is inevitable that, in the absence of targeted transport infrastructural investment traffic conditions can be expected to deteriorate in the region which would have serious economic consequences. A number of general transport challenges are outlined including

- identification and delivery of road network improvements to minimise road congestion, maximise the use of public transport and encourage walking and cycling and

- how to free up road space for economically essential traffic by further increasing the share of travel by means other than the car particularly to the city centre and other employment centres and

- how to target public transport improvements to areas where access is poor.

Road Safety Strategy 2013-2020 This sets out specific engineering measures (no. 52 to 68) as part of the suite of key actions that form the Government’s Road Safety Strategy 2013-2020. The measures most directly relevant to the national road network are set out below.

- Extend measures in the Road Infrastructure Safety Management Directive relating to road safety inspection and traffic management, which currently apply to the TEN-T routes , to the entire network by 2016.

- Carry out 150 minor realignment schemes on the national road network by 2020.

- Provide at least 5 new service areas on or immediately adjacent to the motorway network by 2020.

- National road pavement above Investigatory Level to be increased to 90%.

- Reduce number of access points on national roads.

In relation to the motorway network it is stated to have contributed significantly to the road safety improvements and needs to be maintained.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 101

Infrastructure and Capital Investment 2012-2016 – Medium Term Exchequer Framework In relation the national road network the focus will be on maintenance and on the improvement of specific road segments for which there is a clear economic justification.

Regional and local plans

Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2010-2022 Located within the Hinterland of the GDA Naas is identified as a Large Growth Town I and Newbridge as a Large Growth Town II. Chapter 6 deals with physical infrastructure and notes that the message from national policy documents is that within the GDA there is a need to implement land use policies that support and protect the investments being made in public transport and to ensure that regional transport policy dove-tails readily with other policy objectives.

In relation to road transport it is recognised that the road network will continue to be critical to transport management and efficient movement of buses, people and goods in the GDA and beyond. National policy is to safeguard the carrying capacity and efficient operation of the strategic road network. Two proposed new roads the Leinster Outer Orbital Route and the Eastern By-Pass are under consideration by the Department. Improvement in the functioning of the M50/M-N11 area including measures such as traffic management and upgrade works, expansion of road capacity, bus priority and other identified options. Where there are competing modes on a route corridor greater weighting should be given to the more sustainable mode of travel.

Kildare County Development Plan The plan aims to promote an integrated approach to land use and transport planning and to support improvements to all aspects of the transport network.

Objective RP1 provides for the development of a third lane including the improvement of interchanges as the need arises.

Objective RP3 refers to the identification of a new location for Newhall Interchange.

Objective LT3 refers to the long-term objective of developing a new public transport interchange.

Naas Town Development Plan 2011-2017 This has the high level aim of promoting ease of movement within and access to Naas. The plan aims to promote an integrated approach to land use and transport planning and to support improvements to all aspects of the transport network. It notes the high level of commuters to Dublin who are resident in Naas and the high car ownership rates.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 101

OBSERVATIONS An Taisce The main points of this observation include :

• The scheme will encourage further commuter travel by private transport in contravention of Smarter Travel

• The traffic analysis section does not address the additional traffic generated by a switch from public transport and the direction of future transport demand

• The enhanced Newhall Interchange will encourage a modal shift to commuting by car from Newbridge which is already well served by rail

• No consideration is given to the alternative scenario of strengthening public transport connections to alleviate existing congestion

• An Bord Pleanála has never addressed the matter of control of traffic volumes or a requirement for parallel investment in public transport measures

• Smarter Travel has entirely changed the overriding Government policy under which the Board must consider future road schemes and now must ensure that any future road scheme does not increase 2009 traffic volumes and does not undermine the national target of reducing work related commuting by car from 65% to 45%

• KCC and the NRA are in breach of national transport policy in lodging this application and the onus is now on the Board to refuse the application

• Circular PSSP-4-2010 sets out requirements

• Smarter Travel has five key goals which are listed

• The proposal does not align with the regional transport strategies of the NTA

• Development of commuter housing and rural dwellings has adversely affected traffic and transport patterns in the area and no evaluation of the impact of dispersed settlement on the current road has been carried out in the EIS

• The Board is asked to consider the downstream impacts this road project will have on the future of the spatial settlement and land-use patterns of mid-east and midlands regions when carrying out an EIA

• A technological solution especially to the propulsion of HGVs is many decades off

• The Board is asked to have regard to a number of reports listed including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change review 2013

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 101

• Other sources which refer to the era of cheap oil having passed and which note environmental problems associated with continued exploration and new exploration methods are outlined

• Ireland remains bound by the EU emissions target of 20% reduction over 2005 levels emissions by 2020

• The EIA has not fully considered the impact of oil dependent infrastructure in increasing the capacity of the M7 for private cars in relation to greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and the scale of change required to meet the 20:20:20 EU agreement is enormous

• An annual reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of about 2.5% per year is needed – greenhouses gas emissions from the transport sector have risen over 170% since 1990 primarily due to spatial sprawl

• The previous approach by the Board that the reduction in carbon emissions is a separate matter for future government policy is no longer tenable when carrying out an EIA

• Consideration of noise in relation to impacts on humans and birds is required.

Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht In relation to archaeology the observations of the Department are as follows :

• All mitigation measures detailed in section 13.7.1 should be carried out in full in advance of the commencement of any construction works, including the archaeological investigation of all proposed offline sections

• The archaeological component of the scheme should be overseen by a Project Archaeologist responsible for liaison with the NMS of this Department for all archaeological aspects of the scheme.

A subsequent submission indicates that no further comment is to be offered.

Health Service Executive The buffer zone for pesticide use should derive from the specific label information and use of pesticides should be postponed if significant rainfall is forecast.

Inland Fisheries Ireland We have reviewed the EIS and have no objection to the application subject to conditions relating to construction and environmental plans, which should identify potential impacts and mitigation measures and ensure compliance with legislation and statutory consent. Mitigation measures detailed in Chapters 7, 9 and 20 of the EIS to be undertaken. All in-stream work should be completed during the May to September period and then in line with an agreed Method Statement. The general

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 101 principles of the culvert design outlined for Ladytown Stream and the R445 are acceptable and detailed design to be agreed with IFI.

Irish Aviation Authority No observation on the application.

National Transport Authority The Authority has no objection in principle to the proposals set out in the Scheme. A number of items are listed to be addressed at the detailed design stage. These relate to the need to provide safe cycle routes across the proposed Newhall Interchange and to accommodate bus stops and safe pedestrian links.

Annette and Ciaran Parker and Grainne and Michael Forde (Observation Active on 21th July 2014) There is a requirement to continue the proposed noise barrier at R11 to R125 onto R16 and a further distance eastward of at least 500m from the R16 in order to mitigate noise to the dwellings based on :

• The 2013 Noise Action Plan sets a noise level of 70dB L den and 57dB L night based on EPA recommendations. These are above the NRA levels of 60dB

Lden for the construction of roads and 45dB Lnight for commercial / industrial developments

• The EPA states that noise action plans should avoid significant adverse impacts from noise and should preserve environmental noise quality

• The derived survey figure at S02-c is 64dBLden and the predicted levels for 2015 and 2030 at R16 are 63dBLden and 54dBLnight / 64 dBLden and 55dBLnight

• The survey does account for predominant wind direction and speeds

• The dwellings at R16 place the M7 at between 260 and 280 degrees measured from the dwellings – directly in line with the predominant wind direction

• Increased noise levels due to prevailing winds will bring the noise levels at location R16 above those predicted in tables 15.6 and 15.7 of the EIS

• The WHO indicates that impairment of early childhood development and education by noise may have lifelong effects and set noise limits outside bedrooms to prevent adverse effects.

Fintan Flood (Observation active on 21 st July 2014) The project is not opposed per se but the effects associated with the replacement of J10 with new access and egress arrangements has not been given sufficient attention. As set out in detail the connection routes on the existing J10 which link

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 101

Naas, Newbridge and Rathangan and their extensive hinterlands are very congested.

The new arrangements will exacerbate such difficulty and the EIS acknowledges that the project will adversely affect local traffic movement. Relatively minor works to the local road system namely two roundabouts at Floods Cross and on the R445 and improvement works to the narrow route connecting these two points should be incorporated into the overall project. Without these works traffic flows on the motorway would be at the expense of conditions on the local road network. The remainder of the submission addresses these matters in more detail.

Harry and Maura Coyle The objection is based on the impact on the health and welfare and the amenities of the observer’s dwellinghouse at Newhall. Noise is already at an unacceptable level and will be exacerbated including during the 24-36 month construction phase.

The existing access and roadway to the Coyle’s was provided as part of the upgrade of road schemes in the area and is extremely dangerous and difficult to egress, is inadequate by reason of lack of lighting and footpaths.

An enclosed site map shows the existing land uses on the Coyle property. An application to have that land re-zoned was refused.

We are unable to locate Site Notice positions on the drawings.

The option to relocate J10 further west should have been examined.

No alternative construction compound location appears to have been considered. This should have been addressed after completion of the EIS.

From the submission of Bertie and Gertie Coyle and the conclusions of the Trafficwise report that the forecast increase in traffic flows along the R445 and the M7 are significantly underestimated, other impacts such as noise and vibration are underestimated.

No noise mitigation measures are proposed along the R445 where traffic flows will increase by more than 50%, which is not reflected in the EIS. The EIS is inadequate.

The market analysis is inadequate and unconvincing. The high level roundabout and the associated works to J10 will devastate residential amenities. Table 11.6 relating to the equine landholding should have a ‘high’ baseline rating.

There is no analysis on the residential properties in the Material Assets section. The five houses in the Coyle family have suffered profound and cumulative impacts on their amenities with the site leading to a profound impact.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 101

The LVIA does attempt to properly deal with the impact on the Coyle’s property. It notes cumulative impacts, which would be of high significance and adverse. However, the mitigation measures are minimalistic.

In terms of noise impacts the report of Karl Searson indicates that the client’s property is blighted. The position of station S03e has resulted in noise levels for that location being understated. The appropriate location for monitoring would have been at R25 and R26. There is no reference in the report to the serious impact the road infrastructure from the 1990s has had on the Coyle’s house. The ever increasing noise on these residents in this area should have been addressed.

The report of TMS identifies many issues with regard to the Air Quality section of the EIS. It is evident that the Coyle families will not be able to remain living here during construction will have to be re-housed which is a profound impact.

The Coyles were ignored in the consideration of cumulative impacts.

If permission is granted conditions should be attached requiring the re-location of the compound, prohibiting night-time working, agreement with the observers relating to additional noise mitigation measures, a revised access road and cycleway to be completed prior to commencement of the Scheme and all proposed works to be agreed with the observer prior to commencement.

Joe and Karen Evans The low hedge to the rear of our house needs to be replaced with a wall in order to protect us from impacts arising from the construction of the water collection and storage area. The latter will directly impact us by overlooking and loss of privacy and will result in undesired access and loss of security to our residence. The water storage area would pose a threat to our children and attract rodents.

Kerry Group Services International Ltd The client received permission for a Global Technology and Innovation Centre in Millennium Park and also have an interest in lands to the north-east proximate the existing Osberstown Pond. The new facility will create 800 permanent jobs.

Progression of the Osberstown Interchange is of particular importance to Kerry Group. The concurrent construction of both schemes is critical to the successful operation of the facility. A situation where the proposed Osberstown Interchange does not commence until such time as the M7 upgrade works are completed is entirely untenable to the Kerry Group.

Mary Coyle The observer states that she resided at that location since 1963 and raised her 5 children there. The road developments have decimated the value of her home and caused significant stress. The objections in this case partly overlap with other submissions by members of the extended Coyle family, which object on the basis of

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 101 impact on daily life, family life, noise pollution, pollution from increased traffic and stress. There is also concern in relation to disruption to horses due to increased noise and dust and interruption to electricity and water.

Flooding is getting progressively worse and has been caused by water flowing off the Newbridge to Naas dual carriageway (R445). Part of the flooding of the stables is related to water from the adjoining lands and was caused by poor workmanship and inadequate supervision of accommodation works.

Conditions are required in relation to the relocation of the contractor’s compound, no night-time working, agreement relating to noise mitigation measures and their timing, revised access road and cycleway to be completed prior to commencement of the scheme, all works to be agreed, existing surface water flowing into the driveway to be immediately diverted.

Old Abbey Manor Residents Association The objection to the scheme is based on the noise experienced by residents of the estate which is 200m from the road and the manner in which if affects quality of life. Any increase in traffic will further degrade that quality of life as will construction phase works. Under the Kildare Noise Action Plan 2013 the estate was identified as being affected by the proposed scheme. Further action is required to properly manage additional environmental noise that will be generated on completion of the scheme. The conditions of Planning Reg. Ref. 03/2515 included the erection of a noise barrier which if installed as discussed at a meeting of 21 st January would allow us to remove these objections.

Oral and Trevor Nuzum and others of Caragh Road The EIS and the NRA acknowledge that a range of noise levels for a large potion of locations are already above the NRA noise design goal for new road. The nature of the acoustic barrier is queried including whether it is proposed to be absorptive or reflective and what is its performance testing rating. The height should be increased to 2.5m in line with other sections of the road and the length extended to Ch8+850 to protect the Nuzum from a northerly direction.

The upgrade is not objected to but we wish to ensure protection of our family from further potential noise impacts noise impacts and to ensure that the house remains a safe, healthy and pleasant place to live.

Brendan and Carol Carton (Observation active on 21 st July 2014) The Cartons state that they have owned the land since the 1990s and are very upset to be included in a CPO involving publication of their names in newspapers 9. The

9 It was clarified during the hearing that the inclusion of the Carton’s plot 101a.101 in the CPO was for ‘completion of the land acquisition process from a previous scheme’. The plot includes part of the existing M7.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 24 of 101

EIS is stated to under-estimate the forecasted increase in traffic flows and following from that it underestimates impacts such as noise and vibration, air quality and human beings and the impact on our property. No noise measurements were undertaken at that property and the noise barriers proposed will be totally inadequate. Raising of barriers to a height of 4.5 minimum and provision of a mound of clay along the motorway edge together with works to the house would help to mitigate the adverse impacts. Additional and adequate landscaping is required including by reason of the location close to the canal. Night-time working will have a profound impact and should be prohibited.

Brendan and Gertie Coyle A submission on behalf of Brendan and Gertie Coyle notes that this is the 5 th CPO in respect to these lands. This level of impact is not justifiable and is disproportionate and a breach of the rights. Relocation of Junction 10 further to the west would have been a more viable option. The onus is on the acquiring authority to demonstrate that a lesser objective was not sufficient to achieve the purpose of the acquisition.

The reasons for objecting set out are summarised as relating to cumulative impacts of successive schemes which has impacted on mental health and on the farm holding. The surrounding roads have given rise to excessive noise levels. Lack of supervision of accommodation works has lead to increased flooding in the area. Of particular concern are cumulative impacts of lighting and the serious disruption for the construction phase due to night-time working and the location of the construction compound. There schemes have left inadequate vehicular access and pedestrian access to these lands and continuing impacts on residential amenities. In relation to the EIS it is noted that there is no assessment of human beings and that there is inadequate assessment of the property in relation to material assets, noise, air quality and traffic.

The enclosed reports prepared by consultants Trafficwise, Fanning French, Karl Searson Associates and TMS Environmental Consultant Ltd describe these matters in considerable detail.

A personal submission refers to the fact that the Naas Bypass was the first motorway constructed outside Dublin and that nobody knew what to expect and no sound barriers were erected. Acquisitions have occurred since the 1950s. Photographs enclosed show flooding on the carriageway and in the Coyle lands.

In relation to the alternatives considered further analysis of interchange locations and the location of the construction compound should have been undertaken. The LVIA notes the cumulative effect of the various interventions on the Coyles property. However mitigation measures are minimalistic. There is a need for a noise barrier to the front.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 25 of 101

If permission is granted the Coyles require relocation of the compound, no night-time working, additional noise measures, revised access road and cycleway to the holding, a revised drainage scheme and that all works are agreed prior to commencement.

Catherine Morrin Mrs Morrin’s objection is based on the impact the development will have on her house and 43 acres of land, which are at the proposed Newhall Interchange on the Newbridge side. Plots 103B.201 and 103A.402 refer. The impacts are summarised under the headings of reduced area of land by 6%, loss of shelter, angulation, noise, air pollution, litter, loss of privacy, loss of amenity, drainage, light impacts, all due to the location of the proposed Newhall Interchange.

Edward Kinirons The subject lands at Jigginstown are at the heart of a commercial area on the main southern entrance to Naas – the lands are close to the existing Newhall interchange and are bounded to the north by the M7 and to the south by the western distributor road. The lands were zoned in the draft county plan but not in the final plan although all the surrounding lands were zoned retail. There is a roundabout and spur to the property to the northern boundary of the holding off the western distributor road.

The land to be purchased would be used for attenuation. There is presently no fixed timeframe for delivery of the proposed upgrade and the government has not commented on when the new junction is to be delivered or if at all. The constructed spur off the western distributor road has impeded drainage at the site and caused water retention. A temporary construction phase access to the attenuation area is proposed but no permanent wayleave and the possible development of the lands prior to the scheme being constructed is not considered. The spur to the northern boundary could be an alternative access route to the proposed land take. Compensation should be appropriate including for delays and damage to crops.

The sluice gate to the north of the M7 is on a small stream which is an overflow from the Grand Canal and the sluice gate is constantly closed resulting in flooding. The stream is culverted under the M7 about 1km south. In order to alleviate flooding the sluice gate needs to be removed. A copy of a planning scheme submitted to the local authority appeared to be acceptable in principle but as the lands required for the motorway were unknown the scheme was not pursued. Variation of the current development plan is now required due to the surrounding context.

Gerald and Shauna Kehoe The family home is 160m north of the M7 at 1 st Lock of the canal and bounding Osberstown Road. A crèche built by them is on adjacent lands. During construction of the Naas Bypass in 1984 a 750mm surface water outfall pip was laid from the central median of the carriageway to a watercourse at the rear of their property. This floods annually. The wayleave is to be compulsorily acquired now. The design of

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 26 of 101 the attenuation pond is based on greenfield discharge which is not reasonable as the outfall is to a watercourse that has a history of flooding. The outfall watercourse serves Naas and is an overflow from the canal. A box culvert of inadequate size carries the water under Osberstown Road and is inadequate for the additional burden of the surface water from the motorway. The effects of the discharge from the attenuation pond on the clients home and business needs to be considered.

In relation to noise the 60dBL den which is to be applied derives from a 2004 standard but the requirements of the 2013 Safety Health and Welfare at Work Regulations allow only 55dBL den and 44 dBL den at night. Staff and children are required to be protected under those Regulations. The sound level meter S02-d and S01-f were at sheltered locations and did not give true readings – the southern gable of the clients house would have been suitable. Although the 60L den level was breached at that location there is no proposal to alleviate this problem.

The wayleave is incorrectly shown and there is no need for a wayleave width of up to 25m for a pipe that is 1.5m deep.

John Kehoe This refers to a plot owned by Dr John Kehoe which is to the north of the M7 and south of Osberstown Cottages. A portion of land was acquired in 1984 and a 750mm surface water outfall pip from the median was land from the carriageway to a drain on the western boundary of the land. The Council now wishes to acquire land for the construction of an attenuation pond and a wayleave of up to 25m wide over the pipe. The attenuation pond would be better at the north-eastern boundary in terms of less intrusion on the farm. Fencing is unclear as is the size of the pond and details of any temporary working area. The way leave line is not on the actual line of the surface water pipe and the line should be amended by the Board so that it runs along the surface water pipe and along the boundaries to the north and east.

Origin Enterprises Ltd The time for inspection of the documents was limited by closure of the offices of the Councils over Christmas. The need for construction of the bypass is not demonstrated. The extent of lands to be purchased is excessive particularly the extensive green belt which averages 100m. The request should be annulled or the Council instructed to review it to minimise the extent of lands to be compulsorily purchased in order to mitigate the impact and reduce the compensation due.

ORAL HEARING Overview The hearing was held in Hotel Keadeen, Newbridge and commenced on 23 rd May 2014 and ran for under three days concluding on 6 th June.

The following parties were in attendance for at least part of the hearing :

Representations on behalf of Kildare County Council

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 27 of 101

Mr Declan McGrath, SC

Mr Jim Thorpe, Engineering

Mr Philip Shiels, Traffic

Mr Joe Kelly, Project Manager

Mr Michael Kenny, Acting Director of Services, Kildare County Council

Mr Simon Clear, Planning

Mr Andrew Warwick, EIS Overview and Appropriate Assessment

Ms Jennifer Harmon, Noise and Vibration

Dr Edward Porter, Air and Climate

Mr Richard Butler, Landscape and Visual

Mr John Bligh, Material Assets

Dr Conon Quinlan, Hydrogeology

Mr Eoin Cullinane, Hydrology

Mr Paul Murphy, Ecology

Ms Faith Bailey, Archaeology, Architecture and Cultural Heritage

Prescribed Bodies

Dr Browne representing An Taisce

Ms Loughman representing Health Services Executive

Observers

Mr Brendan and Ms Carol Carton represented by Maguire and Associates

Ms Mary Coyle represented by Maguire and Associates and Coughlan White and Partners

Mr and Ms Brendan and Gertie Coyle represented by Maguire and Associates and Coughlan White and Partners

Mr Harry and Maura Coyle represented by Maguire and Associates and Coughlan White and Partners

Kerry Group Services International Ltd represented by Brock McClure

Ms Annette and Mr Ciaran Parker and others

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 28 of 101

Mr Peter Sweetman

Day 1 I opened the hearing with some preliminary comments relating to the nature of the proposal and the manner in which it was proposed to run the hearing. I called out the names of the parties who had made written submission to the hearing and queried whether it was intended that they would make submissions.

