An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

Board Reference: 16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001

Re: Mayo County Council Compulsory Purchase Order 2011 (No. 1) – N59 Westport to Mulranny Road Improvement Scheme. Approval under Section 177AE(4) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended).

Location: Townlands of Murrevagh, Bunnahowna, Rosturk, Rosgalliv, Newfield, Knockmanus, Meennacloughfinny, Roskeen North, Knockloughra, Knockbreaga, Carrowbeg (Fergus), Carrowsallagh, Derrycooldrim, Gortfahy, Keeloges (E.D. Newport East), Derrada, Knockalegan, Corraunboy, Carrowkeel (E.D. Newport East), Kiltarnaght, Cahergal, Drumbrastle East, Derryloughan More, Knocknageeha, Corragaun, Gortawarla, Rossow, Rosdooaun, Knocknaboley, Clooneen, Knockysprickaun, Knockychottaun, Cross, Drumard, Conrea, Shanvallybeg, Derrylea, Cranareen, Derrynanaff, Creggaunnahorna, Westport Demesne and Deerpark East; in the D.E.D.s of Newport West, Newport East, Derryloughan, Kilmeena, and Westport Urban, Co. Mayo.

Objectors to CPO: - Kathleen Ensko - Eircom Ltd. - Anthony Doyle - Ron & Maite Morrison - Patrick McGreal & Jacqueline McGreal - Michael Patrick Moran & Lilian Ann Moran - Triona Walsh - C. Cusack - Michael & Teresa Staunton - John Ryan - Niall O’Boyle

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 72 - Eugene Owens - Eithne Chambers - George O’Malley - Helena O’Malley - Michael Doyle & James Doyle - Deirdre Leahy - Martin Nevin - Burrishoole Residents Association - Patrick Cusack (Patrick J. Cusack, Solicitors) - Luke Breach (The Planning Partnership) - Gerard Muldowney (Karen A. O’Malley, Solicitors) - Madeline Jordan (Karen A. O’Malley, Solicitors) - Padraig Murray (Karen A. O’Malley, Solicitors) - Alan Moran & Michelle Davitt (Karen A. O’Malley, Solicitors) - Tommie Moran (Karen A. O’Malley, Solicitors) - Seán McGlynn (Karen A. O’Malley, Solicitors) - Michael F. Loftus (Gaynor Corr & Associates) - Gerard McGinty (Gaynor Corr & Associates) - Pat Ryder (Gaynor Corr & Associates) - Gerard McNulty (Gaynor Corr & Associates) - John McLoughlin (Gaynor Corr & Associates) - Tom Ryder (Gaynor Corr & Associates) - Noreen Duggan Gavin (Gaynor Corr & Associates) - Tony McNeela (Gaynor Corr & Associates) - Reps of Thomas Loftus (Gaynor Corr & Associates) - John T. Moran (Gaynor Corr & Associates) - Paul & Ann Moran (Gaynor Corr & Associates) - Martin Moran (Gaynor Corr & Associates) - Brendan McLoughlin (Gaynor Corr & Associates) - Patrick Hughes (Gaynor Corr & Associates) - Michael McCormack (Gaynor Corr & Associates) - Sinead Cusack (Gaynor Corr & Associates) - Francis Cusack (Gaynor Corr & Associates) - Martin & Liz Gillen (Catherine Walshe)

Observations to NIS -Department of Arts, Heritage & Gaeltacht

Local Authority: Mayo County Council

Date of Site Inspection: 23 rd & 24 th February, 2 nd , 3 rd & 18 th April 2012.

Inspector: Michael Dillon

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 72 1.0 NATURE AND SCOPE OF COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER

1.1 The Compulsory Purchase Order relates to the compulsory acquisition of lands within the 42 townlands of Murrevagh, Bunnahowna, Rosturk, Rosgalliv, Newfield, Knockmanus, Meennacloughfinny, Roskeen North, Knockloughra, Knockbreaga, Carrowbeg (Fergus), Carrowsallagh, Derrycooldrim, Gortfahy, Keeloges (E.D. Newport East), Derrada, Knockalegan, Corraunboy, Carrowkeel (E.D. Newport East), Kiltarnaght, Cahergal, Drumbrastle East, Derryloughan More, Knocknageeha, Corragaun, Gortawarla, Rossow, Rosdooaun, Knocknaboley, Clooneen, Knockysprickaun, Knockychottaun, Cross, Drumard, Conrea, Shanvallybeg, Derrylea, Cranareen, Derrynanaff, Creggaunnahorna, Westport Demesne and Deerpark East, Co. Mayo, by Mayo County Council. The area of the scheme extends to some 95.055ha – much of which is contained within the existing N59 road alignment, and some 4.79ha of which is actually held in title by Mayo County Council. The owners/lessees/occupants or reputed owners are listed in the First Schedule of the Notice. It is stated in the Order that the local authority is authorised to acquire compulsorily the lands for the purposes of the improvement and construction of the realigned road. The Second Schedule of the Order refers to the extinguishment of rights-of-way – 27 no. public rights-of-way and 4 no. private rights-of-way. The Manager’s Order for the CPO is dated 21 st December 2011.

1.2 The CPO is made arising from of the passing, by the elected representatives of Mayo County Council, of the N59 National Secondary Route Westport to Mulranny Road Realignment Scheme under Part XI of the Planning and Development Acts 2000-2010 and under Part 8 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, (as amended). The Scheme was adopted by the elected representatives, at a meeting held on 14 th November 2011. The scheme comprises the following elements- • Construction of a Type 3 carriageway road (6.0m wide carriageway with 0.5m flanking hard strips and verges of 2-3m) for a distance of approximately 21.2km. • Division of road improvements into three sections: A (Mulranny to Knockbreaga – 8.0km); B (Knockbreaga to Newport – 6.4km); & C (Corragaun to Westport – 6.8km). • Predominantly on-line improvement with two off-line sections within Section C at Rossow (Rosdooaun) - 0.6km length; and Barleyhill (Derrynanaff/Creggaunnahorna) - 1.0km length. • Enhancements to existing Great Western Greenway cycle/walking route by removal of two ‘at grade’ crossings, and the construction of an underpass, an over-bridge, and 3.2km of cycleway – typically 2.5m in width along the improved N59. • Improvement of 55no. side road junctions (which will involve closure of 31 no. road junctions and their replacement or improvement). • Construction of a roundabout at Westport.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 72 • Widening of 5 no. existing bridges and construction of 4 no. new bridge structures (one of which is a pedestrian/cycle over-bridge). • Widening of 13 no. existing culverts and construction of 5 no. new culverts. • Construction of one tourist lay-by in townland of Rosgalliv. • Identification of 26 no. recovery sites (for deposition of excavated spoil) of varying sizes along the length of the route. [These areas are numbered 1-34 – there being no numbers 4, 16-17 or 22-26]. • Associated earthworks, drainage, landscaping, diversion of services and ancillary works.