Note : The hearing was recorded and the recording is on file. The foregoing is a summary of the proceedings which is intended to assist the Board in the identification of relevant sections in the recordings.

Opening Comments Ms Whyte requested that the applicant be directed to include some of her other clients into the CPO as these parties are affected by the scheme but have no rights to negotiate. She noted that the Coyle families will be affected by twelve months construction works and since the 1950s have been subject of four CPOs. She cited the measures available under Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. Mr McGrath noted that this was relevant to compensation but not to matters before the Board 10 .

Mr Maguire requested an adjournment on the basis that there was late receipt of information. I noted that the information had been available for a week and suggested that the applicant summarise the new information as an aid to reading.

The applicant presented a number of number of errata to the EIS and noted in particular that the EIS had over-estimated the construction traffic.

Applicant’s submission Mr Thorpe outlined the background to the scheme including the alternatives considered to address congestion on the M7 and at Newhall Interchange. This section of the M7 is one of the country’s most important and busiest routes. He described the M7 and the ongoing works at Newlands Cross.

The M7 combined with the M9 traffic result in traffic levels north-east of Great Connell of 60,000 11 vehicles per day; the design capacity of the dual 2-lane motorway is 55,000. Regular congestion is experienced. Capacity problems at Newhall exacerbate congestion and safety problems as traffic queues onto the motorway.

10 Ms Whyte’s clients the Coyles subsequently withdrew their objections.

11 40,000 vehicles per day from the M7 approaching Great Connell is joined by 20,000 from the M9. Further along the M7 traffic joining from north-east of Naas results in 70,000 at Newlands Cross where there are three lanes either direction.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 29 of 101

The scheme will remove this significant bottleneck by mobilising the reserve capacity that was designed into the earlier Naas and Droichead Nua Bypass Schemes from 1983 and 1994, both of which include a wide median for this purpose.

Smarter Travel objectives to encourage modal shift to public transport are relevant especially as it relates to buses; buses rely on a congestion free road network.

The NTA policies recognise the importance of the road network within a multi-modal mix of transport solutions. When considering the objective of addressing congestion at a pinch point the alternatives to be considered are those that improve traffic flows.

The consequences of ‘do nothing’ in terms of road safety, congestion, impacts on the local road network and suppression of economic development are outlined and this option is rejected under the relevant common appraisal criteria. Section 3.11 concerns demand management and notes that if fiscal measures are to reduce rather than divert demand they would need to be applied across the zone of influence of the road under construction, in this case over the entire south and south-west of the country. Other alternatives considered including hard shoulder running and a new route were discussed.

Mr Shiels presented the traffic analysis . The evidence presented on the existing traffic levels noted that the motorway is presently operating at a Level of Service E, that its capacity at a Level of Service D of 55,000 AADT is well exceeded, that flows above 2,200 vehicles per hour occur at the morning peak flow and that queues of over 450m have been observed during peak hours at Newhall Interchange.

The basis for modelling and traffic forecasting is described in sections 3 and 4. Predicted impacts are in section 5. Traffic forecasting for the year 2030 and based on a Do-minimum Scenario (no upgrade) traffic on the M7 is forecast to increase by up to 21% leading to increased use of local roads, increased journey times and safety concerns.

With the scheme in place the traffic flows on the M7 are forecast to increase to over 68,000 AADT which would be catered for by the three lane carriageway. Traffic would be diverted back from local roads. A map indicating the sections of roads experiencing traffic increases and decreases was presented.

Options for upgrading Newhall Interchange were assessed using a micro-simulation model. Upgrading of the interchange alone was demonstrated not to resolve the safety issues associated with queuing back onto the M7 carriageway. A new interchange was deemed necessary.

The new interchange alone would not resolve the capacity problem on the M7 mainline carriageway and widening is required. Scheme benefits include a reduction in fatalities by 11 persons over 30 years.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 30 of 101

Additional models were constructed to consider cumulative impacts of the M7 and the OISB. The cumulative impact is an increase in traffic on the M7 mainline between the M7/M9 and Maudlins Interchanges as a quantity of traffic which previously used Newhall and Maudlins Interchanges to access Naas and Sallins remains on the M7 and accesses these areas via the Osberstown Interchange.

Operation of Osberstown Interchange and R407 Sallins Bypass prior to the widening of the M7 would lead to increased demand on the M7 mainline by up to 10% and therefore cannot be phased in that manner.

An assessment was also made of the OISB and its impact on the existing Newhall Interchange. OISB would reduce queuing at the existing eastbound off-ramp at Newhall but significant queuing would still occur.

Mr Shiels responded to specific submissions including by the provision of a Technical Note which responded to the submission of Trafficwise presented on behalf of Brendan Coyle and Gertrude Coyle 12 .

Mr Thorpe noted that the scheme is also required in view of the obligations arising from TEN-T network. Mr Thorpe noted the submissions from the Garda Chief Superintendent in Naas, Bus Eireann and the Irish Road Haulage Association.

Mr Joe Kelly set out the detailed nature of the works along each section of the route 13 . Mr Kelly responded also to a number of the observers’ submissions. He acknowledged in particular the impact on the Coyle family and that the scheme comes in a succession of schemes that have impacted this family. Detailed comments were also made in response to the submissions by land owners, the National Transport Authority and others. Mr Kelly confirmed his opinion that the lands outlined are required for the purposes of the scheme. The acquisition of lands from the Coyles was noted to be restricted to one property and was needed for the safe operation of the new interchange. The impact of construction traffic which had also been raised by the Coyles was discussed. The scheme was concluded to have benefits in itself and to facilitate the OISB which could not otherwise proceed.

Mr Kenny confirmed his agreement with the considerations and conclusions set out in Chapter 2 of the EIS in relation to the scheme being in compliance with county and local planning policies . The scheme is in accordance with relevant plans, is in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and does not materially affect any planning permissions. The lands are necessary and required for the purposes of the scheme.

12 Trafficwise had identified alleged deficiencies in the applicant’s consideration including of the traffic levels on the road near the Coyles’ property.

13 Much of the information presented is incorporated in the Description of Development in this report.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 31 of 101

Mr Clear provided a detailed presentation on the strategic national, regional and local planning context of the proposed development including an examination of land use, local planning issues, socio-economic and cumulative effects. The strategic importance of motorways as public transport corridors was noted.

The scheme is in fulfilment of the delivery of infrastructure identified in a range of policies and strategies and with allocated funding for the planning procurement stage in the National Development Plan investment programme as amended in 2010.

The scheme delivers on Smarter Travel which highlights that roads will continue to be the main source of transport for people and goods and that the efficient movement of goods is vital for competitiveness and economic welfare.

The scheme supports the Department of Transport Statement of Strategy and the identified key focus areas of maintaining and improving road and public transport infrastructure, improving the experience of public transport and decreasing accidents.

The National Transport Authority draft Transportation Strategy was referenced as identifying the network of strategic roads for the GDA to provide reliable journey times for longer distance travel by road particularly for goods and freight.

The Draft Integrated Implementation Plan for the GDA 2013 -2018 refers to the allocation of investment in public transport which will be facilitated by the improvements along the M7 for bus travel.

The proposal will provide the opportunity to improve connections between the economic zone in Naas and the Sallins train station.

The project is required and justified in the context of planning policy and national guidance and investment programmes.

Mr Warwick provided an Introduction to the EIS . The primary direct physical impact of the scheme is the loss of the grass median and as a result of the four attenuation ponds and the new interchange. These are not significant impacts from an environmental assessment perspective.

The more significant effect which could arise would be those impacts which could affect people living close by in particular by reason of noise, air quality and visual impacts during both construction and operation. Noise is the primary issue as confirmed by the submissions.

Due to the nature of the scheme no significant earthworks are required and the impact on soils and geology is not significant.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 32 of 101

There is no increased or new community severance and the scheme will have positive economic benefits. Users of the existing interchange will be required to detour to access the new interchange.

Waste arising and use of resources are not significant.

At the proposed Newhall Interchange the requirement to maintain safe sightlines for drivers existing the new southbound off slip dictated the position of the noise barrier at that location and narrowed the strip to the rear of the noise barrier which is available for planting to mitigate visual impacts.

Potential cumulative impacts with OISB were addressed through consultation with the other design team. The most significant cumulative effect is the relief of traffic provided by OISB to the Newhall and Maudlins Interchanges.

Mr Warwick handed in a number of plans pertaining to the regulation of the construction phase of the scheme.

In her submission on Noise and Vibration Ms Harmon referred to application of guidelines.

The NRA 2004 Guidelines, if they were applicable, would require only that existing noise levels are not increased by more than 1dB.

There are no relevant guidelines for upgrading of existing roads. The NRA guidance is applicable to the construction phase and a maximum limit of 70dBL Aeq,1hr and lower are set out.

For night-time working best practice is BS 5228. The night-time noise level criteria are in the range 45 to 55 dB LAeq , which can be achieved.

Existing noise levels range between 56 and 74dB L den . The Kildare Local Authorities Noise Action Plan (KLANAP) specifies noise threshold levels for determining areas where noise management and / or mitigation should be prioritised and this forms the basis for noise mitigation as part of the scheme. Threshold values are thus

57dBL night and 70dBL den .

Due to the minor change in traffic flows traffic noise levels for the Do nothing and Do Something scenarios are similar. Notwithstanding the neutral impact of the scheme it is considered to present an opportunity to address the existing and future traffic noise levels. Assessment against the KLANAP thresholds indicated that the majority of assessment locations do not exceed the 70dB L den threshold but one third exceed the 57dBL den threshold value. The assessment is based on the medium growth traffic figures but has also been sensitivity tested for the high growth scenario which confirms that residential levels remain below the assessment criteria in that case.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 33 of 101

A cumulative impact assessment undertaken with the operation of the OISB scheme has also confirmed the appropriateness of the mitigations measures. The impact of the scheme is neutral and with mitigation residual impact is positive.

Dr Porter presented the air quality and climate impact assessment . Utilising EPA data to characterise the baseline environment and the UK DMRB air dispersion model Dr Porter reported that the predicted concentrations of CO, benzene, NO 2, PM 10 and PM 2.5 were below respective limits at all potential worst case receptors.

The increase in CO 2 emissions from the development is described as insignificant in terms of national emissions and agreed limits thus the impact on climate is negligible.

The NO x emissions was assessed for the Grand Canal and the increase is predicted to be under 1% of the critical load for inland and surface water habitats.

Section 6 of the brief addressed construction phase dust emissions in detail in response to the submissions. The Coyles’ residences were deemed to require robust mitigation measures.

Cumulative impacts were considered and were deemed to have a negligible effect on air quality and climate.

Mr Butler presented a landscape and visual impact assessment of the scheme. The existing landscape is identified as being of low landscape sensitivity and tolerant to change. The motorway is a landscape features of substantial scale but is relatively enclosed from its surroundings and the proposed alterations in the wider landscape context represent a negligible to low magnitude of landscape change. Pockets of higher sensitivity include the lands occupied by the Coyle properties.

Impacts which arise are limited to a very small number of receptors but there is a heightened sensitivity as a result of accumulated impacts over a long period.

During the construction phase there would be higher magnitude of change. During the operational phase visual reference points experience some change to views as a result of the noise barriers in particular and in time these will be screened by planting. A very limited number of receptors experience more significant impacts and options for mitigation are discussed in detail.

Residual impacts would not be of sufficient significance to warrant restriction of the scheme and the proposed development would not constitute an inappropriate change in the landscape. In relation to cumulative impacts there is no location in the landscape from which both this scheme and the OISB scheme could be seen.

Mr Bligh made a presentation on Material Assets noting that the scheme will include permanent acquisition of 9.611 hectares of agricultural lands and 0.430 hectares of non-agricultural properties. The proposed interchange and the

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 34 of 101 attenuation ponds will directly impact on seven agricultural and three other properties. Landtake does not result in farm fragmentation or direct impacts on farm buildings or facilities.

Drainage proposed will address surface water which currently contributes to flooding of land. A range of mitigation measures are set out including a property condition survey for two houses and provisions for ducting, fences and placement of services. The residual impact on agricultural property will be slight or moderate at a total of seven farm holdings and slight and significant on three other properties.

Day 2 The applicant’s submission continued with Dr Quinlan on Hydrogeology . Under the ‘Do Nothing’ scenario there would likely be greater fluctuation in summer water table levels as a result of climate change. A reduction in ground water quality during the construction phase, a reduced risk to groundwater from accidental spillage and potential reduction in groundwater body status with regard to water quantity are identified as indirect impacts.

As there is no dewatering requirement it is impossible for the water volumes in the Curragh aquifer to be altered by this scheme as a result of groundwater extraction or dewatering. Under the most conservative assessment there will be no temporary or permanent impact on groundwater levels at the site and therefore no impact on the hydrological regime at Pollardstown Fen.

Mr Cullinane reported on Hydrology and in particular the impact on the 16 no. culverts, which are retained and the culvert at Newhall, which will be extended.

Construction phase risks to the Liffey and Morell rivers are of moderate significance. The installation of spillage controls and vegetated treatment or hydrocarbon interceptors at each of 14 no. existing outfall from the motorway drainage network will reduce risk to watercourses.

A short-term increased risk of flooding of the carriageway and downstream during replacement of elements of the drainage network is of minor significance. The potential increased risk of flooding upstream of the existing culvert under the R445 is a possible direct impact of the extension of the culvert. The upstream channel will be improved and a secondary flow path through a fish pass culvert will be provided. At three existing outfalls where there is a history of flooding ponds will be installed.

The existing sluice gate referred to by an observer prevents flooding of downstream regulates low flows and cannot be removed. However the fish pass culvert will provide a secondary path for flood flows at this location.

Mr Warwick provided an overview of the Habitats Directive Assessment Screening Report . He referred to the Natura 2000 sites within 15km of the scheme.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 35 of 101

Mouds Bog SAC has no hydrological connection. Pollardstown Fen SAC is fed by and relies on springs. The scheme is not within the groundwater catchment and does not include any cuts or dewatering and there will be no impact on the springs, on the Curragh Aquifer or otherwise on the SAC.

The scheme will have no effect on Mouds Bog or Pollardstown Fen. Red Bog SAC, Ballynafagh Bog SAC and Ballynafagh Lake SAC are all over 8.5km away are not impacted directly and there is no hydrological connection. There will be no effect on the bird populations of Poulaphouca Reservoir SPA 11km away.

There is no potential for in-combination effects arising from OISB.

Mr Murphy presented evidence on Ecology . He noted that the Screening Report for Appropriate Assessment was prepared in the context of best scientific knowledge and that there is no doubt about its conclusion that there will be no impact whatsoever on any Natura 2000 site.

There is a risk to water quality in the Grand Canal during construction and operation of the scheme. The works at Newhall Interchange will include fish passage facilities and is a positive impact. Potential impacts on aquatic species due to deterioration in water quality during construction are readily avoided. Attenuation and treatment of run-off will improve water quality.

Mammals remain potentially impacted by road-kill which will be addressed by new fencing and repair of upgrading of existing fencing resulting in reduced mortality risk.

Residual impacts on water quality and aquatic species, on mammals and on fish passage are positive. Use of pesticides now complies with the HSE submission.

Ms Bailey made a submission on Archaeological, Architectural and Cultural Heritage . Potential impacts are identified including on possible fulachta fiadh at Newhall and Jigginstown, on the site of a railway and on the setting of a ringfort. DAHG approves the proposed mitigation measures.

In response to queries which arose during the presentations on behalf of the applicant the following documents were presented to the hearing :

- EIA screening report dated October 2011 - EIA scoping document dated June 2013 - Phase 3 Design Coast Benefit Analysis Report November 2013 - Project Appraisal Guidelines Unit 5.3 Traffic Forecasting January 2011 - A submission from An Taisce to the KCDP dated June 2010 - A subsequent letter dated 2 nd February from An Taisce - A letter to Kildare NRO relating to the planned improvement of Ladytown Junction.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 36 of 101

Observers’ submissions Dr Browne representing An Taisce questioned the applicant .

Mr McGrath noted that there is no statutory obligation for the EIA screening report to be made available to the public. The EIA scoping report was issued for comment to the consultees listed in table 1.2 of the EIS.

In relation cyclists and pedestrian access Mr Clear referred to the national cycling plan. Route K15 Naas to Monasterevin should not be impeded.

Mr Clear stated that the Department had confirmed that the NSS will be reviewed but has not been abandoned. Mr Clear noted that his brief refers to the key challenge of protecting investment in the road network and that he quoted as he considered necessary from policies. Dr Browne queried if Mr Clear was aware that specific schemes are mentioned as priorities and that this scheme is not on that list.

In relation to the key challenge of protecting past investment and the economic justification of this scheme Mr Clear noted that the key importance of this scheme had been set out in terms of its strategic importance and congestion which arises.

Mr Thorpe noted that the CBA calculations were for the NRA. Dr Browne noted that confidentiality should not relate to the benefits of the scheme and that this is relevant for reason of the stated economic benefits. Mr Thorpe noted the primary benefits which he had outlined. Mr Shiels noted that the Department of Transport Common Appraisal Framework 2009 was the basis. Mr Sweetman noted the Aarhus Convention included consideration of cost benefit and other economic analysis used in environmental decision making. If the CBA is not submitted it is a review point.

Dr Browne noted that when policies are cited and cost benefits stated it would be reasonable to allow for this to be interrogated. The new EIA Directive will require that costs are assessed.

Dr Browne returned to the reduction in accident figures calculated over the 30 year period. Mr Shiels noted use of the RSA database. The difference between the current and projected rate would feed into the CBA. Mr Thorpe noted that the volume of traffic increases only slightly. If the congestion is removed the accident rate should revert to the national average. Total savings over the 30 year appraisal is 11 lives saved and that this informed the benefits of the scheme.

In relation a question on Smarter Travel Mr Clear stated that the scheme does not impede the objective relating to accessibility including by improving the bus service reliability. It is not necessary to make public transport more attractive by making private cars less attractive. At national level assessments bus is seen to be giving a better return than rail and improving the commuter system and developing more residential development around railway stations appears to be the way forward.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 37 of 101

In terms of commuters from Kildare to Dublin the capacity on the rail system is a different consideration. Long term bus routes are a separate matter. The scheme is part of the national road infrastructure. Its focus is not on moving local traffic. Mr Shiels noted that the local network is being clogged by traffic and that it is important to pull traffic back onto the motorway so that access to rail stations is facilitated.

Dr Browne queried whether commuting traffic and associated modal splits had been assessed. Mr Shiels provided information on that matter noting that 30% is all modes other than private car from Kildare county according to the CSO.

Dr Browne noted pages 26 and 28 of Smarter Travel stated that commuting by car was to be reduced to 45% and that Kildare has a higher modal split by car to Dublin than other counties. How does the scheme align with that goal he queried? Mr Thorpe stated that it is not being stated that this scheme targets that objective but is part of a multi-modal approach and is playing its part within the overall policy document set out under Smarter Travel and this scheme is specifically trying to address the goal of economic benefits and alleviating bottle necks. Dr Browne noted that the specific target for modal split had not been assessed and if it had been what impact that would have on the economic assessment of the scheme?

Mr Thorpe noted that the motorway network is primarily there for long-distance traffic. 60% of all of the traffic using this section of the road does not get beyond the M50 and has a destination along the M7 corridor based on the National Transport Model. The NTM takes into account a capped level of car ownership and the objectives of Smarter Travel.

Mr Clear noted that the RPGs require setting of targets for planning for infrastructure including growth in all regions and regardless of modal shift that population and the wish to increase economic activity will have to be accommodated. In 2011 0.8 million lives on the city side of the M50 and 1 mill outside in the GDA and those who live inside have a lower car ownership ratio. Government policy will result in the city being strengthened, which will shift the mode anyway. This is an inter-urban connector he stated, while undoubtedly there are commuters on the motorway.

Dr Browne queried whether increasing housing prices will restrict that growth. Mr Clear noted the need for core strategies and the possibility of ‘use it or lose it’ zoning. Dr Browne again queried if the improvement of the road would increase the attractiveness for commuters. Mr Clear noted that this scheme was effectively considered 30 years ago when the median was constructed and the explanation for it is in terms of safety and capacity and that it will result in safety and economic benefits. It may be a by-product that commuters will be attracted onto the road but that the fact that a considerable amount of car travel on the road is long-distance and is for economic purposes also needs to be considered.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 38 of 101

Mr Thorpe noted that it is important that Smarter Travel includes a national strategy and that investment in buses will be important in the future and that it is important that the motorway network be free-flowing in this regard. Mr Desmond queried if there are any specific proposals to improve the service on that network and the answer was none in particular. Dr Browne noted the inherent disadvantage of buses in terms of speed. Mr Thorpe noted that most of the buses on the motorway are the long distance buses and most of the local buses stay on the regional network.

Dr Browne referred again to the policies selected by Mr Clear and noted that for balance the Smarter Travel objectives could have been included. Mr Clear stated that he was not excluding them from consideration.

Dr Browne queried which of the alternatives listed in the EIS were considered and how it was concluded that the absence of an alternative route for car transport was a valid consideration. He suggested that supressing car travel should be considered. Mr Thorpe again referred to the specific project and that only access controls or charging on this section would be possible and that to throttle this part of the motorway would not change the overall policy of encouraging accessibility, it would be negative and would not be the proper answer. Tolling would be a national consideration, which cannot be dealt with on this section on a scheme specific basis.

Dr Browne noted that section 50 of the Roads Act does not require that consideration of alternatives is limited to feasible alternatives simply that the environmental effects of alternatives be considered. Mr McGrath stated that the legal requirement is to assess the main alternatives and that if an alternative is discounted at an early stage it is not subject to that consideration. Mr Thorpe noted that certain options were rejected at an early stage. Demand management was listed in the EIS as non-engineers might not consider that it was not a viable option, but it was never a main alternative.

Dr Browne noted the law on Appropriate Assessment and that the application as presented does not remove the obligation for the Board to carry out the screening exercise and that a NIS may yet be required.

Dr Browne asked questions of Mr Murphy relating to the nature of the surveys undertaken in the median reserve. Mr Murphy clarified that the ecological value of the median could be concluded from the overbridge surveys undertaken and that he frequently travels this and other roads and is familiar with their low ecological value.

After lunch Mr McGrath circulated a number of documents which had previously been requested or referenced. He referred to paragraph 1.11 of the Project Appraisal Guidelines which referred to the inclusion of the Smarter Travel objectives. The Cost Benefit Analysis circulated was noted to include commercially sensitive information.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 39 of 101

Dr Browne put further questions to Mr Thorpe in relation to the availability of the junction analysis and modelling information , which Mr McGrath confirmed were made available around the 16 th of May. Mr Sweetman noted that these documents were not notified for the information in public including his client on OISB.

The information referred to was described by the Inspector as information which supplements discussions ongoing at the hearing, that it was considered would benefit the hearing and did not require public notification. For that reason the documents received prior to the hearing were not subject of public notification.

Mr McGrath noted that the two schemes should not be mixed up and that Mr Sweetman’s client is associated with the other scheme. Mr Sweetman noted the other scheme cannot commence without the subject scheme and that project slicing arises and that all the effects including direct and cumulative are to be considered.

Dr Browne questioned Mr Shiels on the AADT across the entire scheme for the Do Minimum and the Do Something Schemes and whether the figures were aggregated. Mr Shiels noted there would be a 2 to 3 % increase as a result of the scheme. A systemic modelling of induced traffic and wider impacts and had not been undertaken.

Mr Shiels in response to a question on induced traffic noted that there are various types of induced traffic. Dr Browne quoted from an academic paper, which referred to induced traffic occurring on roads where improvements are made and in time benefits of schemes are eliminated. If that has not been taken into account the benefit of the scheme is altered.

Mr Shiels stated that there will be a level of induced traffic in terms of the diverted traffic but in terms of induced traffic related to modal share he noted that the scheme is only 13.5km upgrade and the likely mode share impacts from the Kildare route line in particular will tend to be minimal. Dr Browne questioned the long term and long distance commuting patterns. Mr Thorpe noted that the NTA sets the national policy and these issues relate to planning policy across the whole country and again he re- iterated the nature of the congestion on the inter-urban network. Whether we should have ever had a major inter-urban network is a matter for national policy. The NTA approves of the scheme.

Dr Browne notes the references in the EIS to construction routes and queried the quarries and landfills which will be used with reference to construction traffic. Mr Kelly referred to page 4.23 of the EIS in that regard.

Dr Porter in response to questions noted that the traffic and the speeds and their relationship to greenhouse gas production are all embedded in the model. He confirmed that there is an optimum speed of about 60-80 kph but emphasised that below 20 kph there is a dramatic increase in CO 2 production. Adding up congestion

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 40 of 101 and freeflow conditions does not equate to optimum conditions on average. Dr Porter confirmed that his conclusions would also be based on the traffic information presented, which was again confirmed not to include induced traffic. However, sensitivity testing undertaken for air and noise referenced the high growth scenario.

Dr Browne made a concluding statement at that time noting that the application is opposed on the basis of Smarter Travel. That document contains two high level targets, a reduction in private car travel, which will have to be especially high in the GDA to compensate for rural areas where there is no public transport and secondly no increase by 2020 in vehicle kilometers. By increasing the motorway network in the absence of strong land use planning and fiscal measures the scheme will lead to longer distance commuter travel and increased greenhouse gases.

This is the first scheme to come before the Board since Smarter Travel. The Board is referred to the research which notes effectively that traffic increases to fill the road space, a phenomenon which is well documented. The additional lane is conducive to induced traffic and increases in vehicle kilometers. Demand management measures were effectively discounted. Each individual application concludes that there will be negligible increase in greenhouse gas but in overall terms the dependency on motorised traffic is not conducive to limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The Board needs to consider in a strategic manner the consequences for transport planning, landuse planning and achievement of targets.

Mr McGrath was afforded an opportunity to respond and he referred to the submissions by An Taisce in support of the development plan, which included policy RP1 to proceed with the additional lanes as the need arises. Mr Browne noted that the submission was not an endorsement of the motorway policy, that it also referred to the problem of peak oil and that the thrust of the submission of An Taisce is not altered or diminished by the documents presented.

After a break Brock McClure made a submission on behalf of Kerry Group, an update on the written submission. The scheme under construction at Millennium Park will be the headquarters of the Global Technology and Innovation Centre. Currently while it is being constructed 400 persons are employed in other offices as an interim measure. The scheme has no negative environmental impacts and represents a critical infrastructure project in the context of the overall traffic and transportation network. The request is that the scheme be progressed efficiently.

The next submission was by Maguire and Associates on behalf of the Cartons . Mr Maguire pointed to a number of particular concerns relating to the EIS. He noted that the scheme is a national project and set out the requirements which are acknowledged in the EIS, including the undertaking of full air quality emissions.

He noted the absence of bat surveys and the impact on the Grand Canal, which is stated not to be affected by the scheme. Page 11-3 states that there will be no direct

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 41 of 101 impacts on houses and references the KLANAP and the absence of residual impacts. Chapter 12 refers to Human Beings and stated he had a difficulty in relation to the consideration of this matter. Amenity as presented in DMRB was described.

Mr Maguire questioned Dr Porter on the matter of air quality impacts. He noted that the cluster of housing by the Grand Canal are at similar distance from the houses at Newhall Interchange and questioned what site specific baseline studies were done for the receptors 11-15. Dr Porter noted that the EPA monitoring which has been undertaken for the last 15 years is applicable within the same zone throughout the country and thus there is no need for site specific monitoring. If such site specific monitoring were to be undertaken a one years period would be required. In addition the requirement is to identify baseline conditions at the years of opening.

Mr Maguire considered that this response to be extraordinary as it was identified earlier that there is potential for dust impacts within 200m and the houses are within 60m but no baseline has been undertaken. Mr Maguire referred to the need as set out in the NRA documents for monitoring for the construction phase.

Dr Porter stated that the construction phase and the operational phases have been both assessed. He noted that in 2002 an extensive study was undertaken by Trinity College funded by the EPA and the levels of relevant emissions was low and since then would have reduced. This is a straight piece of road and that from an air quality perspective problems would not be likely and this is confirmed by modelling.

Mr Maguire noted that there would be a capacity for a 50% increase in traffic. Dr Porter noted that there is a difference between the capacity and the number of vehicles. Mr Maguire questioned why then the road was needed. Mr Thorpe responded by identifying including on page 6-16 the 2030 flows and the small increases and noted that instead of the prolonged peak congestion there is movement of traffic. He stated that it’s a case of how you accommodate the traffic which is largely there.

Dr Porter noted that sometimes short-term site specific studies are undertaken but a three month period minimum would be required. Ten years ago more extensive monitoring would have been done. In relation to the nature of the modelling undertaken Dr Porter noted that the worst case scenario would be modelled. This would be based on the background data , assuming, as a conservative assumption that road is not there. This would be an over-estimation as the EPA data will have a road traffic influence. Then the air quality impacts of the road traffic is modelled based on traffic levels, composition etc. based on the DMRB.

Mr Maguire stated that site specific baseline studies should be done and if necessary added by condition of the permission. Dr Porter in response added that the assessment is robust and all receptors are within the relevant standards.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 42 of 101

Mr Maguire questioned how the observers would not be impacted during the construction phase. Dr Porter noted that as this is an existing paved road and there will be no extensive new build at these particular receptors, the mitigation measures are robust. Watering of the road as required for example would give 80% reduction in dust emissions and reduction in vehicle speed is also very relevant for unpaved road and these measures are in the Schedule of Commitments.

Dr Porter noted that assessment of the impact on eco-systems is for the operational phase and for NO x, which has been modelled for the Grand Canal.

Mr Maguire referred to guidance which outlines a minimum requirement for a 3 month monitoring period. Dr Porter would agree that if baseline is to be monitored then 3 months is required. But if adequate representative baseline information is available and is below 75% of the limit values then the other approach is acceptable. Here, the baseline is generally below 50%.

Mr Sweetman noted the various road schemes in the area commencing in 1983 questioned whether the projections previously undertaken on the series of major road schemes were ever checked out and whether any monitoring had been undertaken. Dr Porter stated that the modelling has been deemed to be valid. Mr McGrath stated that this was not relevant. Mr Sweetman stated that the projection had always been that the road would be widened and the project is an extension of the Naas and Newbridge Bypass scheme and it is therefore very relevant that the EIS presented at that time was valid. Mr McGrath refuted the relevance of any previous predictions and did not propose to call any evidence on that matter.

Mr Sweetman stated that in that case the noise and air quality in both cases were required by the Board to comply with the EIS and there is no evidence that they complied with those conditions. There is also no evidence that they did not stated Mr McGrath.

Mr Sweetman questioned the proposed route for haulage of stone onto the site. Dr Porter noted that it had been assumed that the distance would average 20km and an assumed number of trucks per day, which is sufficient basis for the conclusions. He acknowledged lack of familiarity with road or the quarries but assumed that some are single lane road and the assessment is based on a worst case of 360 trucks per day.

There was more detailed discussion of Belgard quarry as a possible source of material and Mr Sweetman was advised that construction could start within 12 months of the hearing at most. Mr Sweetman noted that the possible source of material from Belgard would involve traversing Newlands Cross.

Because of the judgement on 50/09 all direct and indirect effects need to be considered and Mr Sweetman noted that the direct effects under discussion were not assessed. Mr McGrath stated that all of the effects were considered in the EIS. Mr Sweetman refuted this and continue to discuss a range of specific quarry sites noting

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 43 of 101 that a number of them have planning issues and that the only one which could be used is Belgard. A similar set of arguments were made in relation to Kerdifstown and other sites where it is proposed in the EIS to dispose of waste.

Mr Kelly intervened and noted that the sites listed were taken from the EPA list. He stated that he has knowledge of some of these sites and that in view of the nature of the material some of it could be reused on site. Mr Sweetman queried where pavement material could be disposed of on site, if that was considered to be toxic. Mr Kelly stated that it would not considered to be toxic and that he had asked the NRA for comment on this matter.

Mr Thorpe referred to table 4.8 which he stated noted the quantities listed and that there is not massive amount of materials to be disposed of. Some of the material will be taken back and re-used to make new blacktop.

Mr Sweetman stated that direct effects had not been assessed in the EIS, that there would be a lot of trucks involved and they would be travelling on narrow local roads.

Mr Thorpe refuted that he had suggested that rail is inefficient but stated that to compete with bus it has to account for the access time to the railway station. He noted that CIE have indicated that they are supportive of measures which remove congestion from 2 no. two hour periods daily. All users on the corridor would benefit.

Mr Sweetman noted the stated savings which had been set out in the consideration of all road schemes over the decades and that it still takes longer to get to Dublin, in total 1 hour 45 minutes was saved. Mr McGrath noted that without those schemes journeys would take far longer. Mr Sweetman considered it would have been prudent to look at previous schemes.

There was discussion between Mr McGrath and Mr Sweetman in relation to EIA and exempted development and the question was posed as to whether there is a need for three stages rather than two namely a planning stage, to add to the EIA stage and the Habitats Directive stage. This is a matter Mr Sweetman he had not previously put to the Board.

Mr Sweetman stated that it had been concluded that 60% of traffic turns off by the M50 and queried how that figure was determined. Mr Shiels noted that the NTM provides the basis for a lot of the information and that traffic survey information was also presented. Mr Sweetman queried the inputs to the model and Mr Shiels confirmed that the model is embedded in the NTM and that the inputs and assumptions are in that model which uses NRA information. All of the traffic counters are on the mainline. Mr Thorpe noted that the NTM is fully calibrated based on NRA survey details and that more local information is based on surveys.

Mr Sweetman queried the number of buses which are delayed at present and asked also what towns to the south would benefit from the road being improved versus the

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 44 of 101 rail being improved. Mr Thorpe stated that all towns south and south-west of Naas are served by the scheme.

In relation to the proposed upgrade to the Heuston-Kildare additional rail track Mr Thorpe noted that different projects address different issues. Mr Sweetman noted the simultaneous construction of the Ennis road and parallel railway line and neither is reaching their predicted targets.

In relation to fatalities Mr Shiels noted that 5 were on the mainline. Mr Sweetman queried how many were related to congestion. Mr Thorpe noted that the fatalities are based on comparison between this road and other roads. Garda evidence is that peak hour accidents are the problem. Figure 6.1 of the CBA provides details.

Mr Sweetman queried if it had been considered to upgrade only one lane, noting that the congestion coming out of Dublin is directly related to issues at the location but that the congestion coming into Dublin acts as a deterrent and that the entire jam will be moved to the M50. Mr Thorpe noted however that only 60% of traffic reaches the M50.

Mr Sweetman referred to Table 4.1 of the M7 interchange capacity report (technical note 10) noting that the figures indicate induced traffic of 200 vehicles. Mr Thorpe stated that the confusion which arises is because the traffic continues onto the new Newhall Interchange but Mr Sweetman disagreed. He stated that there is a major economic argument for the westbound lane rather than the two lanes. Mr Thorpe stated that there is serious congestion in both directions.

Mr. Sweetman questioned Mr Murphy in relation to 3.4 of his submission that there is no hydrological connection between the site and Pollardstown Fen and the basis for that information. This is based on the information presented by the hydrogeologist, that there is no potential impact of any nature on the Curragh Aquifer.

Mr. Sweetman continued in response to a question relating to the catchment of the water supply for Pollardstown Fen. Without that information Mr Sweetman stated it could not be said that the development would not have an effect on the SAC and had referred to the advocate generals report 258/11 which requires that scoping relate to “capable of having an effect”.

Dr Quinlan in response to a question regarding the catchment for the tufa spring stated that did not have a map of the catchment. There are no cuts on the scheme, there is no dewatering and there will be no drain or change in ground water. The water table and the aquifer are not been affected and that there will be no change to the quantities, volumes or directions of ground water flow and that there will be no change to the flow of water towards the fen.

Dr. Quinlan referred to section 5.4 of his brief of evidence and noted that the reduction in groundwater recharge to that body is less than 0.001% and that less

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 45 of 101 than 2% is taken as having no significance and that it is therefore reasonable to state.

Dr. Quinlan stated that it was safe to say beyond a reasonable doubt that there would be no impact. Mr. Sweetman however stated that this was not part of the assessment in the screening.

Mr Sweetman queried what the reduction in level of the tufa springs has resulted due to the Kildare Bypass. Mr Murphy stated that the marginal drawdowns are not conclusively linked to the construction of the Kildare bypass. He noted the sensitivities of that Bypass scheme and the particular engineering measures undertaken. In view of the hydrogeology evidence it can be clearly concluded that as there is no cut there will be no significant effect. He noted that the drainage which is being affected by the removal of the medium strip is already directed through the existing drainage network, in the majority, and is not presently going to groundwater.

Mr Sweetman noted that Mr. Murphy had referenced the fact that we don’t know why the fen is lowering at the moment and that Dr. Quinlan had testified that 0.001% of recharge to the aquifer would be taken i.e. 1 / 10,000. Mr. Sweetman queried whether this tiny bit of loss could be ‘the straw that breaks the camel’s back’ in the absence of a full direct assessment of the fen, which has not been undertaken.

Dr. Quinlan referred to best practice guidance and that the magnitude of impact arising in this case would be deemed to be imperceptible. However Mr. Sweetman stated that such guidance is relevant to hydrological evidence but queried as to whether this was the best guidance in relation to the need for scientific certainty and he stated that there is a lacuna over this matter.

Mr Parker made a brief response to Ms Harmon’s submission. Referring to point 4 of his written submission which noted Lnight levels of 40dBA under the WHO guidelines to protect health and the predicted noise levels of 55dBA by 2030. He stated that Ms Harmon had not responded to that point.

Ms Harmon noted the L night figure is not achieved anywhere along the scheme due to the close proximity to a major road and that the WHO guidance is not statutory. Noise levels at R16 are the same or lower than those at other properties. She noted the request to extend the barriers but that the noise level would be the same as those at other receptors with the barriers in place.

Mr Parker noted that while 40dB may not be achievable the installation of a noise barrier would go some way in that direction. Ms Harmon noted that point but again re-iterated that the values from the local authorities were used and that the case of R16 is similar to others along the scheme.

In response to questions from the Inspector relating to the practice over the years and how it emerged that the Coyles for example were left not provided with barriers,

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 46 of 101

Ms Harmon noted that before the 2004 NRA guidance higher levels would have been allowable.

In relation to properties which exceed the assessment threshold criteria it is part of the noise action plan that the noise maps are re-assessed and that a matrix of assessment of hot spots e.g. along a major road and a cost benefit assessment undertaken. In the event that funding is available projects to mitigate noise will proceed.

Mr Maguire noted that all of the noise barriers will be timber or mesh and queried whether the low frequency noise from trucks can be reduced by block walls and why these are not proposed. Ms Harmon noted that the assessment stated that the barriers can be from a range of materials provided they conform to high standards and achieve the necessary criteria – the barriers are designed specifically to deal with road traffic noise. At speeds above 50kph low frequency noise is not such an issue as the high frequency noise takes over.

Mr Desmond questioned the applicant

Mr Shiels clarified that the NRA did not have a Variable Demand Model available at the time of development of the Local Area Model. Only the National Traffic Model , which is an Assignment Model was available hence this was used. This type of model he stated was does not take account of alternative transport modes in modal share and over time. However, he noted that Mr Thorpe and himself had referred to the fact that the impacts of Smarter Travel are incorporated.

Mr Desmond noted that the increased capacity provided by the scheme could allow for significant potential for commuter traffic and queried how the model takes account of that potential. There will be spare capacity of up to 600 cars per lane. Mr Shiels noted that the model takes into account only the traffic within the LAM that is diverted and does not take account of modal changes or new trips. However, due to its short length he considered that the likelihood of people switching modes to take account of the 12 minute peak hour time saving is limited. Modal choice is dictated by availability to public transport at either end of the trip including e.g. proximity to train stations noted Mr Thorpe.

In relation to the average lane occupancy and the spare capacity Mr Shiels referred to Table 4.1 of Technical note 10. The three lane sections of the N7 have the capacity to accommodate predicted demand. At the eastern end of the N7 the flows are largely unchanged with and without the scheme (84,550 trips versus 84,550).

Mr Desmond queried given the nature of the development proposed why the EIS didn’t include an assessment for the potential for adverse impacts on the various modes of public transport. Mr Thorpe stated that such analysis would be undertaken when looking at a new corridor as such routes would change the route patterns and

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 47 of 101 create new journey options that didn’t previously existing. The scheme is not seen as a significant new option that might compete with public transport.

Responding to a question on the removal of congestion on local roads Mr Shiels noted that with increased congestion in the PM peak about 3% of hourly traffic diverts from the national road to avoid Maudlins junction in particular. He clarified that the figure of 40% of traffic along the N7 entering the M50 is for the peak times. Mr Desmond noted that the EIS is based on the AADT and the information collected in February can be expanded up if you know the relationship between Feb and the other months. Similarly data from Monday surveys can be applicable. Roadside surveys cannot be undertaken in the context of the motorway and alternative means have to be used to take vehicle origin destination and PAG unit 6.11 provides alternative means. Mr Shiels also noted that model validation was based on other stretches of road. Mr Thorpe acknowledged that the origin-destination surveys were not as good as would be for a non motorway context.

Mr Desmond queried the use of TRICS which Mr Shiels noted was based on the upper limits set by the NRA. Following estimation of expected growth this data was used to apportion the NRA medium growth scenario across the zone to determine OD. The TRICS data was not used in the modelling.