1.3 The CPO public notice states that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening process was carried out for the project, and Mayo County Council has determined that the scheme would not have a significant effect on the environment, and that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not required.

1.4 A separate public notice [under Section 177AE(4)(a) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended)] accompanies the submission to the Board, wherein approval is sought for the proposed development for which a Natura Impact Statement (NIS) which has been prepared – the N59 road scheme.

2.0 WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER

There are 45 no. objections to the Compulsory Purchase Order – listed as follows-

2.1 The objection from Kathleen Ensko, Rose Cottage, Carrowbeg (Fergus), received by the Board on 11 th January 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P2480a.201 )- • Plot P2480q [sic] is too near house and would result in personal hazard. • A new house should be constructed set further back from the road.

2.2.1 The objection from Eircom Ltd, received by the Board on 7 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P3345a.201 )- • Eircom owns the telephone exchange at Newport (to northwest of town) – plot P3345a. There is extensive underground duct and telecommunications cable plant as well as a large cable turning chamber. • The Council will have to either replace or reroute the underground telecommunications infrastructure. The proposed road works could cut the telephone exchange off.

2.2.2 This objection was withdrawn by letter received on 17 th April 2012.

2.3 The objection from Anthony Doyle, Murreveagh, Mulranny, received by the Board on 21 st February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows (( P0360a.201 , P0360c.201 & P0360d.201 )-

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 72 • The objector is against the acquiring of plots P0360c & P0360d for use as recovery areas. • The CPO would interrupt ownership which runs from the house to the sea. • Gate access to fields would be lost. • Building work will disrupt enjoyment of the landholding. • Property will be devalued. • House enjoys fine views across fields to be purchased towards Clew Bay. • Lands have been in family for generations and are in good order and can be used for arable and livestock farming. • ESB lines traversing the fields will render them unsuitable for vehicles. • Dykes on this land are linked to adjoining lands and could have a detrimental impact on adjoining farmland.

2.4 The objection from Ron & Maite Morrisson, Derrada, Newport, received by the Board on 21 st February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows (P2740a.201 )- • Details of new access proposals to property have not been arranged. • The roadside boundary wall is not to be acquired. The levels of the road should allow for maintenance of this wall. • Recovery areas 11 & 12 are close to the objector’s property. Drainage from their property flows through these recovery areas. No details of drainage have been provided. These areas act as attenuation areas during periods of heavy rainfall. No details of reinstatement of land have been outlined. • Because of proximity to road works, a condition survey of the house should be carried out by the road authority. • Vibration may damage the house (c.1900). • No details on limitation of dust, noise, mud and air pollution have been provided for the construction period.

2.5 The objection from Patrick McGreal & Jacqueline McGreal, 5 Rampart Wood, Golf Course Road, Westport, received by the Board on 21 st February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows (P6364a.201 )- • New road will be closer to house resulting in increased noise. • Volume of traffic on the N59 will greatly increase when the Westport to Turlough N5 work is completed. • Removal of mature trees in front of the house will reduce level of privacy. • Improvement of N59 can be improved without encroaching on private property.

2.6 The objection from Michael Patrick Moran & Lilian Ann Moran, Knocknageeha, Mulranny Road, Newport, received by the Board on 23rd February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P3270a.201 )- • Project will cause gross devaluation of property.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 72 • There will be more noise, pollution and road spray, resulting in more maintenance. • Property deeds will have to be altered. Additional postage costs, travel, telecommunications costs will be incurred, with the possibility of legal assistance having to be got.

2.7 The objection from Triona Walsh, agent on behalf of Claude Germain & Christian Verges, received by the Board on 28 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P6310a.201 )- • This property at Barley Hill has been hosting students for more than 20 years. Long-term plans include for the provision of supplementary accommodation for students and leaders. • The development of a major traffic route bordering the property would have a serious impact on health and safety. • Scheme will have a negative impact on the aesthetic value of the property. The main building is approximately 250 years old – and all works to it have endeavoured to maintain its character.

2.8 The objection from C. Cusack, Watford, Hertfordshire, received by the Board on 23 rd February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P1280a, P1280c & P1280d )- • This land is for a scenic viewing area which has nothing to do with the road-widening scheme. The road is wide enough in this area at present. • There will be difficulty of access to remaining lands during construction work. • There may be difficulty accessing remaining land after construction work has been completed. • Stock on land will be subject to noise and rubbish arising from construction of viewing area. • There is a possibility that the viewing area will be used for over-night stays or as an unauthorised halting site. • The area to be acquired contains a barn which is used for lambing and calving. • Trees, which add to the beauty of the area, will have to be removed. These trees also provide shelter for stock. • There are no detailed drawings available from the Council. No details of landscaping are available. A retaining wall will be needed in this area.

2.9 The objection from Michael & Teresa Staunton, Roskean North, Newport, received by the Board on 24 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P2010a.201 )- • The road outside the objectors’ house is very high at present. It was hoped that the road could be graded down rather than raising it.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 72 2.10 The objection from John Ryan, Evanton, Scotland (on behalf of Brian Ryan), received by the Board on 24 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P1250a & P1270a)- • John Ryan is the owner of the land adjacent to ‘Fairisles’, and has been so for the past ten years. • There was planning permission (expired) to build two houses on the land. A new application for one property was refused permission on the grounds of sight visibility and drainage. Access has now been obtained from adjoining lands and agreement to locate an effluent treatment plant on the south side of the N59. • Any works which would hinder any future application for development of these lands will be objected to. • The proposed viewing area would be totally unacceptable.

2.11 The objection from Niall O’Boyle, Knockbreaga, Newport, received by the Board on 24 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows (P2270b.201 )- • There are two dwelling houses at plot P2270b. No details of the replacement front boundary have been received. The dwelling-house to the east has two cattle grids which should be replaced. • There is currently a storm drain along the road boundary which has a pipe running into it from the north. This pipe must be maintained during construction works. • The sewage treatment system for the dwelling-house to the east is partly within plot 2270b. It must be maintained or necessarily replaced. • Because of the number of houses in the area, a lower speed limit will be required. • No mitigation measures for dust, noise, mud and vibration have been indicated by the Council. • The applicant was not notified of the Part VIII process, so matters raised therein should now be part of the CPO process. • The objector’s daughter owns the dwelling-house to the west and should have been notified separately of the CPO process. • Traffic build up from the Knockbreaga Scheme which is currently under construction are blocking the entrance to the objector’s house.