In relation to the traffic levels on the local road between Rathangan Road and the R445 Mr Thorpe noted that the closure of the median cross over is an elected function and that it had been refused. An alternative namely the provision of a roundabout at this location is presently undergoing information public consultation. It was acknowledged that due to the scheme there would be an increase in traffic on the local road between Floods Cross and the R445. Signage will be installed to divert people to the correct route.

Mr Shiels explained the used of the RSA RTA data for the road and the AADT. The assessment was for the five year period 2007-2011. He noted also that motorways will have low rates of accidents anyway and that this was considered. Regarding requirements the Directive on management of TERN he stated that he was not aware of any ranking of Irish roads. Mr Thorpe submitted that whilst the accident and safety issue is very important it is very much the congestion issue that is driving the scheme.

On the matter of alternatives and the potential to reduce traffic levels by 20% as estimated by the NRA in relation to the M50, Mr Thorpe noted that hard should running is the most obvious lane management option and was not considered appropriate for cost reasons. Use of the median in this case was appropriate. Capacity increases by variable speed limits is also deemed to be of limited value.

Regarding the potential for additional lengths of merge / slip lane at the junctions as a method of increasing capacity the applicant noted that this would not result in a

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 48 of 101 coherent system but there would be a disjointed system with variations in the numbers of lanes.

Mr Desmond queried whether a review of traffic projections and modelling would usually be undertaken by the NRA / LA once projects are operational. Mr Shiels confirmed that this does take place in recent years and that the results are fed back into the modelling procedures. NRA growth forecasts are now very different from even 4 years ago.

A schedule of withdrawn objections was handed in. In his closing statement Mr McGrath noted the very low level of opposition to the scheme which underlines its merits. He noted that the scheme is exception as it is required in order to fulfill Ireland’s obligations under 1315/2013 guidelines for the development of TEN-T. The M7 is part of the core network thus there is a legal obligation to remove bottlenecks and to allow the M7 to serve its purpose. The scheme uses the reserve capacity which was built into it from the outset.

Not only does the scheme address the bottleneck on the core network and the congestion it also has associated environmental improvements.

Smarter Travel recognises that traffic congestion leads to a decline in competitiveness and key goals in that regard are noted. The Department which authored the policy supports the scheme.

In relation to emissions targets the increase in CO2 will be miniscule. The scheme may actually lead to a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions through more efficient road traffic movements.

In relation to alternatives the requirement is to consider the main alternatives not every conceivable alternative. The main alternatives studies are discussed. Demand management was discounted on the basis that it could not be implemented on this stretch of the M7 in isolation and there was no viable alternative route available for M7 traffic. It was not a viable or feasible or alternative.

Use of the EPA data for modelling has become standard practice. In relation to the lack of assessment of induced traffic Mr Shiels noted that the sensitivity analysis carried out confirmed the conclusions in relation to noise and air quality.

In relation to the alleged failure to assess the environmental effects of sources of material and waste disposal sites the Roads Act 1993 merely requires that the EIS include such information as may be reasonable having regard to current knowledge and methods of assessment. Assessment of the impact on the Kildare railway line does is not required as there will not be an impact.

The AA screening report is robust in its conclusions and there is scientific certainty and no scientific doubt.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 49 of 101

The hearing was formally closed by me on June 6th.

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT This section is heavily reliant on the report of Mr John Desmond which provides a detailed account of the significant issues and which should be read prior to the reading of the foregoing.

This section addresses the following issues :

• The Scheme in the context of Regulation (EU)1315/2013

• Whether the Scheme complies with other prevailing policy

• Whether the proposal is necessary to address capacity and safety

• Whether there are more suitable alternatives to achieve the same objectives

• Whether the scheme should be approved and comment on any modifications

• Consideration of the Osberstown Interchange and Sallins Bypass.

Whether the scheme is required in order to comply with EU Regulations I single out this policy provision in particular as it is highlighted by the applicant in justification of the scheme. I refer in particular to the evidence of Mr Thorpe and Mr McGrath. The Scheme is stated to be “exceptional” as it is required in order to fulfill the state’s obligations under Regulation (EU) No. 1315/203 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network.

The scheme is presented as a necessary measure to alleviate a bottleneck along the Belfast-Dublin-Cork route, which is part of the core network of the European TEN-T Network 14 . The core network of TEN-T was selected at EU level.

The applicant notes that there will be continued expansion in strategic commercial traffic between Dublin and Cork and that linkage of the three major cities on the island by the upgraded TEN-T route will result from the scheme, which will also provide improved links between the gateways and hubs. Thus the scheme caters for strategic traffic, described as traffic of high economic value including between the strategic employment locations identified in development plans 15 .

14 This is set out in the EIS and in Mr Thorpe’s evidence in particular. Plate 3.1 presents a map of the core network corridors within the Trans-European Transport Network. The latter also designates a ‘comprehensive network’ which includes many of Ireland’s primary roads.

15 This definition provided for example by Mr Clear is in line with the NRA definition of strategic travel which includes commuter traffic.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 50 of 101

The applicant’s evidence focuses on the role of national roads in movement of people and goods including by buses and the proposal primarily addresses congestion.

Mr McGrath’s evidence at closing provided most detail on the legal obligations arising from the Regulations. He noted one of the primary purposes of the Regulation is set out in recital 3

Growth in traffic has resulted in increased congestion in international transport. In order to ensure the international mobility of passengers and goods, the capacity of the trans-European network and the use of that capacity should be optimised and, where necessary expanded by removing infrastructure bottlenecks …

Mr McGrath noted that the definition of bottleneck under the Regulation as a barrier which leads to a system break affecting the continuity of long-distance flows and which can be surmounted by new or upgraded infrastructure. He refers also to A10 of the Regulations, which sets out priorities of the trans-European comprehensive transport network and that general priority in its development will be given to measures that are necessary for ensuring enhanced accessibility and connectivity, removing bottlenecks, promoting efficient and sustainable use of the infrastructure and where necessary increasing capacity.

The applicant’s submission notes the importance of the core network and refers to Article 18(3) which requires that Member States take appropriate measures for the core network to be developed by 2030. The conclusion is that there is a legal obligation on the state to develop the M7 motorway so as to remove any bottlenecks on it and improve its efficiency and safety.

In considering the applicant’s submission I consider that it is critical to bear in mind that TEN-T is a multimodal network framed in the context of perceived unsustainable travel patterns. The White Paper to which I refer under the Planning Policy section of this report refers to the need for a ‘core network’ of corridors carrying large volumes of freight and passengers with high efficiency and low emissions.

Within the Regulations also there are many references to greenhouse gas emissions including in certain circumstances the undertaking of specific assessments for transport projects. The Regulations use the phrase ‘where necessary’ in relation to the development of new infrastructure and the emphasis is very much on efficient use of existing infrastructure including through new and experimental technology.

Recital 13 which is not provided in the applicant’s submission provides further insight into this matter.

The core network should be identified and appropriate measures should be taken for its development by 2030 as a priority within the framework provided

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 51 of 101

by the comprehensive network. The core network should constitute the backbone of the development of a sustainable multimodal transport network and should stimulate the development of the entire comprehensive network. It should enable Union action to concentrate on those components of the trans-European transport network with the highest European added value, in particular cross-border section, missing links, multimodal connecting points and major bottlenecks serving the objective, set out in the White Paper, of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transport by 60% below 1990 levels by 2050.

I consider it unnecessary to emphasise the importance of the M7 to the state and at an international level in terms of freight and people movement. I note and agree with the applicant’s position in relation to the downsides of the congestion which is present on this section of the M7. I discuss this further below and at this point refer only to the fact that at peak times the road operates at Level of Service E. Further traffic growth is predicted with or without the scheme and Mr Desmond’s conclusion in fact is that the growth in traffic has been underestimated. This matter is considered elsewhere. The existing situation at peak times is undesirable, indeed unacceptable, when measured against economic, social and environmental 16 values and goals and when considered at international scale.

However, it is important to properly position the scheme within the TEN-T policy. I also emphasise the need to take a long-term perspective. Mr Desmond notes that the TEN-T policy is far from supportive of road building projects. I agree with that point as the policy is geared towards efficiency, reducing emissions and better modal choices. The goal 17 is to provide infrastructure in a manner which maximises the positive impact on economic growth and minimises negative impact on the environment. Inherent in the wording of the first phrase of recital 3 is the conflict between the ongoing generation of traffic within the GDA and the function of the road as part of the international transport network.

Mr Desmond notes that the scheme is not listed as a specific project which is required under TEN-T and places considerable emphasis on this fact. Within Ireland the identified deficiency in the core network is the lack of rail integration and in this regard the DART underground project and the ports of Dublin and Cork are specified, the road network being considered to be completed. The policy states that due to their integration the network routes will provide for a highly resource efficient infrastructure use.

16 The Air and Climate section further considers the interactions between congestion and air quality.

17 This goal is from the 2011 White Paper on Transport which is referenced in the foreword of the 2013 document ‘The core Network Corridors’.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 52 of 101

The fact that the upgrade of this motorway is not specifically listed does in my opinion undermine the relevance of Regulation 1315/2013 on which the applicant places so much importance. This bottleneck in the TEN-T actually lies within a road network which is identified as being ‘completed’ rather than one which the state is required to improve by 2030.

Of further importance is the nature of the project. In this regard I am in agreement with Mr Desmond’s overall point which is that EU transport policy places considerable focus on sustainable transport models and that integration will facilitate ‘better modal choices’ in the intermediate distances.

The core network is to provide for trans-national traffic and long-distance flows for freight and people and due to their integration the multi-modal routes will provide for highly resource efficient infrastructure use. This project when considered as a stand- alone scheme does not provide for integration of different modes of transport, does not prioritise sustainable transport modes or complete a physical gap or address a specifically identified bottleneck in a motorway network.

I do not dispute that this point on the motorway network is congested or that buses would benefit from better journey times. However my reading of the Regulations and the associated policy context is that they do not support the scheme having regard to the considerable emphasis placed on integrated transport provision, on greenhouse gas reduction and on ITS and efficiency in general.

I reject the argument that the Regulation establishes an ‘exceptional’ circumstance and a legal requirement for this development. I am of the opinion that the applicant has over-stated the importance of additional road capacity in the Irish context as part of the TEN-T network. The network within Ireland is indicated on relevant maps as being completed and while the EU policy does clearly envisage new strategic roads (where necessary) the emphasis is clearly on use of existing infrastructure, management of capacity and integration.

Mr Desmond points to the recent NRA study on demand management measures which indicates the potential to reduce traffic levels on the M50 by 20%. This points to the potential for addressing capacity issues in an alternative way. I consider that this stand alone road widening and junction improvement scheme does not rest easily within the framework provided by the White Paper or the Regulations. It is argued to facilitate the OISB which gives better access to the rail network and I will consider it later in the context of OISB.

The Board will note that the Scheme has the support of the Department of Transport, the NTA and NRA, Bus Eireann and An Garda Siochana. None of the submissions from these authorities is particularly informative on the matter of TEN-T. In my opinion Board would not by correct in relying heavily on EU policy as the basis for policy support for this project.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 53 of 101

In conclusion notwithstanding the importance of this motorway within the core network I am unconvinced that there is a basis for policy support under TEN-T for this scheme. Indeed I would question whether the provision of additional road capacity at this location would in the long-term add to the capacity problems related to peak hour commuting, which is clearly the source of the congestion.

Other policy provisions

Smarter Travel Overview This is the national policy provision which An Taisce states has dramatically changed the policy landscape and the required approach of the Board to this case. I also note Mr McGrath’s reference to Dunkettle Interchange which was permitted since the adoption of the policy. I agree that this policy is of particular importance in relation to the Board’s decision on this application.

A fundamental point made by An Taisce in opposition to the scheme is that it does not align with the 45% target and that the scheme will attract induced traffic including new long-distance commuters and give rise to additional vehicle kilometers.

The applicant’s case is that it is not being stated that this scheme targets that objective. However, it is part of a multi-modal approach and is playing its part within the overall policy document set out under Smarter Travel and this scheme is specifically trying to address the goal of economic benefits and alleviating bottlenecks.

Inherent in any discussion of the economic and international importance of the M7, is the fact that there is an obvious need to address congestion along this section of the route. I consider that it is also evident that there are two broad approaches to achieve this result. One is to accommodate further traffic growth on an improved road network and the other would be to re-balance the modal split during peak periods thus freeing up capacity along the existing road network. The Do nothing scenario must be rejected in my opinion.

The Key Targets Mr Desmond reports in section 2.5.2 on the key targets set down in Smarter Travel including the requirement to reduce work-related car commuting from 65% to 45% and to ensure no significant increase on total car kilometers from the 2009 level to 2020. It is fundamental to An Taisce’s objections that this scheme will militate against achievement of the targets, is contrary to the policy approach set out in Smarter Travel and that it is a short-term solution as induced traffic, which has not been modelled, will result in renewed congestion in time.

Achievement of these targets The applicant argues that the achievement of these targets will arise largely from changes inside the M50 ring and that the heart of the GDA will also be consolidated by further development which will further facilitate a shift away from private car transport.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 54 of 101

Mr Desmond takes a slightly different approach, which I consider to be persuasive. That approach emphasises the pattern of development and the railway. He notes that the M7 runs adjacent to perhaps the most developed commuter and intercity railway lines in the state for which there are high level and local level objectives to further develop and improve 18 . He states as follows

Commuter traffic generated along this TEN-T rail between the growing and consolidating urban settlements of Naas / Sallins / Newbridge and Dublin will also need to be skewed strongly in favour of public transport in order to compensate for development in much of the state which is dispersed, low- density and impractical to services by public transport. Therefore it may be argued that less than 45% of commuter trips within the LAM should be by public transport.

Mr Desmond goes on to note the limited progress made by the Council in relation to advancement of other modes of transport. Schemes are in planning at present however including works to provide a bus hub in the Market Square in Naas and the R407 Sallins Road to Osberstown Upgrade, both of which are open for public consultation at present. An Integrated Public Transport Hub planned for Sallins appears to be a very long-term objective.

I do agree with Mr Desmond’s main conclusion which is that the M7 corridor should also be included as an area to which the 45% target applies and where changes in modal split could reasonably be anticipated. The potential of an improved bus service along the M7 and the future integration with OIBS and the provision of access to the train station are relevant in this regard.

I note that the applicant refers primarily to the five high level goals set out under Smarter Travel, rather than the specific targets such as those related to modal split and vehicle kilometers. Goal number two below relating to economic competiveness is especially relied upon.

Improve economic competitiveness through maximising the efficiency of the transport system and alleviating congestion and infrastructural bottlenecks.

In identifying scheme compliance with Smarter Travel the applicant relies primarily on the above goal as well the statements set out in Chapter 5 including

-Roads will continue to be the main source of transport for people and goods

- There is recognition that the ‘efficient movement of goods is vital to our competitiveness and economic welfare’

18 These include the DART interconnector referenced in EU TEN-T and measures outlined under the NTAs Integrated Investment Plan such as the Phoenix Park tunnel.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 55 of 101

- There is a focus on the need to improve the efficiency of motorised means of transport with a view to ‘limiting the development of traffic jams with their associated negative consequences for fuel consumption and emissions’

- Transport by roads is vital to the efficient movement of goods and people 19 .

I agree with the applicant that the scheme complies with these objectives when they are considered in isolation. However, I refer the Board to comments below regard induced traffic which may in time undermine the efficient movement of goods.

I find it very difficult to conclude that this scheme is supportive of Smarter Travel when it is considered in terms of the totality of its objectives. There is validity to the arguments presented by the applicant. However, I consider that the policy shift represented by Smarter Travel requires a shift in the nature of the projects presented and I am unconvinced that the current proposal presents evidence of a change in direction. I also consider that having regard to the recent NRA Guidance the assessment of the impact on other modes of transport and on management of infrastructure was relevant but was not undertaken. I enclose a copy of P.A.G. Unit 4.0 ‘Definition of Alternatives’ and refer the Board to sections 4.7 and 4.8 in particular.

I am unconvinced that increasing road capacity is necessarily compatible with maximizing transport efficiency. It can certainly be part of a suite of measure and my recommendation below addresses this matter.

Mr Desmond further considers the other high level goals of Smarter Travel in section 2.5.3 to 2.3.5. The applicant argues that reduced congestion will enable freer flow and, therefore, improved reliability and punctuality of bus transport, making it more attractive to commuters and taken with the Osberstown scheme, will make the train station more accessible and free up space for pedestrians and cyclists in Sallins and Naas, aiding the achievement of key goals numbers one, two and five. I think that case can be reasonably argued in relation to the combined effect of the two proposed schemes.

I consider that goal three relating to minimizing the environmental impact of transport is complicated by the relationships between congestion and production of greenhouse gases which I refer to under the air and climate section. In relation to goals four and five which refer to reducing commuting distances by private car and reducing dependency on fossil fuels, I submit that this stand alone scheme as presented undermines these goals.

A few points thus have emerged. First if the Smarter Travel targets regarding vehicle kilometers and modal split are assumed to be achieved, what then is the need for the

19 Mr Clear’s presentation to the hearing refers.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 56 of 101 scheme? This is further considered under discussion of the capacity and traffic modelling below. Second, if the scheme is built how will it influence the achievement of targets, which I now consider.

Requirements to assess the impact on other modes Section 7 of Mr Desmond’s report highlights a further issue in relation to the nature of the applicant’s assessment and the modelling undertaken, which I consider is of concern in the context of Smarter Travel and other policy. That is the failure to analyse potential impact on the full transport network including on each of the transport modes, which has also been raised by An Taisce. In 7.6 of his report Mr Desmond notes the requirement under DoTTS ‘Common Appraisal Framework’ for consideration of cross modal impacts in the appraisal of road projects.

I agree with Mr Desmond that this is a significant issue. The applicant did reference the benefits to bus travel from reduced congestion, noted the support of Bus Eireann and the inter-related OISB, which will provide for better rail integration and is stated to be dependent on this scheme.

As well as the CAF requirements, the NRA Guidelines 2011 clearly recommend broader consideration of alternatives than would normally be deemed necessary for EIA purposes. That document goes beyond the need to consider the ‘main alternatives’ which are relevant to the objective of the scheme but also to consider options which include better management or pricing thereby reducing demand or expanding effective capacity. Section 4 of the NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines 2011 refers. These specifically note particular options which should be considered including Traffic Management alternatives. The Guidelines refer to situations where options fall outside the remit of the NRA but even where an overall transportation plan 20 has identified a programme of projects, assessment of cross modal impacts may be needed. No such assessment has been undertaken and the applicant argues that the purpose of the scheme relates to capacity and that such assessment is not relevant.

Section 7.7 of Mr Desmond’s report refers to the applicant’s consideration of the question of cross-modal assessment and concludes that while there may be increased focus at national level in terms of bus transport, the subject route runs parallel to a prime rail service of international importance and to the absence of any bus priority measures in the scheme. He considers that the issues which give rise to the stated need for this scheme mainly the peak hour commuter traffic as well as its location warrant that assessment be undertaken. I concur with that conclusion though I would emphasise the bus as well as rail services.

20 I agree with Mr Desmond that the GDA Strategy is relevant here. This project is not identified but a suite of other proposals are set out.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 57 of 101

I am of the opinion that the requirement for cross modal assessment of road schemes and the need to demonstrate that the proposal would be compatible with moving towards the achievement of Smarter Travel targets means that this omission is of importance. I further discuss this matter elsewhere under the consideration of alternatives.

Induced traffic The matter of induced traffic (which includes diverted and ‘new’ traffic) is related to the above and to the targets under Smarter Travel for modal share and vehicles kilometers as well as potentially to the long-term regional growth patterns and greenhouse gas production.

Mr Desmond notes the relative advantages or disadvantages of different modes may alter as a result of the additional road capacity. The local planning policy documents note the high level of car ownership in this region. Dr Browne has emphasised research which concludes that traffic will grow to fill new road capacity and notes the greater potential for long-distance commuting in the absence of strict fiscal measures and strong land-use planning. The applicant has acknowledged that there may be additional car commuters as a result of the scheme but also that the bus services will benefit.

In relation to the lack of assessment of induced traffic I refer to section 7.0 of Mr Desmond’s report. He notes the use of a variable demand model is recommended in circumstances including where there is anticipated induction of traffic or increased competition and in major urban areas where congestion will exist, all of which apply in this application.

Mr Desmond notes Mr Shiel’s explanation of the choice of model. The selected traffic assignment model was used instead of a variable demand model as at the time the National Transport Model was unavailable. The National Transport Model from April 2012 attempted to assess the impact of ‘induced demand’ on existing motorway routes. The basis for undertaking the assessment recommended by the NRA now exists. At the time of the hearing Mr Shields indicated that the National Transport Model can only assess current year modal split, but that it is anticipated that within the next few months it will allow for modelling of future year scenarios. The Board may wish to consider whether this matter is material. In this regard I refer to NRA estimates that induced traffic on for the M1 and M6 is in the region of 32%. The nature of this scheme makes it likely that lower levels of induced traffic would be likely. Nevertheless the lack of assessment of this matter remains of concern.

The applicant’s comments relating to the short length of the road in the context of the major inter-urban network are noted but the cumulative effect of short sections of road schemes particularly in the context of high levels of commuter traffic requires consideration having regard to Smarter Travel. It cannot be disputed that the scheme will not give rise to some induced traffic and if that is significant it

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 58 of 101 undermines the goals of Smarter Travel for modal share and vehicle kilometers. The modelling undertaken does not quantify the scale of the effect.

GDA Strategy A copy of extracts from the NTA Draft Strategy for the GDA is attached. The Board has been advised following a telephone inquiry that the Strategy was forwarded to the Minister in 2012 and that it has not been formally adopted. In the interim the NTA ‘Integrated Implementation Plan 2013-2018’ was forwarded to the Minister and adopted.

I note that the NTA has not raised any significant concerns in relation to this Scheme. However, it appears to me that there are a number of policies and statements in the GDA Strategy and the Implementation Plan which run contrary to that stated position. These are listed below:

- The GDA Strategy states that there will be a clear presumption against development of new road proposals unless required to address issues such as safety concerns, provision of space for public transport priority or local servicing of lands 21 . In my view none of this applies to this scheme which is to address congestion related to park hour traffic. It might well be argued however that this is not a ‘new road proposal’. I am unconvinced that such an argument is sustainable in the context of €55million expenditure notwithstanding the long-term reservation of the wide median.

- Alternative solutions such as traffic management or demand management measures should always be examined. This was not undertaken.

- Where the primary purpose is accident or safety issues the Authority will support the road improvement scheme provided. Again, safety is not the primary purpose.

- ROAD 1 sets requirements that the need to be addressed cannot be addressed by other modal choices or alternative solutions including traffic management or demand management. I consider that this matter has not been assessed by the applicant. The assessment required under P.A.G. Unit 4.0 2011 was not undertaken.

- ROAD 1 also requires that road development will not give rise to a significant or unsustainable increase in the level of car trips. The lack of assessment of induced traffic is relevant here.

- ROAD 1 critically requires that any major new national road schemes would consider and incorporate, where appropriate, demand management proposals

21 11.1.2 of NTA Draft Strategy for GDA 2011-2030.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 59 of 101

as an integral part of their delivery. This might be interpreted as being relevant to entirely new schemes through greenfield sites or it might be reasonably interpreted to have relevance in this case.

- ROAD 5 refers to identification of a network of roads essential for strategic traffic movement in its forthcoming Strategic Traffic Management Plan for the major roads outside the M50.

The recently published Integrated Implementation Plan makes no reference to the M7 Scheme. However, the relevance of this is limited as it is only up to 2018.

Two things are clear in my opinion.

1. The Scheme has not been demonstrated to be in compliance with a number of the approaches to roads provision under the GDA Draft Transport Strategy.

2. However, secondly, the Draft NTA strategy clearly envisages a scenario under ROAD 5 whereby the routes would be protected in terms of their capacity through traffic management. The recently published M50 demand management report which arose on foot of a condition of An Bord Pleanála in relation to the M50 upgrade met with initial negative comment from the then Minister for Transport. Implementation of such measures is likely to require strong action from all agencies.

In relation to the scheme being in compliance with the GDA Transport Strategy, that conclusion could best be drawn if the scheme incorporated demand management measures or specifically favoured a shift to sustainable modes. As formulated the stand alone scheme is devoid of any such measures.

Other Policy Provisions Before concluding on the matter of policy I note as follows in relation to other policy objectives on which the applicant relies in support of the scheme. Section 2.0 of Mr Desmond’s report considers the policy context in further detail. In terms of relevant policy the applicant places considerable emphasis on the TEN-T network, the National Spatial Strategy, the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Framework, Smarter Travel, the Department of Transport Statement of Strategy and the Spatial Planning and National Road Guidelines. At regional level the Planning Guidelines and the GDA Transportation Strategy and the GDA Draft Implementation Plan are especially referenced. An Taisce, on the other hand focuses almost exclusively on Smarter Travel in terms of transport policy. The Scheme in the context of these provisions is considered below.

1. In relation to the commitment under the DoTTS Statement of Strategy to deliver network improvements in support of competitiveness and economic recovery I agree that the scheme supports this high level objective. However, I also note that the scheme is excluded from the list of identified

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 60 of 101

bottlenecks. Importantly the Statement also supports a more sustainable modal shift and it is within that context that the high level goal should be considered in my opinion.

2. The need for additional junctions or enhancements to junctions to service development needs of national and strategic importance is identified in NRA guidance 22 on national roads and I consider is especially relevant to J9 and J10 and to OISB.

3. The same guidance however refers to the primary purpose of the national road network in terms of provision of strategic links especially freight and passenger traffic connecting ports and airports. It emphasises integrating land use and transport planning and plan-led development. It states that implementation of the Guidelines will ensure that the state’s considerable investment in national roads is harnessed in a manner that is sustainable. To the extent that the scheme provides for a solution to peak period congestion related to commuter traffic I consider that it is not supported by this guidance.

4. The NRA guidance recognises that future transport demands cannot be delivered solely by rail and that the road network will continue to be critical. The applicant’s submission is that the Scheme supports this objective through improved timeliness for buses is undisputable in the short-term. However, the points made previously relating to lack of assessment of impacts on other modes and on induced traffic and lack of bus priority measures undermines the applicant’s case in my opinion when the scheme is considered in a holistic fashion and beyond the design year.

5. The latter comments also apply in relation to the NTA’s GDA Transport Strategy in relation to which there is emphasis on the use of public transport for the journey to work. That policy emphasis is couched in the context of the achievement of Smarter Travel targets and critically on development of traffic management arrangements that protect the role of the strategic road network. The applicant’s position on this matter is that traffic management is beyond the terms of the scheme and the control of the applicant, which I discuss this later in this report.

6. I consider that the scheme is in compliance with the Kildare County Development Plan which specifically identifies the development of the third lane along the M7/N7 including improvement of interchanges as the need arises and refers to the identification of an area for the future upgrade and improvement of J10 and preserve that free from development.

22 NRA guidance Spatial Planning and National Roads – Guidelines for Planning Authorities 2012.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 61 of 101

7. The scheme was funded up to planning procurement stage under the National Development Plan.

8. The widening to three lanes which is not specifically in any high level policy document was envisaged by the NRA in 2009. It thus pre-dates a range of policies adopted in the interim.

Capacity and Safety In the section above related to TEN-T, the removal of bottlenecks in the interest of eliminating congestion and improving safety is emphasised as part of the state’s legal obligations. I now return to this matter.

The applicant’s submissions indicate that there are reasons related to the physical nature of the motorway network which demonstrate a need for the development and which would justify the scheme. It results from the drop from three to two lanes at Maudlins and the southbound merge lane from that interchange. It would also appear to be impacted by the design and constraints at Newhall, the merge at Great Connell and the capacity of the road, all of which are considered below.

The nature of the problem The Naas Bypass is approaching its design year. The design incorporates a wide margin which was put in place to provide for the future upgrade of the road to three lanes. As the practical capacity of the motorway is exceeded at AM/PM peak the result is reduced speeds and increased risk of accidents. Notwithstanding his over all recommendation Mr Desmond notes the history of the road in place and indicates that the current proposal involving use of a wide margin put in place as early as 1983 is an example of long-term infrastructure planning.

The peaky nature of congestion experienced is highly indicative of commuter traffic. That matter is beyond doubt. Mr Desmond’s report addresses this matter and I refer the Board to his assessment which notes the two hour AM and three hour PM peak periods, the Level of Service E and during the PM peaks as much as 4,012 PCUs westbound on a section with capacity of up to 3,600 PCU.

The congestion pattern particularly in the PM peak is particularly noteworthy. It results largely from the constraints at Newhall Interchange which is deficient in terms of its design and by the drop from three lanes to two.

The applicant’s assessment is that the works to Newhall Interchange alone would not resolve the PM peak congestion and Mr Desmond supports that position. He notes that in the Do Nothing scenario this interchange would be operating at twice its capacity and that while the proposed Osberstown Interchange would relieve the current capacity issues the traffic modelling shows that with traffic growth the problems would re-emerge.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 62 of 101

I agree with Mr Desmond’s conclusion that the relocation of this interchange is required to significantly increase the junction capacity and ensure that congestion on the local road network (arising for example from Bundle of Sticks roundabout) does not continue to affect the motorway and its safe operation. I note that the alternative locations for the interchange are addressed in detail in his report and I do not have anything further to offer.

Drop in lanes and capacity issues The scheme is presented as a means to address a physical bottleneck between the three lane road from Johnstown to the M50 and the motorway network west of the merge at Junction 11 Great Connell. The effects of the bottleneck are especially evident at J9 Maudlins Interchange where the change occurs where even at present very lengthy queues arise in the PM peak.

Mr Desmond’s recommendation that the scheme should not be permitted relates mainly to the road widening on the inbound section. In relation to the outbound lane he does not express the same reservations noting in fact that the converging of three lanes to two lanes at Maudlins coupled with the merging of traffic at this junction presents a capacity problem on the M7 mainline westbound at PM peak. He states explicitly that the continuation of three lanes along the mainline westbound would appear to be justified in terms of need. In relation to the inbound lane Mr Desmond notes that the lane numbers increase. The overall conclusion set out in section 3.6.5 is that the applicant has demonstrated a need for the project in terms of providing a reasonable level of service and having regard to existing and predicted peak hour traffic.

The applicant states that the pressure of traffic converging north-east of the merge of the M8 and M7 at Great Connell demands an upgrade of that section of motorway. The applicant notes that the recently installed ghost island spreads the merging traffic but that this is insufficient.

I consider that the applicant makes a strong case that the level of traffic in the context of the merging traffic results in breakdown of flow and safety concerns. Mr Desmond notes that the capacity issues at Great Connell are directly related to the lack of capacity of the mainline, which implies that those issues would be resolved by increasing the capacity of the mainline.

I agree with Mr Desmond’s conclusion in relation to the outbound lane. In relation to the inbound lane I note again the existing traffic levels of 20,000 AADT plus 40,000 AADT which converge on a two-lane dual carriageway with capacity of 55,000 AADT. Mr Desmond does not provide a firm conclusion on the matter of whether widening for a length of the road is required in order to address the situation at the merge. On balance I consider that the lane widening fro a distance beyond the merge appears necessary.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 63 of 101

I note Mr Sweetman’s position that the outbound additional lane is needed but that the inbound lane should not be provided in order to deter commuters from Newbridge. I do not consider that this is a practical solution. It would simply intensify the congestion and safety problems which exist.

Mr Desmond addresses the fact that the modelling undertaken by the applicant does not assume that the targets relating to modal split and vehicle kilometers are achieved. These assumptions are not incorporated within the National Traffic Model (NTM) available to the applicant at the time for the purposes of local area modelling. The applicant in assessing traffic growth has addressed this matter through reliance on car ownership being capped at national level of 2.1 million vehicles and notes that the NRA’s approach in its NTM represents a sea-change in its approach to traffic growth and no longer assumed continued almost unrestrained increase in car ownership.

I note Mr Desmond’s comments in relation to the adequacy of information on this matter and that there is a need for a judgement call in relation to whether the NTM and hence the LAM is realistic in terms of traffic growth. I agree with his conclusion that the Board may therefore consider it appropriate to accept it at face value.

Alternatives / Demand Management Mr Desmond’s conclusion is that the M7 with the relocated Newhall Interchange could operate safely and within capacity in future years provided the peak periods are addressed. I consider that he has made his point reasonably and I agree with that comment.

In effect the Board is being requested for consent for a scheme to address the peak period through improving the infrastructure. While this change creates additional road capacity it is the applicant’s argument that the scheme will only cater for traffic which is already present – there is very little predicted increase in AADT associated with the scheme. That argument is undermined in my opinion by the failure to model for induced traffic.

The scheme is also presented as providing the basis for improvements to public transport (buses) and to allow for OISB which provides access to the railway and which could not otherwise be facilitated.

The applicant’s submission is that the alternative of strengthening public transport connections to alleviate existing congestion by using enhanced train and bus services is not preferred in the context of achieving the scheme objectives. I do not consider that such an approach would overcome problems related to growth of Naas including the need for access to Sallins and for the Osberstown Interchange.

I concur with the applicant that the options of hard shoulder running and construction of an alternative route would have significant cost implications. I do not recommend either option to the Board.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 64 of 101

In relation fiscal measures it is the applicant’s position that these would have to be applied to the zone of influence of the road section under consideration, in this case the entire south and south-west of the country 23 . In the absence of widespread application traffic will divert to other routes it is stated.

The applicant’s submission on the matter of fiscal measures notes that the objective of the government is to drive the economy rather than restrict it. I accept the points made in relation to the importance of road travel for the economy. I accept that the imposition of additional costs to the commercial sector at this time would be unwelcome.

Addressing peak hour congestion would re-direct the operation of the motorway towards its strategic national and international function. I consider that this would be in line with the TEN-T Regulations, which is relevant to consideration of the case and to which the applicant refers.

I consider that the 2011 NRA Guidelines which emanated from the Department’s CAF 2009 document clearly require the undertaking of a broader assessment of alternatives that was undertaken. I am unconvinced that the applicant has demonstrated that peak-time congestion associated with commuter traffic could not be addressed by fiscal measures.

However, balanced with this is the fact that the wide margin is in place. Harnessing that previous investment with proper demand management is an option which also has considerable merit in my opinion.

Provision for Pedestrians, Cyclists and other users The provision of safe cycle facilities at the proposed Newhall Interchange and the need for a review and provision of bus and pedestrian facilities in that area were raised by the National Transport Authority in a written observation. Subsequently the National Transport Authority has confirmed in a further written submission to the applicant dated 12 th May 2014 that these matters can be agreed at detailed design stage. I am satisfied that this arrangement will ensure a satisfactory outcome and that the matter would be best considered at the time of detailed design.

Funding and Phasing The funding of the proposed scheme is of interest for the reason that the scheme has a relationship with the concurrent application for OISB. The National Roads Authority Website indicates that this scheme has been funded by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport.

The applicant indicated at the time of the oral hearing for OISB that the latter scheme is dependent on the prior operation of the N7 Naas Newbridge Bypass Upgrade and

23 Mr Thorpe’s evidence 3.11 to 3.15 refers.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 65 of 101 that there would be no objection to a condition requiring the prior operation of the N7 Naas Newbridge Bypass Upgrade. That is largely a matter for the Board to consider under the terms of the associated case but it is referenced herein for completeness.

In relation to this matter I refer the Board also to the detailed submission made by Kerry Group outlining the need to expedite this scheme, particularly because it facilitates the OISB which would provide very ready access to the motorway from the new facility. Kerry Group welcome confirmation by the project engineers that construction works on both projects can take place at the same time and request that the projects remain unlinked as regards the timing of their commencement i.e. that either project can commence independently. This is a matter which should be considered in the Board’s decision on that case and I refer to it now only for completion.

Conclusions The nub of the issue in this case is that long distance traffic along the M7 is undermined by commuter traffic over the daily 5 hour peak period. This scheme is put forward as a means to resolve congestion and safety issues and to comply with Regulation (EU) 1315/2103.

I consider that it is appropriate that transport planning formulates measures to address the serious levels of congestion evident at the two hour AM peak and three hour PM peak. I consider that the point made by opposers in relation to curbing of demand by effectively retaining inward bound congestion is at odds with the strategic and economic function of the road and with measures to control greenhouse gas emissions 24 . To retain that congestion in order to discourage private vehicle trips to work would simply consolidate the difficulties faced by trucks and buses. I refer again to the strategic importance of the route within the EU and in economic terms and I note the comment in the EU White Paper that ‘curbing mobility is not an option’.

However, I also admit to considerable difficulties in reconciling the untrammeled provision of additional road capacity with the objectives of Smarter Travel. Were it the case that the scheme incorporated a tolling mechanism or a bus / hgv lane or anything in fact that favoured more sustainable travel modes I consider that there would be very strong arguments in favour of the road widening, including on policy grounds. No such proposals are before the Board.

Equally I consider that the Scheme does not sit well with the TEN-T Regulations and the background EU White Paper. The requirement to take appropriate measures for the core network by 2030 is noted by Mr McGrath. I am unconvinced that the measures are appropriate in that context. TEN-T calls for a new approach to transport planning in my opinion.

24 Dr Porter’s evidence relating to low speeds and high emissions refers.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 66 of 101

There are capacity problems which need to be resolved along this section of the M7, particularly in view of the future growth envisaged for this region under national, regional and local planning strategies. That is set out in Mr Desmond’s report and indeed was acknowledged by Mr Sweetman in relation to the inbound side of the motorway and Newhall Interchange. The objective in making a decision on this case is to ensure that the manner of resolving the existing congestion does not encourage further long distance commuting (and perhaps even discourages such commuting patterns) and does not undermine the push towards more sustainable modal choices.

Implicit in the arguments presented by the applicant in relation to tolling is the requirement for a regional approach to the preparation and implementation of a scheme. The Board has addressed similar issues before. In the case of the M50 upgrade in acknowledgement that the capacity of the route needed to be protected in the long-term, the Board required by condition that the applicant publish demand management measures within 4 years of the completion of the scheme. A report in that regard has been issued by the relevant local authorities in recent months.

I consider that an even more stringent approach is warranted in this case at this time. In view of policy provisions relating to vehicle kilometers, modal choice, greenhouse gas emissions, implementation of Development Management measures is required in the event that the traffic modelling predictions are exceeded. That situation could result due to induced traffic. The condition is required for the purposes of adequate assessment under EIA and for rebalancing the use of the motorway towards longer distance travel including bus and freight and encouraging the selection of better modal choices 25 .

Notwithstanding the support of various agencies and the Department of Transport for this Scheme, there are many aspects of national policy which are not supportive of the proposal. NTA policy for the GDA for example is to support road improvement schemes which primarily address safety issues subject to avoiding inappropriately increasing capacity that may encourage longer distance car based commuting 26 .

In the absence of the recommended condition I would not favour a grant of permission as I consider that the goals of Smarter Travel would be undermined and in the medium term part of the core TEN-T network would be likely to again become congested.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT The onus on the Board to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment of the scheme was noted at the hearing. The foregoing comprises my assessment of the

25 The scheme is stated to be necessary also to facilitate the OISB which will provide better access to the railway station at Sallins and where in the long-term a major bus interchange is proposed.

26 My emphasis.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 67 of 101 salient considerations and in its preparation I have had regard to the written and oral submissions including the Environmental Impact Statement.

Ecology Apart from the potential for impacts on European Sites, which are separately considered under the Appropriate Assessment section of this report, the likely impacts arising are considered under the following headings :

- Adequacy of surveys - Impacts on habitats - Impacts which might arise due to changes to water quality including fisheries, - Impacts on mammals, including from collisions - Other issues.

Adequacy of Surveys This matter was raised at the oral hearing. I am satisfied that the surveys undertaken for the purpose of establishing baseline conditions were adequate in view of the character of the area within which the scheme is situated. While safety considerations restricted opportunity to undertake a detailed assessment of lands within the motorway corridor, I accept Mr Murphy’s evidence in relation his familiarity with such habitats and their limited potential to host protected species or to be of particular ecological value. The limitations in terms of surveys undertaken relate primarily to motorway lands, which were inspected from bridges. Other habitats including adjacent lands and watercourses which were accessible are described in more detail.

Impacts on Habitats As the schemes lies almost entirely within the existing roadline it primarily impacts directly on the grassland median and on immature woodland habitats and hawthorn hedge which are associated with the road landscaping. The scheme extends beyond the road fence line at Newhall Interchange where there is direct loss of grassland and habitats of low ecological value. The scheme is parallel to the Grand Canal pNHA for one kilometre and crosses the canal but no direct impacts occur. Indirect impacts could occur in the event of water quality deterioration. I consider that it is demonstrated that the impacts on habitats are acceptable, subject to separate further consideration of water quality and European Sites.

Water Quality Impacts Water quality impacts during construction is considered also to be the greatest potential threat to ecology. The receiving environment includes tributaries of the Liffey and the Grand Canal pNHA and supports Atlantic salmon, Sea Trout, Brown Trout, Eel, Freshwater Crayfish and Lamprey. A reduction in water quality should that occur would be likely to indirectly impact Kingfisher and Otter as well as giving rise to direct impacts on aquatic species.

A noteworthy aspect of the development is the proposed extension to the existing culvert at Ladytown which will be lengthened to 160m and will be diverted

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 68 of 101 downstream of an existing weir in order to facilitate the design of the new interchange at Newhall. Pre-construction salvage of Freshwater Crayfish under licence and salvage and downstream release of this species and of Brook Lamprey and Trout will be required in relation to the extension of the culvert and diversion of streams at Ladytown.

Fish passage will be improved by provision of a series of interconnected pools and the proposed fish pass culvert under the R445 will be permanently backwatered to facilitate fish movement.

Specific mitigation measures set out by the applicant include a continuous monitoring programme during the construction phase as agreed with IFI, agreement with IFI in relation to method statements for construction works in relation to all watercourses and other measures all of which will be set out in an Environmental Operating Plan. An outline EOP was presented to the hearing. A specific measure relating to pesticide use was proposed to comply with the HSE requirements.