2.12 The objection from Eugene Owens, Newport Road, Westport, received by the Board on 27 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows (P6362a.201 )- • The Council is to acquire 210sq.m from the objector. The Council state that this will not include the front boundary, but the calculations indicate that this the area will encroach 0.5m into the front garden. • The amount of €2,500 offered for this land is derisory. • The development will likely lead to the removal of two groups of ash trees which act as a buffer against road noise. Their removal will result in a loss of amenity.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 72 • Traffic noise from the road will increase. A roundabout is planned some 50m to the north. Traffic noise will increase as traffic accelerates away from the roundabout. The roundabout is also a feature of the Westport to Bohola (N5) Road Scheme.

2.13 The objection from Eithne Chambers, Burrishoole, Newport, received by the Board on 27 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows (P2960a )- • The objector opposes loss of land directly in front of her house and the house of her son. The scheme will impinge on privacy and devalue property. • The proposed Great Western Greenway over-bridge should be moved further down the road (old N59) as it would emerge at a dangerous bend on the old N59 road opposite the objector’s house.

2.14 The objection from George O’Malley, Foxrock, Dublin, received by the Board on 27 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows (P3020a.201 )- • There is already a perfectly adequate cycle track on the north side of the N59. There is no need for one on this side of the road. • The scheme will require the removal of a hedgerow which will completely expose the garden of the house to view, thereby reducing the amenities of the house and its value. • There will be a considerable loss of security at the rear of the house. • The removal of the hedgerow will remove a noise barrier to traffic noise. • The hedgerow shelters the house. Increased heating bills will result from its removal. • The removal of the natural screen will cause nuisance to the objector’s elderly parents who occupy his dwelling.

2.15 The objection from Helena O’Malley, Newcastle, Co. Dublin, received by the Board on 24 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows (P2980a & 2980d )- • The objector is the owner of lands at proposed new side roads B10 & B10a in the townland of Kiltarnaght. • The objector’s house is located approximately 30-40m from this new junction and would raise safety concerns. • The objector has submitted a petition of signatures of residents of Kiltarnaght and neighbouring townlands indicating that they would have no objection to the removal of these side roads from the scheme. Residents usually use side road B12 for journeys to Newport and the old Burrishoole Bridge (side road B9) for journeys to Mulranny. There is no need for side roads B10 & B10a. • The National Roads Design Office has confirmed that it will not object to the removal of these side roads from the scheme.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 72 2.16 The objection from Michael Doyle & James Doyle of London & Surrey, received by the Board on 27 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P0360 )- • The objectors are in complete agreement with letter written by their brother Anthony Doyle regarding compulsory acquisition of land.

2.17 The objection from Deirdre Leahy, Killester, Dublin, received by the Board on 28 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows (P1730a.201 )- • The CPO would seriously impact on the value of the property. • The house is for sale, and the CPO will delay any possible sale.

2.18 The objection from Martin Nevin, Mulranny Road, Newport, received by the Board on 28 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows (P3295a.201 & P3295b.201 )- • There is inadequate space at this location to provide for the road-widening. • Noise levels would increase at this location. • There would be a loss of privacy. • Widening should take place on the opposite (northeast) side of the N59 – where there is only one house facing onto a side road. This house is set back further from the N59. • Other road schemes in Mayo have had regard to rows of houses similar to these houses on the Mulranny Road in Newport.

2.19 The objection from Burrishoole Residents Association, received by the Board on 28 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows- • This objection relates to junctions at Kiltarnaght and old N59. There is no need for the new junction (side roads B10 & B10a) close to the proposed Greenway over-bridge. • In relation to the junction at the side road B12, proposed changes will make this junction more dangerous. There have been no accidents at this junction as it is. This junction is used for parking during burials at Burrishoole Abbey. People using the Great Western Greenway also use this area for parking. There are examples of Y-junctions on motorways – so why not here? Residents are concerned that a seldom-used cul de sac (L14026) will be given priority over a busy through road (the old N59).

2.20 The objection from Patrick J. Cusack Solicitors, agent on behalf of Patrick Cusack, Bunnahowna, Mulranny, received by the Board on 27 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P0790a & P0790b )- • Acquiring these lands for the Great Western Greenway is completely unnecessary. • The widening of the road will encourage speeding and will cause a danger to drivers and the public. • The scheme will result in the demolition of the roadside boundary wall and the despoliation of the front garden.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 72

2.21 The objection from The Planning Partnership, agent on behalf of Luke Breach, Knockmanus, Newport, received by the Board on 28 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P2240a.201 & P2240b.201 )- • The precise impacts of the development have not been made clear to the objector. Details of the design of the scheme are limited at this point. The objector does not want to object to the CPO per se . If impacts are clarified and satisfactorily addressed, the objector may be in a position to withdraw the objection. • The lands to be acquired include lands which are subject to public use – the roadway and adjoining margin located outside the main front boundary wall of the residence. • The objector did not make a submission in relation to the Part 8 procedure. • Notwithstanding that lands are not contained within the currently enclosed site, they perform a vital function in relation to amenity and enjoyment of the residence. Parking overflow can be accommodated on the roadside margin. • The road and hard shoulder will be brought closer to the house, resulting in increased noise. • There will be increased surface water run-off. • The increase in the level of the road (0.4m) will make it more likely that vehicles will veer off the road into the house. • Increased speed on the road will make it more difficult to enter and exit the premises by car. • Sightlines will be decreased due to change in levels between the road and the house. • Increase in level of road could lead to light pollution. • There appears to be some discrepancy as to which townland the lands are located within – either Knockbreaga or Knockloughra.

2.22 The objection from Karen A. O’Malley Solicitors, agent on behalf of Gerard Muldowney, Carrabaun, Westport, received by the Board on 28 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P6090c.201 )- • Inadequate information supplied in relation to access and egress in order to protect the commercial use and value of the site/buildings – together with health and safety issues. • The size of the site has been diminished which will reduce the value of the entire property. • No design provision for the new roadside boundary has been made.

2.23 The objection from Karen A. O’Malley Solicitors, agent on behalf of Madeline Jordan, Knocknaboley, Kilmeena, Westport, received by the Board on 28 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P5490 )- • No drainage details have been provided. Objector is concerned about flooding on either side of the river at this location.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 72 • One portion of the objector’s property will be land-locked. No proper details of access have been provided to an old cottage, farm buildings and agricultural land. • The Great Western Greenway route will cut off access to the river for watering cattle.

2.24 The objection from Karen A. O’Malley Solicitors, agent on behalf of Padraig Murray, Derrada, Newport, received by the Board on 28 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P2840, P2900, P2920 & P2930 )- • No access to the objector’s dwelling-house has been indicated. Space around the house is tight. • No access to the objector’s farmyard and shed has been indicated. Access to the farmyard is from side road B7. The side road is to be raised significantly. • Currently the N59 is significantly below the level of the house and above the level of the farmyard. The difference in levels is accommodated by retaining walls. A concrete retaining wall was constructed by the Council between the house and the road when work was last done on the N59. On the farmyard side, there is a stone-built retaining wall between it and the N59. The design drawings indicate embankments which would take up more space. • The septic tank for the house is located on the opposite side of the road within a proposed acquisition area. The system will have to be replaced. • There is a well located beside side road B7 which is within the proposed acquisition area, and which will have to be replaced. • The Group Water Scheme, which supplies this and other property, crosses the road between the house and Burrishoole Bridge (to the east). This service will have to be maintained. • There is a stone-built stormwater culvert (Burrishoole Culvert) crossing the N59 in the locality of plot P2930, and which is important to the drainage of this property. This culvert will have to be maintained.

2.25 The objection from Karen A. O’Malley Solicitors, agent on behalf of Alan Moran & Michelle Davitt, received by the Board on 28 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P2820e.201 & P2820f.201 )- • The N59 will be pushed back too close to the objectors’ shed. Access to the plots and manoeuvrability of vehicles will be difficult. It will be difficult for tractors to operate in such a confined space. A replacement of the farm buildings would be required for health and safety reasons. • The ownership of these lands is in the course of being changed from Adrian Meenaghan.

2.26 The objection from Karen A. O’Malley Solicitors, agent on behalf of Tommie Moran, Derrada, Newport, received by the Board on 28 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P2870a.201, P2870b.201 P2870c.201 & 2870f.201 )-

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 72 • Detailed drainage and access design has not been provided in relation to plots P2870a.201 & P2870b.201. • Detailed drainage and access design has not been provided in relation to plots P2870c.201 & P2870f.201. • The objector is concerned in relation to flooding of lands.

2.27 The objection from Karen A. O’Malley Solicitors, agent on behalf of Sean McGlynn, Drumard, Kilmeena, Westport, received by the Board on 28 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P5950 )- • No provision made for reinstatement of roadside boundary stone wall on N59. The post and rail fence proposed is not acceptable. • These lands are to be used for potential Recovery Area 28. No drainage details have been provided. • The area may be used for parking of heavy machinery. • The objector would not be agreeable to lands being out of commission for more than two and a half years. • The area is in front of the house – and no screens should be erected on the lands.

2.28 The objection from Gaynor Corr & Associates, agent on behalf of Michael F. Loftus, Murreveagh, Mulranny, received by the Board on 24 th February, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P0390g.201 & P0390g.202 )- • The replacement of a roadside stone wall with a post and rail fence is not acceptable in this scenic area. The wall should be replaced.

2.29 The objection from Gaynor Corr & Associates, agent on behalf of Gerard McGinty, received by the Board on 24 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P0910 )- • The objector owns lands at proposed Recovery Area 3. The plot is surplus to road-building requirements. Spoil can be disposed of elsewhere. • No details have been provided in relation to how current drainage is to be maintained. There are open drains on these lands. • There is concern in relation to the type and condition of the material which will be deposited on these lands. Mud slides could damage adjoining lands. • Flora and fauna will be damaged by deposition of spoil. • No details of reinstatement of lands to agricultural use have been provided. • No commitment has been given that lands will be returned to owners after deposition of spoil. • There is an existing driveway through these lands. Widening of the road will increase the gradient of the driveway up to the N59. • The existing roadside boundary is a natural stone wall. It is proposed to replace this with a post and rail fence. A stone wall replacement should be provided in this scenic area.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 72

2.30 The objection from Gaynor Corr & Associates, agent on behalf of Pat Ryder, received by the Board on 24 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P0970 )- • The objector owns lands at proposed Recovery Area 3. The plot is surplus to road-building requirements. Spoil can be disposed of elsewhere. • No details have been provided in relation to how current drainage is to be maintained. There are open drains on these lands. • There is concern in relation to the type and condition of the material which will be deposited on these lands. Mud slides could damage adjoining lands. • Flora and fauna will be damaged by deposition of spoil. • No details of reinstatement of lands to agricultural use has been provided. • No commitment has been given that lands will be returned to owners after deposition of spoil. • There is an existing driveway through these lands. Widening of the road will increase the gradient of the driveway up to the N59. • The existing roadside boundary is a natural stone wall. It is proposed to replace this with a post and rail fence. A stone wall replacement should be provided in this scenic area.

2.31 The objection from Gaynor Corr & Associates, agent on behalf of Gerard McNulty, received by the Board on 24 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P2230 )- • It is proposed to acquire part of the front garden of the objector. This area includes the septic tank and percolation area for the house. No details have been provided in relation to relocation of these services.

2.32 The objection from Gaynor Corr & Associates, agent on behalf of John McLoughlin, Knockbreaga, received by the Board on 24 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P2300d.201 & P2300j.201 )- • The objector owns lands at proposed Recovery Area 6. The plot is surplus to road-building requirements. Spoil can be disposed of elsewhere. • No details have been provided in relation to how current drainage is to be maintained. There are open drains on these lands. • There is concern in relation to the type and condition of the material which will be deposited on these lands. Mud slides could damage adjoining lands. • Flora and fauna will be damaged by deposition of spoil. • No details of reinstatement of lands to agricultural use have been provided. • No commitment has been given that lands will be returned to owners after deposition of spoil. • A Marian shrine/grotto is located on plot 2300d for the past 60 years. No details of its protection are included.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 72

2.33 The objection from Gaynor Corr & Associates, agent on behalf of Tom Ryder, received by the Board on 24 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P5610b.201, P5610c.201 & P5610e.201 )- • The land take is excessive. The raised railway line provides an important dry lie area for animals. The new road and cycleway can be constructed in a much narrower corridor as it passes in front of the furniture store. • The land take for realignment of junctions C5 & C6 is excessive, and could be reduced. • The objector is willing to make lands available for the cycleway, but wishes to retain ownership.

2.34 The objection from Gaynor Corr & Associates, agent on behalf of Noreen Duggan-Gavin, Derrylea, Carrowholly, Westport, received by the Board on 24 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P6070 )- • No details of realigned entrance and gradients have been provided.