I accept the general position presented by the applicant, which is that subject to standard mitigation measures water quality can be protected during construction. I also agree that there are positive residual impacts arising due to the installation of the proposed attenuation ponds across the scheme, to the spill containment procedures set out, and the proposed installation of interceptors. I consider that the challenges arising in relation to water quality protection are of a standard nature and can be readily mitigated. Thus, no significant adverse effects on the pNHA or the Liffey tributaries and dependent species are likely. Indeed any residual impact would be likely to be positive.

Mammals and other collision risks The scheme involves upgrading of fencing which is present along the motorway and which directs mammals away from the carriageway. The upgrading of fencing to approved standards will ensure that risk of mortality through collision is minimised. Kingfisher are relatively vulnerable to collision with traffic but the widening of the motorway is not considered to increase the risk of collision.

The applicant indicates that the widening of the hard surfaced median will not increase risks to animals and I accept this point including for the reason that the habitat would be unsuitable for holts or setts and that the existing road is a major barrier to movement.

Presently otter utilise culverts under the M7 as well as the farm over-bridge near Osberstown House 27 . The extension to the culvert at Ladytown will require mammal passage, which is incorporated. Construction phase disturbance and water quality

27 This is not affected by the current scheme but is the site of the proposed Osberstown Interchange.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 69 of 101 decline could result in indirect impacts to mammals including to otters but subject to best practice at the construction phase this risk is minimised.

In relation to mammals and Kingfisher I conclude that no significant adverse residual impact is likely. I note the absence of a bat survey of the canal as referenced by an observer but I do not consider that this should be requested having regard to the nature of the development and the impacts.

Other issues

The protection of ecosystems also requires consideration of air quality impacts with regard in particular to NO x levels in the operational phase. Dr Porter noted in evidence that levels of NO x were assessed for the Grand Canal and the increase is predicted to be under 1% of the critical load for inland and surface water habitats. I consider that the Board can be satisfied that the air quality impacts on ecosystems are acceptable.

In relation to in-combination effects, in the absence of water quality mitigation measures in particular there would be potential for significant cumulative impacts arising with the OISB scheme. I consider that this matter has been adequately considered in this application and that there are no other potential in-combination effects.

Comments of An Taisce in relation to potential impacts on birdsong are noted. I accept Ms Harmon’s submission in relation to the predicted residual reduction in noise levels.

Conclusion

In view of the nature of the existing environment and the assessment undertaken I consider that the conclusions presented in the EIS as supplemented by evidence to the hearing are reasonable. I concur with the conclusion that positive residual impacts arise in relation to fish passage and water quality. I conclude that the development would not give rise to significant adverse ecological impacts subject to mitigation which has been adequately considered. Potential impacts on European Sites are considered later in this report.

Hydrogeology The EIS describes the baseline conditions and considers the impacts of the construction and operation phases on the hydrogeology of the area in accordance with the NRA Guidelines. I consider that the most noteworthy aspects of the information presented relate to :

- the location and nature of the groundwater bodies and impacts thereon

- the reduction in groundwater recharge

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 70 of 101

- construction phase and operational phase water quality impacts.

In relation to the groundwater bodies the EIS notes that ‘along the southern part of the road from chainage 0-7,800 the bedrock GWB (the Dublin GWB) is overlain by the Curragh (East) GWB’. The other groundwater body of relevance is the Naas GWB and all three are of high status. Groundwater flow in the Curragh (East) GWB is characterised by unconfined groundwater flow through sand and gravel deposits. Public information indicates that the GWBs are likely to have a shallow water table less than 5m below ground level along the proposed scheme. There are no known drinking supply wells along the route or within 250m.

The development through the capping of the median is noted to be a threat to groundwater status by reduction in quantity 28 . However the applicant also notes that the magnitude of the impact of reduction in recharge is rated as negligible in the context of the Working Group on Groundwater paper, whereby impacts of under 2% of recharge are rated as having no impact potential. I accept this point in terms of the consideration of hydrogeology. I agree with Mr Sweetman that further consideration would be required in relation to particular ecological impacts and this is considered below.

In terms of impacts on the GWBs the potential reduction in groundwater quality during construction from suspended solids and silt and during operation from accidental spillages are noted. Increased aquifer vulnerability through removal of geological materials in the construction phase are identified in the EIS.

In the operational phase the increased impermeable area is seen to benefit water quality. Mitigation incorporated in the design includes avoidance of construction of new fills or cuts, limit to the footprint and use of existing drainage system. Backfilling or decommissioning of pits / boreholes is proposed to avoid groundwater contamination. The drainage system and other measures will mitigate the likely impacts on groundwater levels, flows and quality.

The applicant’s conclusion is that residual impacts include a reduction in groundwater contributions, a possible indirect impact of the road on groundwater body status, assessed as imperceptible and permanent. The increased level of protection of groundwater resource is a possible residual, minor beneficial and permanent impact.

I consider that the hydrological aspects of the scheme have been adequately considered and in general are mitigated through design. In particular I note that the limited nature of the earthworks minimises impacts and that the development will not

28 Page 8/8 of the EIS refers to a reduction in groundwater recharge as a result of the increased impervious area in the surface catchments and an estimate of the reductions in m 3 / year is provided for each of the three GWBs.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 71 of 101 significantly affect groundwater quantities but may improve groundwater quality including through increased protection of the aquifer. I consider that the measures further described in the hydrology section below are particularly significant in relation to long-term aquifer protection. I conclude that the hydrogeological impacts are acceptable and do not warrant revisions to the scheme or particular planning conditions. The impact on GWDTEs is separately addressed.

Hydrology Having regard to the nature of the scheme the hydrological impacts arising during the construction phase are relatively limited. The scheme design incorporates SUDS measures and use of filter drains, oil and petrol interceptors and measures to intercept and isolate spillages, which were not heretofore installed. Storage of spilled materials and excess surface water will be in oversize pipes and in the attenuation ponds. In the operational phase in overall terms the scheme benefits the hydrological environment.

I discuss below the two impacts which I consider to be of most significance namely flooding and water quality impacts.

Flooding

The applicant has assessed the increased permeable areas and also identified three locations where flooding presently occurs. The upgraded road drainage system proposed incorporates attenuation measures including attenuation ponds. Runoff between J9 and J8 will continue to be discharge to the attenuation ponds constructed in 2006 under the Naas Road Widening Scheme. The new drainage system for the existing and proposed carriageways will attenuate flows to current rates notwithstanding the increased impermeable area and will also take account of increased intensity of rainfall. In general the applicant’s assessment is that there will be residual minor beneficial impacts, which is a reasonable conclusion in my opinion.

One element of the scheme however gives rise to a slight adverse residual impact and that relates to the works at Newhall Interchange. The extension of an existing culvert to the west of the motorway gives rise to increased flooding potential upstream. This will be addressed by improvement of the existing channel and by the addition of the proposed fish pass culvert, which provides a secondary flow path. In addition another existing culvert to the east of the motorway will be replaced with a larger culvert which reduces an existing restriction and leaves space for a stilling pond.

A short-term construction phase risk increased risk of flooding of the carriageway and downstream during replacement of elements of the drainage network was also identified by the applicant and rated of minor significance.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 72 of 101

In general I conclude that as the new drainage system will attenuate the flows to current discharge rates and will take account of increased future rainfall intensity and will include three new attenuation ponds to watercourses with a history of flooding, there will be enhanced flood protection as a result of the scheme.

In relation to submissions from the public concerns relating to flooding was raised in a number of cases. Evidence presented demonstrates some lodgement of surface water on the Coyle’s lands which are used for keeping horses; this problem may arise from the M7 as well as the regional road. These pre-existing problems are acknowledged by the applicant and will be remedied under the proposed scheme. In my opinion the nature of the flooding arising would be deemed to be relevant to the landowners only, being relatively minor in nature, and would not be of public concern. The observers have withdrawn their objection and I do not recommend the attachment of any specific conditions.

At the hearing Mr Cullinane responded to Mr Kiniron’s suggestion that a sluice gate be removed to avoid future upstream flooding. The sluice gate is north of the regional road in Newhall townland at the existing interchange. Mr Cullinane noted this device prevents flooding of downstream lands as well as regulating low flows. I agree his assessment that its removal is not feasible or desirable in overall terms. However, Mr Cullinane also noted that the proposed fish pass culvert will provide a secondary path for flood flows at this location. I consider that this goes reasonably to responding to the observer’s concerns, while balancing the overall hydrological regime in the area and therefore no further measures are recommended.

Kehoes 29 expressed a concern that the design of the attenuation pond is based on greenfield discharge, which is inappropriate as the outfall is to a watercourse that has a history of flooding. The outfall watercourse is stated to serve Naas and is an overflow from the canal and the existing box culvert which carries water under Osberstown Road is inadequate even for existing flows and will be unable to cater for the additional surface water from the motorway.

The design of the attenuation measures was correctly considered by the applicant in my opinion. It takes into account the existing and proposed roads, the increased rainfall intensity predictions and makes allowances for the proposed works as well as any deficiencies in the existing surface water system. I consider that any outstanding concerns in this locality relating to surface water management will be resolved through the construction of the proposed attenuation pond. I also note the withdrawal of the Kehoes’ observation.

Water Quality

29 Gerald and Shauna Kehoe.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 73 of 101

I refer to the earlier comments under the heading of ‘Ecology’. I consider that the measures incorporated in the scheme address water quality impacts which might arise from the current scheme as well as problems inherent in the existing motorway design. In particular I note the applicant’s statement that under the ‘do nothing’ scenario there would be a greater risk of a major pollution event and greater potential for increased background levels of pollution due to the the lack of hydrocarbon interception or spillage control measures.

The possible indirect impacts during construction are given an impact significance of moderate. In this regard measures are set out in 9/9 of the EIS and in the draft EOP. These are standard engineering measures 30 for the most part and would be readily capable of being properly implemented. The inclusion of agreement with IFI in relation to monitoring is an added and welcome approach.

Conclusion

Residual impacts identified in the EIS are

- Increased level of treatment prior to discharge, increased protection afforded to watercourses and greater level of protection against flooding is possible indirect impact which is residual, minor beneficial and permanent

- A permanent slight adverse impact occurs at Newhall Interchange which is the increased flood risk resulting from the extension to the culvert under the R445.

I consider that this is a reasonable summation of the effects of the development and mitigation measures. I conclude that the development would not give rise to significant adverse effects on the hydrological environment.

Soils and Geology Apart from the new interchange there are no proposed major earthworks and very limited works extend beyond the boundary of the existing road. Removal of 0.5m soil from the central median will be required and the applicant states that there is suitable subgrade materials in situ along the median and hard shoulder. The construction of the new interchange will entail excavation works along the margins of the road and the importation of 90,000m 3 of fill material31 . No excavation of bedrock is envisaged as part of the construction works.

The applicant’s submissions demonstrate that for a project of this size the expected earthworks movements are comparatively low and the overall rating of environmental

30 Section 1.4 of the Schedule of Commitments refers.

31 Total quantities of materials and construction traffic are set out in EIS Table 10.6 – importation of 90,000m 3 of fill and exportation of 300,583m 3 of material. This excludes certain materials including blacktop.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 74 of 101 impacts can reasonably be described as imperceptible. This is largely due to the fact that much of the groundwork is already completed because of the location of the development largely within the median of a modern road scheme.

I conclude that the scheme would not result in a significant adverse impacts on soils and geology.

Material Assets In relation to material assets the applicant refers primarily to the agricultural and property impact assessment associated with the new interchange and the attenuation ponds, which I consider is appropriate. The scheme requires the permanent acquisition of 9.611 hectares of agricultural lands and 0.430 hectares of other lands. No impacts on farmyards or farm buildings arise and no acquisition of houses is required.

In terms of the significance of the impacts arising I agree with the applicant that the permanent acquisition of about 10 hectares of land is not significant even at a county level. The significance of impact is assessed as moderate on four farms, meaning that there will be increased management difficulties in future due to the reduced area of land and impacts on hedges and trees. On the other hand it is noteworthy that due to the location of these lands close to the existing motorway line the impact is less than might otherwise arise. For instance new farm severance does not result and changes to boundaries generally occur at the edges of plots. In addition, the site context is such that property affected is generally already influenced by existing adverse effects, which will not be significantly increased in general.

During the construction phase indirect impacts will give effect to further impacts on agricultural property through noise, dust, access restrictions, disturbance of drainage and services during the construction phase. Mitigation measures for the construction phase includes temporary access and gates, temporary drainage measures on a site specific basis and provision of alternative sources of water / electricity.

Operational phase mitigation measures will include provision of appropriate fencing and ensuring that the drainage system is not worsened and that there is no increased risk of flooding.

During construction maintenance of two lane traffic flow will be a requirement of contract thus this aspect of the scheme will not impact on material assets.

The EIS assessment does not consider measures such as compensation for land acquisition and disturbance, which will be agreed once approval is granted or be subject to arbitration. In the relevant section of this report I consider the need for acquisition and the specific requests made by owners in relation to mitigation.

Objectors to the scheme referred to the lack of assessment on the railway system as a material asset. While no such assessment has been undertaken I do not consider

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 75 of 101 that a request for further information on this matter should be issued. The potential impact on the railway line would be difficult to accurately quantify. In the event that the road widening and interchange are permitted and the construction of the related OISB scheme will the benefit the railway. If the scheme was to give rise to significant levels of induced traffic by private car then the railway line might be deemed to be disadvantaged. The Board should note the potential for this scheme to affect the operation of the mainline railway line. I have also noted policies which promote assessment of this matter. While this matter is noteworthy, I do not consider that its omission from the applicant’s assessment is a core issue or militates against the undertaken of an EIA. The potential for the road scheme to attract passengers from the railway line must be considered in the context of the OISB which benefits the railway and in my recommendation relating to concurrent construction of the two elements of OISB and other recommended conditions.

In terms of the environmental impact of the development and its effect on material assets I consider that the Board can be satisfied that the nature and degree of impacts does not warrant withholding of consent for the scheme. The individual properties affected by the CPO are considered later in this report.

Human Beings Predicted impacts on human beings are assessed under Chapter 12 of the EIS. The specific assessments of particular impacts of importance notably noise, air quality and visual impacts, which are also intrinsic to this topic are separately considered in the various EIS Chapters. Mr Maguire for some observers has objected to the assessment on human beings on the basis that it was deemed inadequate. I consider that the nature of assessment undertaken complies with standard practice. Apart from the more detailed consideration of selected issues such as noise impacts, the EIS also presents information on impacts which primarily concern human beings such as journey characteristics, amenity, severance and economics. In summary I consider that the information presented by the applicant is an acceptable basis for the Board to undertake an EIA of this case.

I consider that the economic aspects of the scheme have been adequately rehearsed previously in this report in terms of the strategic importance of this route and the development of Naas and the region. The Board may also consider that the information presented during the hearing in relation to the cost benefit analysis is relevant insofar as it refers to safety. Regarding journey characteristics and amenity I consider that the scheme would benefit motorists and bus users for the duration of the period of assessment. Changes to the existing interchange will result in longer journeys for some people but equally will benefit others.

In relation to the effect on individuals, it is evident that some residents are subjected to a number of adverse impacts and the applicant noted in particular the impact on the Coyle family properties including by reason of the series of CPOs over the decades, the construction phase disturbance, noise and visual impacts. The EIS

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 76 of 101 notes that the Coyle properties at R25 and R26 will experience a permanent reduction in the level of amenity and noise barriers and planting is recommended. Other residents, it is stated, will experience improved amenity particularly in relation to noise impacts. I separately consider noise, air and visual impacts.

In terms of the overall effects on human beings and having regard to the site context particularly the presence of a major road, I find it difficult to conclude that consent for the scheme should be withheld for reason related to adverse impacts on human beings. In overall terms the scheme is accompanied by significant benefits including in terms of noise reduction and socio-economic impacts.

Landscape and Visual Impacts The development does not adversely affect any valued landscape features or views or prospects and would be situated in an area of low landscape sensitivity. By their nature the residential properties are deemed of higher sensitivity to change. For the most part the nature of the scheme gives rise to very low magnitude of landscape change. I consider that the applicant’s assessment that the landscape impact of the M7 widening is of low significance and neutral is reasonable. Equally the visual impact of the M7 widening is very limited due to the low numbers of receptors and the nature of the landscape change. Noise barriers would result in the largest magnitude of change but would be deemed to benefit the local residents in other ways.

I consider that the primary concerns on this topic relate to the impact on a number of residential properties in the vicinity of the proposed Newhall Interchange. At Newhall Interchange the applicant assessed 12 visual reference points and concluded that at three houses there would be long term visual change32 . In both cases additional landscaping has been proposed in response to the observers concerns, all of which objections have been withdrawn. Short term construction phase impacts will affect other residential receptors near the proposed Newhall Interchange.

Temporary visual impacts will affect large numbers of road users as well as residents and others along the length of the route. The majority of these receptors would not be deemed to be sensitive as they pass through the site on a transient basis and having regard to the nature of the existing landscape and journey purpose.

Having regard to the proposed mitigation measures and to the minimal change in character of the landscape which results from this development, including the new interchange, I consider that the landscape and visual impact on residential receptors and others is acceptable. I agree with the applicant’s conclusion that residual

32 Sections 4.28 and 4.29 of the submission of Mr Butler to the hearing provides more detail on these particular properties, which are owned by Ms Morrin and two of the Coyle families.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 77 of 101 impacts would not warrant restriction of the scheme and I have no further recommendations to make on this matter.

In relation to the cumulative impact the significant point is that there are no locations from which both this scheme and the OISB can be seen. Thus the only visual receptors experiencing both schemes at the one time, would be road users. The scheme is acceptable in terms of landscape and visual impacts.

Cultural Heritage The written and oral submissions on archaeological, architectural and cultural heritage indicate that impacts arising would not be of particular relevance to the determination of this application. I am satisfied that the matter has been properly considered in the applicant’s submissions including the EIS. Potential impacts which might occur include impacts on a possible fulachta fiadh at Newhall and Jigginstown and on the site of a former railway and the setting of a ringfort. In relation to the latter feature the retention of vegetation, which was confirmed at the hearing will minimise the impact on the ringfort.

In relation to potential features the resolution of remains by archaeological investigation, including preservation by record as necessary, is an acceptable solution and the mitigation measures set out have been approved by the DAHG. The Board can be satisfied that the cultural heritage impacts are acceptable.

Noise I address this matter under the following headings :

- Suitability of adopted guidance

- Adequacy of monitoring and predictions

- Suitability of the proposed mitigation measures

- Construction phase noise

- Concluding comments.

Guidance selected

The site context is dominated by high levels of road traffic noise. Noise impact associated with the development is perhaps the most significant environmental concern identified by objectors and the applicant. The existing conditions are described on the basis of surveys undertaken in 2012. With the exception of a small number of locations the measured noise levels were above 60dBL den. Ms Harmon’s evidence refers to existing noise levels of between 56 and 74dBL den.

The figure of 60dBL den will be familiar to the Board as the level which generally triggers a requirement for noise mitigation for road schemes. However as noted in

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 78 of 101 the EIS the criterion of 60dBL den applies only to new national roads. The NRA guidance 33 introduced this more onerous standard over the previously applied design standard of 68dB(A)L 10(18hour), which was deemed to be best practice though not enshrined in policy or law. In effect the guidance adopted in 2004, while setting a lower design standard for future roads, did not propose any specific remedies for situations where higher levels are or may be experienced.

The absence of specific guidance for the upgrading of existing roads was noted by Ms Harmon in evidence. NRA Guidance states only that it may be appropriate to adopt different design goals for diverse situations e.g. design goals for existing situations may be different from new situations. In this context I note the decision by the applicant to adopt the criteria set in the Kildare Local Authorities Noise Action Plan.

The KLANAP includes the objective of reducing, ‘where necessary and on a prioritised basis’ the harmful effects and annoyance of long term environmental noise. This plan is the adopted policy for the area. It notes the actions which can be taken and the limitation of resources.

In relation to road traffic noise the KLANAP notes that road maintenance will be an important factor in addressing road traffic noise. The estimate is that there are presently about 969 residents above the adopted 70dBL den for noise from road traffic sources and an estimated 3674 persons above the 57dBL night threshold, in total 2313 households.

It is open to the Board to deviate from the adopted thresholds and to impose more stringent requirements. I do not recommend such an approach for a number of reasons including the stated neutral impact of the scheme and the existence of an adopted plan, which will address noise problems based on clear prioritisation.

The use of the KLANAP standards as the threshold for mitigation was opposed by objectors to the scheme 34 . A number of other standards are considered more suitable according to observers. These include the WHO publications relating to night-time noise and standards for the protection of workers and the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act and Regulations. I agree with the applicant that these standards have a different purpose and would not be feasible for this location for operational noise.

In relation to night-time working BS 5228 guidance is relevant and has been adopted. Otherwise construction phase noise levels set by the NRA are to be used.

33 Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes.