2.35 The objection from Gaynor Corr & Associates, agent on behalf of Tony McNeela, Derryloughan More, Newport, received by the Board on 24 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P3090e.201 & P2390f.201 )- • The objector owns lands at proposed Recovery Area 21. The plot is surplus to road-building requirements. Spoil can be disposed of elsewhere. • No details have been provided in relation to how current drainage is to be maintained. There are open drains on these lands. • No details of reinstatement of lands to agricultural use have been provided. • No commitment has been given that lands will be returned to owners after deposition of spoil. • There is currently access to lands further to the northeast through these plots of land. This access needs to be maintained. • A small portion of the field in which plot P3090f.201 is located has not been included in the CPO. It is too small and angular to work on its own as a separate field. • There is a sewage pipe within the access area.

2.36 The objection from Gaynor Corr & Associates, agent on behalf of the Reps of Thomas Loftus (Anthony Doyle, Gerard Doyle, Michael Doyle, John Doyle and Jim Doyle), received by the Board on 24 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P360c.201 & P360d.201 )- • The objector owns lands at proposed Recovery Area 1. The plot is surplus to road-building requirements. Spoil can be disposed of elsewhere. • No details have been provided in relation to how current drainage is to be maintained. There is a main drain at the southern end of the area which needs to be maintained.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 72 • No details of reinstatement of lands to agricultural use have been provided. These lands are in direct view from the house on the opposite side of the N59. • No commitment has been given that lands will be returned to owners after deposition of spoil. • There is currently access to lands further to the south through these plots of land. This access needs to be maintained. • No commitment has been given that the agricultural access from the N59 will be maintained.

2.37 The objection from Gaynor Corr & Associates, agent on behalf of John T. Moran, Meenacloughfinny, Newport, received by the Board on 24 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P2020 )- • The objector owns lands at proposed Recovery Area 5. The plot is surplus to road-building requirements. Spoil can be disposed of elsewhere. • There is a main storm drain on the eastern side of plot P2020b which drains this land and other lands to the north of the railway line. This drain will have to be piped. • No details of reinstatement of lands to agricultural use have been provided. • No commitment has been given that lands will be returned to owners after deposition of spoil. • There is too much land taken at plot P2030c.201.

2.38 The objection from Gaynor Corr & Associates, agent on behalf of Paul & Ann Moran, Knockysprickaun, Kilmeena, Westport, received by the Board on 24 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P5715a.201 & P5715b.201 )- • Realignment of local roads at this location could have been carried out in agricultural land to the west of this plot; at a lower land cost; and which would not have the same impact on residential amenity. • The house is significantly higher than the public road. A suitably designed retaining wall will be required at plot P5715b.201. An embankment will not be suitable because of the proliferation of springs in this area and the likelihood of slippage. • There are utility poles outside plot P5715b. These should be located outside the garden of the house. • There is a private landfill site close to the house. A commitment should be given that no spoil from the scheme will be deposited there. • An open drain close to this property should be piped.

2.39 The objection from Gaynor Corr & Associates, agent on behalf of Martin Moran, Ardagh, Carrowbeg (Fergus), Westport, received by the Board on 24 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P2650c.201 & P2650d.201 )-

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 72 • The objector owns lands at proposed Recovery Area 9. The plots are surplus to road-building requirements. Spoil can be disposed of elsewhere. • No details have been provided in relation to how current drainage is to be maintained. There are open drains on these lands. • No details of reinstatement of lands to agricultural use have been provided. • No commitment has been given that lands will be returned to owners after deposition of spoil. • There is currently access to these lands from the side road (B4). These access points need to be maintained. • The owner is concerned that the raising of the lands will impact on the percolation area of the adjoining house (belonging to the objector’s sister).

2.40 The objection from Gaynor Corr & Associates, agent on behalf of Brendan McLoughlin, Sandhill, Carrowbeg, Westport, received by the Board on 24 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P0980a & P0980c )- • The replacement of a roadside stone wall with a post and rail fence is not acceptable in this scenic area. The wall should be replaced.

2.41 The objection from Gaynor Corr & Associates, agent on behalf of Patrick Hughes, Derrada, Newport, received by the Board on 24 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P2750 & P2770 )- • The objector owns lands at proposed Recovery Area 13. The plots are surplus to road-building requirements. Spoil can be disposed of elsewhere. • No details have been provided in relation to how current drainage is to be maintained. There are open drains on these lands which need to be piped. • No details of reinstatement of lands to agricultural use have been provided. • No commitment has been given that lands will be returned to owners after deposition of spoil. • The objector currently has a service duct beneath the N59 which needs to be protected. • There is currently an access road through plot P2750d.201. This access needs to be maintained. • No details have been submitted as to how the garden of the house will be affected.

2.42 The objection from Gaynor Corr & Associates, agent on behalf of Michael McCormack, Roskeen North, Carrowbeg, Westport, received by the Board on 24 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P2110b, P2110d & P2110f )- • Entrance avenue at plot P2110b needs to be maintained.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 72 • There is a stormwater drain in plot P2110b which must be maintained. • Agricultural lands at plots P2110d & P2110f are currently much higher than the road. The proposed realignment works will intensify this problem.

2.43 The objection from Gaynor Corr & Associates, agent on behalf of Sinead Cusack, Ardagh, Newport, received by the Board on 24 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P2030 )- • The objector owns lands at proposed Recovery Area 5. The plot is surplus to road-building requirements. Spoil can be disposed of elsewhere. • There is a main storm drain on the western side of plot P2030b which drains this land and other lands to the north of the railway line. This drain will have to be piped. • No details of reinstatement of lands to agricultural use have been provided. • No commitment has been given that lands will be returned to owners after deposition of spoil. • The objector owns other lands to the north of the railway line which are accessed through plot P2030b. Access needs to be maintained.

2.44 The objection from Gaynor Corr & Associates, agent on behalf of Francis Cusack, Ardagh, Newport, received by the Board on 24 th February 2012, can be summarised in bullet point format as follows ( P2160, P1280 & P2370)- • The objector is the owner of plot P2160 which is to be used as Recovery Area 11. The objector leases plot P2730 which is to be used as Recovery Area 12. The plot is surplus to road-building requirements. Spoil can be disposed of elsewhere. • There are open drains in plot 2160c which will have to be piped and stoned to maintain existing drainage. • No details of reinstatement of lands to agricultural use has been provided. • No commitment has been given that lands will be returned to owners after deposition of spoil. • Within leased plot P2730b, there are other lands to the east which have access through the plot.