34 Kehoes of Osberstown at Ch. 11+300 for example operate a crèche and refer to standards for workers.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 79 of 101

In conclusion I consider that the approach taken by the applicant in relation to the setting of thresholds for mitigation and the control of the construction phase are appropriate.

Adequacy of monitoring and predictions

The existing conditions are described on the basis of surveys undertaken in 2012 under which 23 locations were selected for attended monitoring and 4 for unattended monitoring. The conditions during survey were stated to be in line with accepted guidance. The submission from residents at Ladytown35 is based in part on the predictions for future noise levels at these houses and on the adopted standards. In relation to the accuracy of the predictions undertaken the objectors state that the wind direction and speeds at the time of surveys were not representative and that if properly assessed the noise levels at R16 would be above those predicted in the EIS for 2015 and 2030.

I do not consider that the above point is material. The survey data is not the basis for the predicted noise levels. The model incorporates data such as traffic flow, speeds, road alignment and assumes ‘downwind’ conditions for receptors. The survey data is used to establish the prevailing noise levels. I accept the applicant’s response on this matter as presented to the hearing by Ms Harmon and I consider that there is no basis for concluding that the assessment undertaken is deficient.

A number of other specific comments have been offered in relation to the existing noise environment and the report of an acoustic expert has been presented in addition 36 . The consultant did not appear on behalf of the observer at the hearing and the observation has withdrawn. I consider that Ms Harmon offered a credible response to the arguments presented regarding stated inaccuracies in the surveys 37 .

For the purpose of assessment of the operational phase of the scheme the applicant selected to use Predictor , a proprietary noise calculation package. Page 15/10 and 15/11 of the EIS set out the inputs into the model, which includes the low noise surface installed between Naas and Newhall (a correction factor of -2dB) and some existing noise barriers. The output of the model is calculations for dBL den and dBL night . The model was calibrated based on the survey data and was within allowable limits (+-3) and therefore confirmed as valid.

35 Parkers and Fordes who reside adjacent the canal at Ch4+000 and SO2c and R16. The information presented in Table 15.6 and 15.7 shows a reduction in noise levels over the Do Nothing scenario at this location due to the low noise road survey.

36 I refer to the submission by Searson Associates on behalf of Brendan and Gertie Coyle.

37 Section 7.5.2 of Ms Harmon’s submission.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 80 of 101

The EIS goes on to examine 59 residential locations and to predict operational noise levels for those locations. A review of the predicated noise levels indicate a number 38 of locations which exceed the threshold values of 70dBL den and 57dBL night . The first party notes however that the noise levels predicted between the Do nothing and Do something scenarios are nominally unchanged as there is a small variation in traffic flows between both scenarios. That claim is supported by the figures which are presented in a clear and accessible form in the EIS.

In relation to another observer’s comment that the noise levels are under-estimated as the traffic levels predicted will be exceeded, I address the matter of traffic management in my recommendation below. I note Ms Harmon’s evidence that increased traffic levels would in any case not significant change noise levels. In addition the assessment undertaken was subject to sensitivity testing using the high traffic growth scenario which confirmed that the requirements for mitigation are unaltered. I agree also with Ms Harmon that it is not necessary to undertake monitoring at every sensitive receptor 39 .

I conclude that the monitoring and modelling undertaken were acceptable and sufficient to provide a basis for mitigation measures.

Suitability of the proposed mitigation measures

The results of the monitoring and modelling presented show that overall there are neutral or slightly positive noise impacts associated with the scheme due to the low noise road surface and the reasonably similar traffic levels. There are a number of locations which are predicted to experience noise levels in excess of the KLANAP assessment thresholds but these levels would be experienced with and without the scheme upgrade works.

Table 15.8 of the EIS sets out the extent of noise barriers and their locations and the residual noise levels with the barriers in place for the operational phase are presented in Table 15.9. In relation to the effectiveness of the proposed noise mitigation measures the Board should note that these will not bring noise levels within the KLANAP thresholds. For instance noise levels at a number of locations including R54, R57, R58 and R59 will remain above the 57dBL night level.

In relation to the type of barrier to be used this matter was addressed at the hearing in response to a submission from observers. Ms Harmon clarified that while timber barriers are most commonly used other types could also be installed. The criteria to

38 Table 15.6 and 15.7 of the EIS present the predicted noise levels for 2015 and 2030. They show that the exceedance are mainly of the 57dBL night level - there are significantly less breaches of the

70dBL den .

39 This was raised by Brendan and Carol Carton of Lewistown, who reside between two monitoring stations S02a and So2b. This property is predicted to experience a 6dB decrease in noise levels.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 81 of 101 be met under the NRA Guidelines was described. This matter is adequately addressed in the applicant’s submissions and no particular planning conditions are required.

I next refer to some other specific matters raised in observations:

- One observer requested that the barrier height be increased to 2.5m in line with other barriers proposed for other locations. In response I note that different circumstances will require different height barriers for mitigation and there is no evidence to doubt the effectiveness of the proposed 2m barrier as modelled by the applicant in terms of providing adequate remedy at this location.

- The same observer 40 referred to the existing noise pollution from the 2 lane road and stated that an upgrade to three lanes could make the noise change intolerable. In terms of the significance of impact I note that there is not a direct correlation between traffic levels and noise and the EIS indicates that installation of barriers at the road edge together with the low noise surface improve the situation for these residents. In any event the predicted increase in traffic is low.

- The request by Cartons (between R12 and R13 ) is that substantial works be undertaken including raising of noise barriers to a height of 4.5 minimum and provision of a mound of clay along the motorway edge together with works to the house. A 6dB reduction over the Do Nothing scenario is predicted at this location. I consider that the requested mitigation measure cannot be justified for this house.

- The submission from residents at Ladytown 41 Naas request extension of the noise barrier as far as R16. However, the thresholds of the KLANAP are not

exceeded at that location. With the scheme in place the L den and L night levels decrease for 2015 and 2030.

- The request by the Coyles at and nearby R25 that noise barriers be provided to the front of their houses has been incorporated in the Schedule of Commitments, which I consider is appropriate in view of the cumulative impacts experienced, including visual impact and construction phase disturbances. The applicant acknowledged that the impact on these houses in particular was significant and thus proposed the additional mitigation.

40 Orla and Trevor Nuzum and others. A residual noise level of 3dB below the Do Nothing scenario is predicted.

41 Parkers and Fordes who reside adjacent the canal – the nearest point of the road is at Ch4+000. The information presented in Table 15.6 and 15.7 shows a reduction in noise levels over the Do Nothing scenario at this location due to the low noise road survey.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 82 of 101

- The objection of Old Abbey Manor estate was withdrawn during the hearing. Mr Kelly advised that enforcement of a planning condition requiring barriers adjacent the estate is currently being addressed by Kildare County Council.

In conclusion, the assessment undertaken by the applicant, which I consider is robust, shows that with the scheme in place the effect on residential receptors is neutral or beneficial when compared with the Do nothing scenario. The applicant presents the reduction in noise levels at a majority of residential receptors as one of the benefits of the scheme. I find no reason to dispute the applicant’s conclusions in this regard. The mitigation measures proposed are suitable and no further recommendations are offered in response to specific observations.

Construction phase noise

Assessment for construction phase noise indicates that at 50m from the works, the construction of daytime noise limits of 70dBL Aeq, 1 hour can typically be complied with. The majority of works will take place between 07:00 and 19:00 hours Monday to Friday. Lower limits are set for the evening period and weekends.

Construction noise mitigation measures will be rooted in the contract documents which will require best practice and additional noise screening measures where plant is operating close to houses and for generators, which are required to operate after 19:00. Due to the linear nature of the construction the noise emissions related to any particular phase will be short-term. The applicant states that the proposed noise limits and the restricted hours of operation together with implementation of noise control measures will ensure that noise impact is within acceptable standards.

Night-time working has been raised as a matter of concern in observations. In order to permit the continuous operation of the M7 some weekend, evening and on occasion night-time work will be required. The applicant indicates that works will be scheduled to ensure that high noise generating activities do not take place during periods with higher sensitivity to noise. In her submission to the hearing Ms Harmon clarified that the nature of works to be undertaken at night would be limited to traffic management measures and will not involve road construction and specifically will not be permitted to include percussive and breaking works. Where exceedance of recommended criteria are expected the use of noise mitigation measures as part of the construction works is proposed. Night-time noise is undesirable but necessary and I accept the applicant’s submissions that it will be minimised in terms of duration and nature.

I note the comments of Mr Sweetman in relation to the lack of review of past EIS assessments, which I take to refer to construction and operational noise levels. I consider that there is no reason to doubt that the measures proposed are capable of implementation. I also consider that the standards set and the general approach of

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 83 of 101 monitoring through the EOP will ensure a reasonable balance between the residential amenities and the construction process.

Concluding comment

The fact remains that if the proposed road scheme was now to be put in place in a greenfield environment, the mitigation thresholds set under NRA standards would be deemed to be exceeded for most residential properties and barriers would be likely to be installed. The applicant has acknowledged that the existing noise levels are relatively high. This situation will remain. It was open to the applicant to propose further mitigation in the form of noise barriers. However, there would have been no basis for such action in my opinion and I accept that the use of the KLANAP threshold was reasonable and appropriate. These standards are adopted policy for the area and they are approved by the EPA.

In making a recommendation on this matter I am mindful of the requirements for planning conditions as set down in the Department’s Development Management Guidelines. I do not consider that a condition to install additional road barriers to address an existing (as opposed to additional) noise impact would be relevant to the development in question. As the applicant notes there is a predicted residual reduction compared with the existing situation. I concur with this assessment.

I consider that the Board can be satisfied that the noise impacts arising would not warrant withholding of consent for this scheme. I recommend that the Board accept the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant.

Air Quality and Climate In relation to air quality and climate I consider that the main issues which the Board should consider relate to the effect of emissions on receptors, climate change, dust emissions during construction and cumulative impacts.

Sensitive receptors

In terms of the methodology of Dr Porter’s assessment I note objections to his work on the basis that no baseline air monitoring was undertaken. Mr Maguire focused on this point referring to the NRA guidance and the need for a minimum of three months monitoring. I accept Dr Porter’s evidence on this matter. In order to properly characterise the baseline environment monitoring at a number of locations and for up to a year would be required. The applicant instead has decided rely on the information available from the EPA’s air quality monitoring programme as the basis for the air modelling assessment. This is acceptable subject to the limits of emissions being significantly below limit values, which applies. I consider that this approach is reasonable and has become standard practice in more recent years with increases in data availability.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 84 of 101

I consider that the air dispersion modelling undertaken using the UK DMRB model is a suitable basis for assessment of the baseline and future environment. The assessment undertaken includes modelling at the worst-case receptors for 2015 and 2030. That assessment shows that in the operational phase the predicted concentrations of the standard traffic related airborne pollutants are within their limit values.

In relation to the emissions arising I refer the Board to discussions which took place at the hearing regarding the relationship between traffic speeds and emissions levels. Dr Porter refuted any suggestion that the optimum conditions are in place at present as the average speed is about 70pkh. The averaging out of emissions related to very low speeds and very high speeds does not equate to conditions whereby a steady speed is maintained. He noted in particular that in congested conditions in particular the emissions levels are especially high. I would reject any suggestion that a ‘Do Nothing’ scenario under which congestion would increase would benefit to air quality.

In overall terms I consider that the Board can be satisfied that the operation of the scheme would not give rise to air quality problems at the sensitive receptors.

Climate Change

An Taisce’s contributions on this matter are most relevant. In essence it is alleged that the development through the provision of an additional lane will result in increased vehicle kilometers and greenhouse gas emissions contrary to Smarter Travel. The stated minimal contribution of each road scheme to greenhouse gas production has to be considered in the context of dependency on motorised transport, which is not conducive to limiting gas emissions.

I am satisfied that the present conditions on the M7 involving significant daily periods of congestion do not benefit local air quality or the regional and national contribution of greenhouse gases. The halting of increase in vehicle emissions is one of a suite of commitments set out under Smarter Travel. Others of relevance to this issue focus on technological improvements, which An Taisce states are a long way off particularly for the freight sector.

I agree with Dr Porter’s evidence in response to An Taisce that the greenhouse gas contribution from this scheme would be small and I concur with his points regarding the efficient movement of traffic and the relationship to emissions. The assessment undertaken does not adequately capture the existing greenhouse gas emissions from the existing congested road.

However, I also consider that the point made by Dr Browne on behalf of An Taisce requires consideration in the context of longer time periods and the policies set out at European levels and translated into Smarter Travel. I have discussed this matter in more detail elsewhere in this report. I now repeat my conclusion. Unless the Board

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 85 of 101 can be satisfied that the development can be managed in such a way as to prevent significant induced traffic (and consequently increased vehicle kilometers) the development has to be considered to give rise significant levels of increases in vehicle kilometers, to be contrary to Smarter Travel and to contribute to increased production of greenhouse gases.

If the applicant’s figures prove correct and there is very little increase in AADT then due to the efficient movement of traffic the scheme would be likely to result in decreases in greenhouse gas production. The estimate for example is 0.005% of the national target for 2015. I refer the Board to 6.3 of Dr Porter’s submission.

My conclusions set out at the end of this report refer to the NTA plans under ROAD 5 for the protection of strategic routes. This is a follow on from the DTP vision set out in Platform for Change 2001, which was not implemented. In such policies lies the route to demand management along this corridor which, along with technological changes and facilitating the use of public transport (through OISB and by providing better conditions for buses) will provide for the control of greenhouse gas emissions.

In terms of whether the assessment by the applicant of this matter is sufficient I note that An Taisce refer to the lack of consideration of increasing the capacity of the M7 for private cars and notes the scale of change required to meet international agreements. I am unconvinced that this matter could have been more thoroughly considered for this scheme having regard to its limited length and I agree with the applicant that a regional or even national approach is required. I do agree that a more comprehensive discussion of this matter could have been provided, particularly in the EIS. However, I consider that the oral hearing discussions have sufficiently filled any deficits in information.

Construction phase emissions

In general due to the nature of the existing environment and limited earthworks dust emissions are not of particular concern along most of the scheme length. Construction will not involve large earthworks and exposed soil will be limited in area.

In relation to construction traffic I have noted above that there is considerable uncertainty about the haul routes and location of quarries. However, I also note Dr Porter’s comments relating to the impact on residential properties close to local roads and that the worst case scenario in terms of hgv numbers and road width. In my opinion this issue does not require further information.

Observers 42 in the vicinity of the proposed Newhall Interchange have expressed most concern about dust emissions. A response to these comments is presented in

42 Ms Morrin and Coyles.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 86 of 101 section 6 of Dr Porter’s presentation. I consider that the control of speed of construction vehicles, watering of roads and other measures set out in the Schedule of Commitments together with the proposed detailed EOP will minimise impacts.

Cumulative Impacts

I consider that the applicant’s submissions demonstrate that for the construction and operational phases the cumulative impacts on air and climate are acceptable. It is also noteworthy that the two schemes in combination could positively influence modal split through providing improved access to Sallins Train station. I accept Mr McGrath’s conclusion that .

Waste The EIS sets out a fairly standard approach to this matter including proposals for waste minimisation, reuse and recycling and identifies potential landfill locations. A waste management coordinator will have overall responsibility for waste management on the site and audit reports will be submitted to Kildare County Council. The nature of the scheme is such that relatively low levels of waste will arise. I accept that point and I note in general that the matter of waste generation and disposal from this scheme would not be deemed to be of significant concern.

Two particular issues arose at the hearing both of which relate to waste disposal. The applicant states that the indications are that even existing blacktop material will be suitable for normal disposal or for re-use and in particular would not be deemed to be toxic. While this was disputed by Mr Sweetman I found the applicant’s evidence more persuasive.

In relation to the matter of waste disposal Mr Sweetman presented an expose of all of the sites named in the EIS and identified why these each of these sites would not be deemed to be suitable for the intended purpose. I agree that all of the identified sites may not all be suitable. Kerdiffstown for example was noted to be still burning. Similarly in relation to the source of building materials and the consequences for dust generation and traffic there is uncertainty relating to quarries to be used. Mr Sweetman made a reasonable case in my opinion in relation to the lack of suitable identified quarry sites in the area apart from Belgard, which is some distance away and at the far side of the Newland’s Cross works.

In relation to Mr Sweetman’s specific point I agree that there is a deficit of specific knowledge related to haul routes for example. However, the applicant’s basic objective is to manage and dispose of waste in an appropriate manner and to an EPA listed site and similarly to properly source the construction materials. I find no evidence to conclude that the incomplete consideration of certain effects seriously undermines the Board’s ability to undertaken an environmental impact assessment of this case. While there are areas of doubt in terms of the detail of the impacts,

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 87 of 101 these matters are not of such significance to influence the decision of the Board in my opinion.

Cumulative Impacts The Naas to Newbridge Bypass Upgrade is described as a standalone project that is required and justified in the context of planning policy and infrastructure programmes. It is considered that it will have to be carried out notwithstanding the contemporary proposal for OISB. Separate consideration and assessment of the scheme is therefore considered appropriate. The design teams for the two schemes shared information and discussed impacts when formulating the two applications.

I agree with the applicant that the two schemes, which have different purposes require separate consideration. In order to gain a comprehensive picture of cumulative impacts and interactions the two cases should be jointly considered by the Board. Chapter 18 of the EIS deals with potential cumulative impacts.

A range of cumulative impacts are considered including in relation to sensitive receptors, environmental topics.

In terms of the potential cumulative impacts on sensitive receptors the EIS notes some residential properties which are impacted by a range of different impacts, noise and landscape and visual impacts.

The traffic analysis cumulative impacts sets out to address three issues namely the cumulative impacts with regards to traffic, the possible opening of the OISB prior to Naas to Newbridge Bypass upgrade and the need for an upgrade of Newhall Interchange even with the OISB in place.

There are potential cumulative impacts on water quality if the schemes are constructed together.

In relation to noise the EIS considered the traffic flows on the mainline from the two schemes operating together and this assessment confirmed that noise levels at 59 no. sensitive locations assessed show no increase above the calculated levels. Thus the mitigation measures set out are appropriate for the scheme in isolation or in combination with OISB.

APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT Introduction The applicant’s submission is mainly contained in the Habitats Directive Assessment Screening Report which identifies the Natura 2000 sites within 15km of the development and concludes in relation to each that the scheme would have no significant effect. On that basis it was considered that a Stage 2 assessment was not required.

The requirement that the Board undertake an appropriate assessment of the impacts of the scheme on the designated sites can be reasonably commenced with consideration of Pollardstown Fen. It is in relation to that site that there is most

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 88 of 101 potential for significant effects on the SAC. I consider that if the conclusions drawn by the applicant in relation to ‘no significant effects’ are deemed to be valid for this SAC then it also applies to the other Sites for which maintenance of the existing hydrological regime is the critical consideration. For these reasons I primarily consider Pollardstown Fen below. Beginning with an outline of the contents of the screening report I move on to assess its conclusions with reference to the EIS and supplementary information from the oral hearing related to Pollardstown Fen. Following consideration of Pollardstown Fen I address the other SACs within the 15km radius.

Contents of Screening Report The report identifies a 250m zone of potential direct impact. Outside of that zone it notes that a source-pathway-receptor connection is required for an indirect impact to occur. On page 8 Pollardstown Fen is described with reference to the 40 springs which supply water. The springs are noted to rise chiefly at the margins of the fen. A continual inflow of water from the Curragh to the south and from lands to the north creates the water conditions which sustain the habitat. Vegetation is described and conservation objectives listed. The generic objective applies and the species selected are the three Whorl snails, Calcerous fens, Petrifying springs with tufa formation and Alkaline fens.

The hydrogeological impact assessment on page 11 references Chapter 7.5 of the EIS and concludes that there will be no impact on groundwater levels, groundwater flow or wells. A slight beneficial impact in groundwater quality at operational stage is noted. It states that the hydrogeological assessment confirms that the scheme is not within the Pollardstown Fen groundwater catchment and will therefore have no impact on the SAC. The hydrological impact assessment on Page 12 notes some risks and benefits.

In terms of potential effects the qualifying interests are all stated to be dependent on the groundwater springs which feed the site. At 5km distance there is no possibility of direct impact on the site. There are no hydrogeological or hydrological connections linking the SAC and the scheme. It can be confidently concluded that the proposed scheme will have no significant effect on the SAC. In combination effects are considered and ruled out also.

Assessment of conclusion of screening report

I now refer to the supporting evidence presented in Chapter 12 of the EIS and the applicant’s submissions to the hearing. In relation to GWDTEs it is noted in the EIS that none are within 250m of the proposed road upgrade. Pollardstown Fen is about 5km north-west of the southern end of the proposed upgrade. The upgrade is stated to be not within the groundwater catchment of Pollardstown Fen and it will not therefore have an impact.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 89 of 101

Page 8/8 refers to a reduction in groundwater recharge as a result of the increased impervious area in the surface catchments and an estimate of the reductions in m 3 / year is provided for each of the three GWBs. The magnitude of the impact of reduction in recharge is rated as negligible in the context of the Working Group on Groundwater paper which is cited whereby impacts of under 2% of recharge are rated as having no impact potential.