2.45 The submission of Martin & Liz Gillen, ‘Ashfield’, Deerpark East, Westport, received by the Board on 27 th February 2012, states that the road and roundabout would impact negatively on their residence.

3.0 SITE INSPECTION AND DESCRIPTION

3.1 The lands, the subject of the Compulsory Purchase Order, are located within a total of 42 townlands, strung along the N59 National Secondary Route linking Mulranny with Westport, via the town of Newport. The N59 is a single carriageway road with limited passing areas. The 100kph speed restriction applies along most of the length of this road – except in the environs of Mulranny,

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 72 Newport and Westport (and at the Newfield Inn, Tiernaur) – where a 60kph speed restriction is in place. There are no public footpaths outside of the towns/villages and there is little by way of public lighting, other than on the edges of Mulranny, Newport and Westport (and at the Newfield Inn, Tiernaur). The road has been realigned in the past and boundaries set back – particularly on the Mulranny to Newport section. The road runs along the line of the former Westport to Achill railway line in places. There are a substantial number of one-off houses flanking the length of the route – particularly where fine views are to be had.

3.2 The Great Western Greenway (walking and cycling route – 43.5km) runs along part of the old Westport to Achill Great Western & Midlands railway line, sharing existing side road carriageway in limited places, and with at-grade crossing points in some places. The famous 7-arch railway bridge in Newport does not form part of the cycle route – although it has recently been paved and is open to pedestrians. The railway closed in 1937. The route has been signed, surfaced, fenced, drained and gated in areas. The route provides for agricultural access to flanking lands. New sections have been created where the Council could not acquire access across the original line or where the N59 had encroached on the original line of the railway. A substantial investment has gone into the creation of this tourism and recreational facility.

3.3 There are a number of sharp bends on the N59 roadway – particularly on the stretch between Newport and Westport, as the road threads its way between the drumlins which characterise the landscape in this area. The worst of these bends are close to Westport where the carriageway width is also restricted. The road traverses a number of older stone bridges and some newer concrete structures. Some old railway bridges and culverts now serve the N59.

3.4 The scheme has been divided into three sections A, B & C. Section A begins at Mulranny and runs east to the townlands of Knockbreaga/Knockloughra – a distance of 8.0km. Upgrading work is on-going on a short stretch of the N59 at Knockbreaga/Knockloughra – a stretch which does not form part of the current scheme (but which links Sections A & B). Section B begins at Carrowbeg (Fergus) townland and runs east to the town of Newport – a distance of 6.4km. The scheme does not include the road through Newport. Upgrading work is on- going on a short stretch of the N59 at Kilbride (south of Newport) – a stretch which does not form part of the current scheme. Section C commences some 2.25km due south of Newport in the townland of Corragaun and runs south to the edge of the town of Westport (where a new roundabout is to be constructed) – a distance of 6.8km.

3.5 The potential Recovery Areas (numbered) can be described shortly as follows. All are indicated as ‘potential’ and, therefore, not all may be used.

No. 1 – Comprises the roadside portion of a series of small narrow fields running perpendicular to, and slightly below the level of the N59 (south side). They are

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 72 generally of poor quality with rushes growing over most of them. The fields are divided by hedgerows and fences. There are 10kV ESB lines running within the fields parallel to the road.

No. 2 – Comprises the roadside portion of a series of small narrow fields running perpendicular to the N59 (south side). There is one field of fair quality – the rest being rushy.

No. 3 – Comprises portions of a series of small fields divided by a stream on the north side of the N59. Fields are of fair quality and are crossed by a number of access tracks to houses to the north.

No. 5 – Comprises three small fields bounded to the south by the N59 and to the north by the line of the Great Western Greenway.

No. 6 – Forms part of a small grass field on the north side of the N59 – divided by a deep drain. There is a small stone cottage on higher ground to the north. The level of the site is below the adjoining N59. Road improvement works associated with the Knockbreaga N59 scheme are on-going in this area.

No. 7 – Comprises a poor-quality field to the south of the N59 and immediately to the east of Rose Cottage. The area is below the level of the road.

No. 8 – Comprises a rushy triangular field to the north of and below the level of the N59.

No. 9 – Comprises a small grass field to the north of and below the level of the N59. There is a small side road along the eastern boundary of the field. Areas 9- 12 are in close proximity – on either side of the N59.

No. 10 – Comprises irregularly-shaped, fields with some waterlogging and shallow drain, on the south side of the N59. The field is below the level of the road. There is a billboard for the Mulranny Park Hotel addressing the N59.

No. 11 – Comprises a rushy grassed flied with some waterlogging on the north side of the N59.

No. 12 – Is an L-shaped field on south side of the N59 – slightly below the level of the road. There is a side road flanking the west side of this area, along which a drain has recently been excavated/cleaned.

No. 13 – Rushy grass fields on the south side and below the level of the N59. The area is crossed by a number of drains. A tarmacadam laneway on the west side serves as access to farm buildings.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 72 No. 14 – Comprises a series of rushy fields on the south side of the N59 – divided by a drain. The fields are below the level of the road. A farm access lane divides the area.

No. 15 – Comprises a small rushy field on the north side of the N59. The area is below the level of the N59 and is traversed by 10kV power lines. Derrada Community Centre is located in an old schoolhouse building just to the northeast – served by a small roadway running along the northeastern boundary of this field.

No. 18 – This is a narrow, triangular, rushy field to the north of the N59. It is bounded to the north by a small road. The field is slightly below the level of the N59.

No. 19 – Area located to south of GWG on south side of N59. This is a small rushy field, slightly below the level of the road, with the single-storey Windrush House to the south.

No. 20 – This area comprises the corner of a rushy field on the north side of the N59. It is slightly below the level of the road.

No. 21 – This area comprises a small narrow field which extends to the east off the N59. The level of the field is slightly below the level of the N59. There is a side road L-5434 running along the north side of this field and a stream running along the south side.

No. 27 – Comprises the roadside portion of a grass field to the east of and slightly below the level of the N59.

No. 28 – Comprises a rushy field on the north side of, and slightly below the level of the N59. There is a tarmacadam side road on the northwest side of this area. There is a small, concrete shed in this field (which may formerly have been a pump-house for a well).

No. 29 – Comprises a rushy, triangular field, on the northeast side of, and slightly below the level of the N59.

No. 30 – Comprises the lower part of a field which slopes away from the N59 to the east. The level is considerably below the level of the road and has some rushes growing over it.

No. 31 – Comprises a small triangular area located between the existing N59 and a proposed new off-line section of the road. The area forms part of a grassed field which slopes steeply downhill away from the N59 to the east.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 72 No. 32 – Forms a small triangular area located between the existing N59 and a proposed new off-line section of the road. The area is bounded by a drain, the existing N59 and the proposed off-line section. The area is slightly below the level of the N59. (Areas 32-34 are located adjacent to one another, and lie in a valley area between drumlins).

No. 33 – Comprises part of a much larger field to the north of an existing drain – at a point where the proposed N59 will be off-line. The area stretches from the existing N59 to a high embankment carrying the Great Western Greenway.

No. 34 – Comprises part of a field on the south side of the drain mentioned in no. 33 above. This area abuts a proposed off-line section of the N59.

3.6 There are two off-line sections of the proposed road – the first at Barley Hill/Creggaunahorna to the north of Westport, and the second at Rossow/Rosdooaun some 3km due south of Newport. Both off-line sections involve considerable excavation into drumlins/ridges to effect the road construction. The first will cut through farmland and a recently-planted small ash wood. The second will cut through agricultural land.

4.0 REPORT ON ORAL HEARING

4.1 General

An Oral Hearing was held into the Compulsory Purchase Order and the Section 177AE Approval on 17 th & 18 th April 2012, in the Newfield Inn, Tiernaur, Mulranny, Co. Mayo. The hearing opened at 10.00 hours on the 17 th and closed at 18.00 hours on the 18 th of April. The proceedings were recorded on behalf of the Board, and a copy of that recording is available. Not all those who submitted written objections were present or represented at the Hearing. The Inspector made a short introductory statement. Documents handed into the Hearing have been assigned a ‘Document ref. number and/or letter’. The key to the documents submitted to the Hearing is included in the pouch accompanying this Inspector’s Report. Representation on behalf of parties was as follows-

4.2 Parties Represented

4.2.1 Mayo County Council Pat Butler, Senior Counsel. Patrick Staunton, Acting Senior Executive Engineer. Marian McHugh, Senior Executive Engineer. Iain Douglas, Senior Planner. Patricia Calleary, Planning Consultant & Chartered Engineer (Socio-economic). John Bligh, Philip Farrelly & Co (Agriculture & Property). Bernadette O’Connell, Chartered Landscape Architect.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 72 Siobhán Sexton, Conservation Architect [Also representing Philip Gillespie (archaeologist)]. Mervyn Keegan, WYG Environmental & Planning (Noise & Vibration, Air Quality & Climate). Paula Kearney, RPS (Ecology). Anthony Cawley, Hydro Environmental Ltd. (Geology, Hydrology & Hydrogeology).

4.2.2 Prescribed Bodies Denis Strong, National Parks & Wildlife Service.

4.2.3 Objectors in order of appearance (numbers refer to list prepared by ABP – copy in pouch accompanying this Inspector’s Report) 5. Patrick McGreal. 11. Niall O’Boyle. 7. Claude Germain & Christian Verges (Represented by Kevin Byrne). 9. Michael & Teresa Staunton (Represented by Gaynor Corr). 13. Eithne Chambers (Represented by Helena O’Malley). 21. Luke Breach (Represented by Wessel Vossloo). 15. Helena O’Malley. 19. Burrishoole Residents Association (Represented by Michael O’Donnell & Padraig Finnerty). 14. George O’Malley (Represented by Karen O’Malley). 27. Seán McGlynn (Represented by Karen O’Malley). 28. Michael F. Loftus (Represented by Gaynor Corr). 40. Brendan McLoughlin (Represented by Gaynor Corr and Tom McLoughlin). 30. Pat Ryder (Represented by Gaynor Corr). 36. Reps. of Thomas Loftus (Represented by Gaynor Corr). 37. John T. Moran (Represented by Gaynor Corr). 43. Sinead Cusack (Represented by Gaynor Corr). 44. Francis Cusack (Represented by Gaynor Corr). 42. Michael McCormack (Represented by John Moran & Gaynor Corr). 33. Tom Ryder (For himself, and represented by Gaynor Corr). 45. Martin & Liz Gillen (For themselves, and represented by Catherine Walsh, Christy O’Sullivan, Engineer & John Lambe, Engineer).

4.3 Submission of Mayo County Council

Pat Butler SC for the Council made a short introduction and indicated parties who would be speaking on behalf of Mayo County Council.

4.3.1.1 The Engineer’s (Pat Staunton) brief of evidence set out the need for the scheme and the character of the existing N59, and contains the following points of note (Document ref. A )- • Increase in overtaking opportunity from 19% to 32%.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 72 • Extension and improvement of the Great Western Greeenway. • How the final route was arrived at, following a Constraints Study and Route Selection Process with associated public consultation. • Detailed description of what is proposed within each of the three sections – A, B & C, including new junctions, bridges, culverts and rehabilitation works to existing structures. • Details of drainage including filter drains in cut areas, vegetated swales, and kerb and gullies in urban and semi-urban areas. • 40m inscribed circle diameter, two-arm roundabout at Westport end of scheme. • Details of ground investigation including materials balance – 243,000 cubic metres of spoil (topsoil, subsoil and peat). Details of 26 no. potential Recovery Areas, their capacity and approximate stockpile heights (between 1.0-2.75m). • Details of public lighting at Westport end of scheme. • Details of upgraded cycling facilities. • Details of 1 no. tourist lay-by at ch.3750 in Rosgalliv townland. • Total area of land affected is 93.26ha. • Estimated cost of scheme is €53.19m.

4.3.1.2 The submission was accompanied by the following items- • Plan & Longitudinal Sections of N59 (superimposed on aerial photographs) – as mounted for display at the oral hearing ( Document ref. A0 ). • Location map ( Document ref. A1 ). • Booklet of A3 Constraints Study drawings ( Document ref. A2 ). • Booklet of A3 Project Corridor public display maps ( Document ref. A3 ). • Booklet of A3 Preliminary Options Assessment ( Document ref. A4 ). • Booklet of A3 Route Options Public Display drawings ( Document ref. A5 ). • Booklet of A3 Emerging Preferred Route ( Document ref A6 ). • Design Report Drawings showing drainage ( Document ref. A7 ). • Proposed footpath drawing at Westport end ( Document ref. A8 ). • Preliminary lay-by drawing for Rosgalliv ( Document ref. A9 ). • Cycleway drawings for Newport suburbs ( Document ref. A10 ). • Potential Recovery Areas – Code of Practice ( Document ref A11 ).