Potential impacts on groundwater arising from spillage containment measures and from removal of the median and the matter of aquifer vulnerability through removal of geological materials in the construction phase are identified in the EIS. The former is identified as a potential benefit.

Mitigation includes avoidance of construction of new fills or cuts, limit to the footprint and use of existing drainage system. Backfilling or decommissioning of pits / boreholes is proposed to avoid groundwater contamination. The drainage system and other measures will mitigate the likely impacts on groundwater levels, flows and quality.

In the Hydrogeology section of the EIS the applicant set out residual impacts which include a reduction in groundwater contributions, which would be a possible indirect impact of the road on groundwater body status, assessed as imperceptible and permanent. The increased level of protection of groundwater resource is a possible residual, minor beneficial and permanent impact.

The above derives from the EIS. In relation to the supporting information which arose at the hearing relevant matters are set out below.

Mr Warwick indicated that the scheme is not within the groundwater catchment and does not include any cuts or dewatering and there will be no impact on the springs, on the Curragh Aquifer or otherwise on the SAC. Mr Murphy presented evidence on Ecology. He noted that the Screening Report for Appropriate Assessment was prepared in the context of best scientific knowledge and that there is no doubt about its conclusion that there will be no impact whatsoever on any Natura 2000 site.

Dr Quinlan’s evidence was that there would be no cuts on the scheme, there is no dewatering and there will be no drain or change in ground water, that the water table and the aquifer are not been affected and that there will be no change to the quantities, volumes or directions of ground water flow. Dr Quinlan was emphatic and stated that it is impossible for the water levels or volumes in the Curragh aquifer to be altered as a result of groundwater extraction or dewatering and that under the most conservation estimate there will be no impact. He did acknowledge a reduction in groundwater recharge of less than 0.001% and that less than 2% is taken as having no significance.

I note the requirement to maintain the selected species / habitats in favourable conservation status is the overall aim of the Habitats Directive. The conservation

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 90 of 101 status of habitats and species is subject of ‘Article 17’ reports to the European Commission every six years. Reports indicate that the six qualifying interests of Pollardstown Fen are all in unfavourable conservation status and it is noted that a decline in habitat quality has lead to a decrease in the population of one of the species. As was discussed at the hearing there have been marginal drawdowns in the springs but there is incomplete knowledge in relation to the source of that problem. Mr Murphy also noted that the nature and location of the Kildare Bypass was completely different to the current scheme.

I agree with the overall point that the influences which are affecting the conservation status of the fen are of a different nature to the scheme presented. I note that the SAC may be affected by a range of a range of possible pressures including development at Newbridge and in the rural hinterland and the Kildare Bypass and that the fen is a source of water to the Grand Canal. The nature of the subject scheme has to be considered in this context.

The argument made at the hearing was that the assessment presented in the screening report did not properly integrate the acknowledged reduction in recharge. For this reason it was Mr Sweetman’s position that there is a lacuna in the assessment undertaken. I agree that the screening report would have been completed by the acknowledgement of the reduction in recharge and comments on that impact. In addition, it might have benefited from further consideration of the hydrogeological environment. However, the screening report presented is but one part of a process of assessment and it is ultimately for the Board to draw together the strands of information and to make conclusions.

In relation to whether the development would have a significant effect on the SAC I consider that the totality of the applicant’s evidence in persuasive. In particular I note the following points :

• The scheme is not located in the vicinity of the springs which feed the fen

• The scheme is separated from the SAC by 5km and by the town of Newbridge and the Fen is a source of water to the Grand Canal

• The scheme does not involve cuts or dewatering but does increase the impermeable area by removal of the median

• The median currently drains primarily to streams via the existing drainage network

• The groundwater recharge loss is less than 0.001%.

In the context of the above points I consider that the only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn is that the development would not have a significant effect on the

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 91 of 101

SAC. I consider that the applicant’s submissions provide scientific certainty to support that conclusion.

Other European Sites

The other European Sites within the 15km radius are Mouds Bog SAC, Pollardstown Fen SAC, Red Bog Sac, Ballynafagh Bog SAC, Ballynafagh Lake SAC, Poulaphouca Reservoir SPA. I have concluded above that due to the nature of the scheme and its location there is no likelihood of significant effects on the hydrological regime supporting Pollardstown Fen. I consider that this conclusion is valid for the other SACs which are all dependent on maintenance of hydrological conditions namely Mouds Bog, Red Bog, Ballynafagh Bog and Ballynafagh Lake having regard to the significant distances and the nature of the habitats.

In relation to Poulaphouca Reservoir SPA it can be reasonably concluded that the development would not be likely to have a significant effect Poulaphouca Reservoir in view of its qualifying interests (overwintering birds) and the nature of the habitat and the distance from the scheme. I conclude that the development would not have significant effects on these European Sites.

Conclusion I consider that the Stage 1 Assessment undertaken by the applicant is sufficient basis for the Board to conclude the Appropraite Assessment in this case. I conclude that there is no doubt over the conclusion that the development would not have significant effects on the European Sites in the area.

COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER It is required that the Board decide whether or not the landtake proposed under the CPO is necessary. Therefore notwithstanding the fact that a majority of property owners have withdrawn their objections to the CPO, I have for the purpose of the application examined the areas of landtake arising. The foregoing refers to the significant plots including some in relation to which objections no longer stand.

In relation to the objection by Origin Enterprises (withdrawn) 43 lands are being acquired on a temporary and permanent basis. The lands are required for the purposes of the construction compound and other works relating to the realignment of Due Way.

I am satisfied that the realignment of Due Way is necessary to address an existing haphazard situation. The applicant indicates that the roundabout to which the realigned Due Way connects is at a location which provides safe connections to existing accesses in the vicinity. I accept that point. I am of the opinion that the realigned Due Way together with the new roundabout and the attenuation pond at this location are set out in a rational manner and that there is no unnecessary land acquisition.

43 Plots 106a.201, 106g.201, 106b.201, 106d.201, 106c.201 and 106e.201.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 92 of 101

In relation to the location of the temporary construction compound this land will subject to later agreement be returned to the owner. I consider that the scale and location of the additional lands being acquired to the south-east of Due Way are reasonably required for the purpose of the Scheme.

The lands south of the Rathasker Road roundabout in the vicinity of and including plot 104b.201 owned by Dennison Trailers Ltd are stated to be required for the roundabout. The owner did not submit a formal objection but separated contacted the applicant. The location of the roundabout is stated to balance the need to maintain access to Dennison Trailers Ltd premises and reduce impact on their yard as well as minimising the necessary realignment of Rathasker road and maintaining an equitable impact on landowners. I consider that this layout reasonably balances the various impacts and I note Mr Kelly’s comment that to concede to a request by Dennison Trailers to move the roundabout to the north-east would only have further consequences for the Origin Enterprises property. The layout proposed seems reasonable and equitable and the landtake necessary.

The impact on the plots owned by Catherine Morrin (Plots 103b.201 and 103a.101) was acknowledged by the applicant in the oral hearing submission. Ms Morrin reached a settlement with the Council and has withdrawn her objection. I accept the applicant’s position, which is that this land is required for the delivery of a safe junction arrangement specifically the northbound off-slip and the fish ladder.

The northbound on-slip of the proposed Newhall Interchange as designed involves lands owned by Mr Fintan Flood (Plots 107b.201 and 107c.201). Mr Flood has not withdrawn his objection. His concern refers mainly to a safety issue at the R445 junction at Newhall Cross and that due to the CPO that junction will be more frequently used. The junction would not be considered to comply with current standards and I agree that encouraging further usage is not desirable. The subject junction however is subject of a planning condition, in the event that a permission was taken up. Separately its realignment is also being pursued by the applicant. In that regard I am satisfied that the unforeseen or unacceptable consequences would not result from the scheme. The lands appear to be necessary for the purposes of the scheme and the CPO should be confirmed.

The impact on the Coyle family properties was acknowledged by the applicant’s team throughout the hearing and the objectors finally reached settlement with the Council and withdrew their objection. The impacts arise from successive landtake during development of the Naas to Newbridge dual carriageway, the Naas Bypass, and the Driochead Nua Bypass over the decades. A further acquisition from one of the Coyle households (Plots 109a.201 and 109b.201) was deemed to be necessary to ensure provision of a safe junction. I concur with the applicant in relation to the need for this land acquisition.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 93 of 101

Lands owned by Mr Edward Kiniron (Plot 11a.101) which are immediately adjacent the existing motorway at Ch.7+800 are to be acquired for an attenuation pond to control and treat water from the stream which passes under the motorway at this location. The objection was withdrawn. Minimal landtake is involved. The objectors suggestion that the scheme drainage design make provision for development of other lands in the vicinity was rejected by the applicant. I do not recommend Mr Kiniron’s suggestion to the Board as it would require landtake and investment beyond the needs of the scheme. An objection based on maintenance of access is not reasonably sustainable in my opinion as the pond can be readily accessed at the selected position.

Mr John Kehoe’s lands are subject to acquisition for the purpose of installing an attenuation pond (Plots113d.101 and 113b.101) and wayleaves owned by himself and his son are also affected. The objections were ultimately withdrawn. Mr Kelly’s evidence to the hearing was that the pond will prevent the motorway from contributing to the flooding issues in the area and will provide attenuation, which is presently absent. The location of the pond is deemed to be dictated by its association with the outfall and the need to access the pond from the motorway without interfering with an adjacent noise barrier. I do not consider that this pond could be more suitably located in terms of balancing its function in the scheme and the selection of a relatively unobtrusive location on the holding. I note that it will be fenced. I consider that the development is necessary for the scheme and that the acquisition is reasonable and appropriate.

The observation of Brendan and Carol Carton stands. That submission requests substantial works to mitigation noise levels including raising of noise barriers to a height of 4.5 minimum and provision of a mound of clay along the motorway edge together with works to the house. The owned failed to come to an agreement with the Council. The plot to be acquired is already part of the motorway and is included in the current CPO in order to rectify an error from a previous scheme. I recommend that the CPO be confirmed.

No noise measurements were undertaken at that property and the noise barriers proposed will be totally inadequate. Additional and adequate landscaping is required including by reason of the location close to the canal. Night-time working will have a profound impact and should be prohibited.

I conclude that the Board can be satisfied that the lands outlined in red and coloured blue and grey are necessary for the scheme. I recommend that the scheme be approved.

CONCLUSIONS I consider that it is appropriate that transport planning formulates measures to address the serious levels of congestion evident at the AM and PM peaks along this

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 94 of 101 route. I refer again to the strategic importance of the route within the EU and in economic terms. Curbing mobility is not an option and does not benefit the economy, greenhouse gas production or movement of buses and freight.

The objective in making a decision on this case is to ensure that the manner of resolving existing congestion minimises additional long distance commuting and does not undermine efforts to promote sustainable modal choices.

The scheme does address a capacity problem for outbound traffic in the PM peak and physical constraints at Newhall Interchange. Justification for these elements of the scheme can be readily made in my opinion.

However, notwithstanding the support of various agencies and DoTTS for this Scheme, there are many aspects of national policy which are not supportive of the increased road capacity in the absence of any demand management.

The applicant’s submission is that the scheme is exceptional. Implicit perhaps in that argument is an acknowledgement that this is not a proposal which can be justified on a simple basis, having regard to the prevailing policy context. Again, that comment refers in particular to the additional inbound lane.

I agree that the scheme is exceptional but not for the primary reason stated by the applicant, namely that it is required to provide capacity along the TEN-T. That argument is open to debate when considered in terms of the multi-modal nature of the core network and the focus in EU policy terms on sustainable modes of travel.

Instead the exceptional nature of the scheme derives from its connection with the concurrent Osberstown Interchange and Sallins Bypass which requires prior upgrading of the mainline. I accept elaborate on the matter in the report on HA0046.

When considered together the two road schemes provide the basis for an integrated approach to traffic and transport in the region, something which is not achieved by the Naas to Newbridge Bypass Upgrade as a stand along project – that is not its purpose.

But even when considered as part of a suite of measures for the area, together with HA0046, I consider that there are strong arguments for refusal of permission for the current application. The applicant has not demonstrated that the increased capacity is not achievable under a revised scheme for the M7, one which incorporated demand management measures. I remind the Board of my previous references to the conclusions of the NRA study for the M50 and the potential at that location for 20% reduction in flows.

The applicant commented that whether we should have ever had a major inter-urban network is a matter for national policy. The fact is that network is in place and the

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 95 of 101 task now is to ensure its proper management. That includes protecting its capacity and previous investment.

Draft policy is in place in the form of NTA plans under ROAD 5 for the protection of strategic routes. Therein lies the mechanism for demand management along this corridor which, along with technological changes and facilitating the use of public transport (through OISB as well as through removing of congested conditions for buses) will provide for the control of greenhouse gas emissions.

Implicit in the arguments presented by the applicant in relation to demand management is the requirement for a regional approach to the preparation and implementation of a scheme. The Board has addressed similar issues before in considering the application for the M50 upgrade. Notwithstanding the indicative intentions of the NTA under ROAD 5, which I stress are not yet adopted policy within DoTTS, I recommend a similar condition be attached. The recommended condition shows the intent of the Board in relation to Smarter Travel, reflects the multimodal nature of TEN-T and keeps demand management firmly on the agenda. I also consider that the draft policy document of a body such as the NTA is relevant for consideration and might be worth referencing in the Board’s Direction, but I have not incorporated it in the order below.

In the absence of modelling of induced traffic in particular I consider that the indirect effects of the scheme cannot be deemed properly assessed unless the scheme is regulated by the recommended condition. Otherwise I am satisfied that the EIA can be completed.

The Board may wish to consider a refusal of permission. That would require the various agencies to find other ways to address the congestion which in the medium to long term might be deemed the preferred solution and in line with international and national policy provisions and with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

I do not favour a refusal of permission for a number of reasons.

1. The scheme is necessary to facilitate the concurrent OISB which is important for the development of the Primary Growth Centre and improvement of access to the train station and reduction of congestion on regional roads used by buses. The benefits of that scheme are maximised by the recommended condition under HA0046 that OISB be developed in a single phase. Osberstown Interchange was required to be constructed under permission for the Millennium Park.

2. Widening harnesses the long planned use of the wide median. The important point is that the additional capacity is is properly managed.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 96 of 101

3. The scheme is needed in the short-term to address the capacity issues at Newhall Interchange, at J9 and at the merge and in particular to address outbound traffic congestion arising at Maudlins.

I note Mr Desmond’s reference to the DTO policy in Platform for Change from 2001 which envisaged the implementation of demand management, with ‘strategic, but limited, improvements to the road network which will be managed in a way which does not encourage peak hour car commuting’. In the interim the country has gone from boom to bust. The context for the current scheme includes a return to growth. In the interim policy provisions have re-iterated and reinforced the message of demand management. In my view it is time that all agencies and the Board pursued appropriate action.

My recommendation below has regard to

(i) the long-standing policy objective, recently reinforced in draft NTA policy and inherent in TEN-T, of managing road improvements to that they do not encouraging peak hour commuting

(ii) the requirements under EIA to properly assess the direct and indirect effects arising.

Subject to this condition being attached the Board can be satisfied that the effects of the scheme have been properly assessed and that the development is compatible with prevailing policy provisions.

RECOMMENDATION – MOTORWAY SCHEME (09.MA0012)

I consider that the land take is reasonable and proportional to the stated purpose to improve this section of the M7 National Primary Road. I am satisfied that the process and procedures undertaken by Kildare County Council have been fair and reasonable and it has demonstrated the need for the lands and that all the lands being acquired are both necessary and suitable. I consider that the proposed acquisition of the lands would be in the public interest and the common good and would be consistent with the policies and objectives of the Kildare County Development Plan.

I therefore recommend the scheme be confirmed.

DECISION

APPROVE the motorway scheme for the reasons and considerations set out in Schedule 1 subject to the modifications set out in Schedule 2.

SCHEDULE 1

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 97 of 101

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Having considered the objections made to the motorway scheme, the report of the person who conducted the oral hearing into the objections, the purpose of the compulsory acquisition as set out in the form of the motorway scheme and also having regard to:

(a) the need to address the existing congestion along the M7 including the substandard nature of the existing Newhall Interchange and the congestion arising from the drop from three lanes to two and from the merge of the M9 and M7 at Great Connell (b) the facilitation of the related but separate concurrent proposed Osberstown Interchange and Sallins Bypass Scheme (c) the resultant improvement to freight and bus movements arising from the proposed road development (d) the community need, public interest served and overall benefits, including benefits to the Primary Growth Centre and to public transport to be achieved from use of the acquired lands for the purpose identified in the motorway scheme, and (e) the provisions of the Kildare County Development Plan and the policies and objectives stated therein which specifically identify the proposed road development (f) the proportionate design response to the identified need, it is considered that, subject to the modifications to the scheme as set out in the Schedule below, the acquisition by the local authority of the lands in question, and the extinguishment of public and private rights of way, as set out in the motorway scheme and on the deposited maps, are necessary for the purpose stated, and that the objections cannot be sustained having regard to the said necessity.

SCHEDULE 2

The motorway scheme shall be modified as described in the proposed changes to the schedule submitted to An Bord Pleanala at the oral hearing on the 26 th day of May 2014.

Reason : To take account of updated information in respect of land ownership and other matters.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 98 of 101

RECOMMENDATION PROPOSED ROAD DEVELOPMENT (09.HA0045) I consider that the need for the proposed development has been adequately demonstrated and that the applicant has provided sufficient justification for the development proposed.

I consider that the scheme constitutes a reasonable approach to the improvement of capacity constraints at this location having regard to the wide median.

The EIS supplemented by the information provided at the oral hearing are sufficient to allow for a full environmental impact assessment of the predicted impacts subject to modification by the conditions below.

The Stage 1 screening for appropriate assessment was acceptable and a finding of ‘no significant effects’ can be supported.

I submit that the proposed development would reasonably accord with the national, regional and local planning policy, subject to the recommended conditions below.

The development subject to the identified mitigation and environmental commitments, would not have a significant impact on the environment.

I therefore recommend that the proposed development be approved for the reasons and considerations set out in Schedule 1 subject to conditions set out in Schedule 2.

SCHEDULE 1

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS Having regard to:

(a) the provisions of the European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1989 – 1999 (as amended), and the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations, 2011,

(b) the policies of the Government as set out in the document Smarter Travel – A Sustainable Transport Future 2009-2020,

(c) the provisions of the Regional Planning Guidelines and the designation of Naas as a Primary Growth Centre

(d) the policies and objectives of the Kildare County Development Plan including objective RP-1 which provides for the development of a third lane and RP-3 which refers to the identification of a new location for Newhall Interchange

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 99 of 101

(e) the seriously substandard condition of the existing road network in terms of its operation at Level of Service E and its location within the core network of TEN-T and the resultant improvement arising from the proposed road scheme

(f) the submissions on file, including the environmental impact statement and associated documentation and the submissions made in connection with the application at the oral hearing and the range of mitigation measures set out in the documentation received.

It is considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions set out below, the proposed road development would not have significant negative effects on the community in the vicinity, would not give rise to a risk of pollution, would not have a significant effect on the environment of any designated Natura 2000 site or site of ecological interest, would not have a significant impact on any protected species, would not have a detrimental impact on archaeological and architectural heritage, would not give rise to detrimental visual or landscape impacts, and would not seriously injure the amenities of the area or of property in the vicinity. It is considered that the proposed road development, which would constitute an improvement in terms of the economic function of the road and through facilitating the improved safety and convenience, would be in the interests of the common good and would be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

SCHEDULE 2

CONDITIONS

1. The proposed development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans, drawings and documentation submitted with the application, as amended by the information submitted to An Bord Pleanála at the oral hearing on May 26 th , 28 th and June 6 th 2014, including the environmental impact statement and supporting documentation, except as may be otherwise required in order to comply with the condition set out below.

Reason: In the interest of clarity.

2. All mitigation measures and commitments set out in the environmental impact statement and the ‘Final Schedule of Commitments’ submitted to the oral hearing on the 6th day of June shall be implemented as part of the proposed road development.

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 100 of 101

Reason: In the interest of clarity and to mitigate the environmental effects of the proposed road development and to protect the amenities of the area and of property in the vicinity.

3. (a) A scheme of specific demand management measures for the M7 motorway corridor, which shall be prepared following consultation with the NTA shall be published by the local authority not later than three years after the Naas to Newbridge Bypass Upgrade Scheme has been completed.

(b) Thereafter the local authority shall undertaken a review every two years of the AADT and shall compare actual AADT with the levels predicted under the modelling undertaken for the purpose of this application.

(c) Where the review demonstrates for any continuous period of over three years that AADT is over 5% above the predicted AADT the demand management measures referenced in (a) above shall be immediately implemented.

(d) This condition shall operate until 2030 only.

Reason: To ensure in the absence of modelling of induced traffic and consideration of demand management alternatives that the development does not give rise to significant increases in vehicle kilometers or otherwise undermine the objectives of Smarter Travel and to ensure that the capacity of the road is protected and that its strategic functions are prioritised.

Mairead Kenny

Senior Planning Inspector

15th August 2014

HA0045/MA0012 An Bord Pleanála Page 101 of 101