4.3.2.1 The Engineer’s (Marian McHugh) brief of evidence ( Document ref. B ) set out the environmental aspects considered in the design of the scheme, including the closest European sites, experts engaged by the Council to deal with specific areas of expertise, and mitigation measures suggested. A Natura Impact Statement was produced along with the Part 8 scheme for the N59. The brief outlined why a NIS had been submitted to the Board – the Part 8 process not being completed by 21 st September 2011. At this stage in the hearing, a revised First Schedule to the CPO was presented – being an updated list of owners/occupiers of lands affected. The

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 72 evidence dealt with the submission made to the Board by the Department of Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht in relation to the NIS submitted to the Board under Section 177AE. Subsequent to this, the Council met with the Department (NPWS) to clarify issues raised. Following this meeting, the Department concluded that the N59 scheme did not present a significant threat to the environment. In relation to Burrishoole Bridge, the only point the scheme crosses into a European site, the NPWS stated “There is no possibility of a significant negative impact on conservation from these works and a probability of slight improvement. The NIS speaks of a possibility that there may be an impact; but in the light of the detailed plan this has not happened”. The letter in response to the Department’s submission to the Board (28 th February 2012) and the NPWS report following the review of the information on the proposed road project were presented to the Oral Hearing.

4.3.2.2 The submission was accompanied by the following items- • Schedule of Environmental Commitments ( Document Ref B0 ). • Proposed amendments to the First Schedule of the CPO ( Document ref. B1 ). • Full revised First Schedule to the CPO ( Document ref. B2 ). • E-mails sent between Mayo County Council and National Parks & Wildlife Service on 12 th & 13 th April re opinion of the NPWS that no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of adverse effects on the integrity of any European sites, resulting from the proposed scheme. Attached is a copy of a letter from the Department of Arts, Heritage & Gaeltacht (dated 12 th April 2012) which has originally been sent to the Board, but which had been returned. ( Document ref. B3 ). • Mayo County Council National Roads Design Office letter (dated 10 th April 2012) to An Bord Pleanála in response to the Department of Arts, Heritage & Gaeltacht submission. [It was pointed out to those at the Hearing that this letter had in fact been returned to Mayo County Council when sent to the Board]. Attached is an A3 drawing showing Burrishoole Bridge and road and drainage works proposed in the area of the cSAC (Document ref. B4 ). • National Parks & Wildlife Service Report – undated. ( Document ref. B5 ).

4.3.2.3 Denis Strong of the National Parks & Wildlife Service corrected a typing error in the National Parks & Wildlife Service Report (Document ref. B5) which was read into the hearing as part of Ms. McHugh’s brief of evidence. [The NPWS made no other contribution to the Hearing].

4.3.2.4 At a later time in the Hearing, Marian McHugh submitted a rebuttal of all written objections received by the Board. This document was not read into the record of the Hearing as some of the objections had been withdrawn and the Council was treating with other objectors throughout the course of the Hearing ( Document ref.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 24 of 72 K). The document contains details of all of the potential Recovery Areas, access to and from them and details of drainage.

4.3.3.1 The Planner’s (Iain Douglas) brief of evidence contains the following points of note ( Document ref. C )- • The rationale that an EIS was not required. • Details of the Part 8 procedure engaged in by the Council. • Details of how the scheme complies with national and regional policy – in particular the inclusion of the N59 in the National Spatial Strategy as a crucial link for the west of the county to the linked hub of Castlebar/Ballina. • Details of how the scheme complies with the policies of the Mayo County Development Plan. • Details of how the scheme complies with the policies of the Westport Town & Environs Development Plan. • Detailed rebuttal of objection no. 10 – re development potential of CPO lands. • Detailed rebuttal of objection no. 7 – re development potential of CPO lands. • Rebuttal of objection no.s 28, 40 and 27 in relation to stone wall boundaries.

4.3.3.2 The submission is accompanied by the following- • EIA Screening Determination and Memorandum of 26 th August 2011. • Planning report in relation to objections received to the Part 8 planning process for the N59 scheme.

4.3.4 The brief of evidence of Patricia Calleary, outlining the socio-economic aspects of the scheme, included the following points of note ( Document ref. D )- • Upgraded road will result in minimal community severance. • Upgraded road will not result in the demolition of any houses. • Upgraded road will impact positively on tourism. • Improved safety for Great Western Greenway is included as part of the scheme. • Tourist lay-by at Rosgalliv will accord with Fáilte Ireland plans for the ‘Wild Atlantic Way’ – a motor touring route from Donegal to West Cork. • Access to roadside shrines will be maintained. • Tourist signage will be provided throughout the scheme lands.

4.3.5 The brief of evidence of John Bligh in relation to agriculture and property includes the following points of note ( Document ref. E )- • Limited impact on agriculture due to mostly on-line nature of the scheme. • Potential Recovery Areas may present access difficulties to adjoining lands. • Landowner surveys were conducted on 53 farm holdings.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 25 of 72 • 152 property holdings are affected by the scheme. • There are no direct property impacts associated with the offline sections or potential recovery areas. • There are 42 farms where the impact of the scheme will be moderate. The impact on a further 87 farms will be minor. • There are 138 residential properties, 3 commercial properties, 1 residential/commercial property and 10 development properties affected by the scheme. • Measures to compensate farmers will be calculated following confirmation of CPO process. • New access arrangements are outlined for farms where severance occurs. New gates and accommodation roads are provided for. • There is a low number of dairy/equestrian enterprises – types of farming which are more susceptible to new construction works. • Monetary compensatory measures for the loss of land and injurious affection will comprise part of the land acquisition procedures. • Road boundaries will be replaced on a like-for-like basis.

4.3.6.1 The brief of evidence of Bernadette O’Connell in relation to Landscape and Visual impact included the following points of note ( Document ref. F )- • A 0.6km envelope flanking the scheme was examined. • Chainage 0-4600 within Section A is a designated Scenic Route. • There are no Tree Preservation Orders within the scheme area. • During construction, removal of roadside vegetation, excavation of cut sections, construction of the roundabout tie-in at Westport and construction of new bridge structures and culverts will have impacts on the landscape. Impacts will be short-lived. • Street lighting at the Westport end of the scheme will introduce lighting into a previously unlit area. • Residential properties (6) which will experience high adverse visual impacts, and residential properties (24) which will experience moderate adverse visual impacts prior to mitigation. Landscaping mitigation is outlined for worst impacted areas (no.s 01-13 in attached drawings). • Recovery areas will be reinstated to previous landscape condition. • The lay-by in Section A will improve the amenity of this area for tourists. • The highest level of residual visual impact will be experienced at properties located adjacent to embankments, cuttings and the Westport roundabout. • Screen planting will mature in approximately 10 years.

4.3.6.2 The submission is accompanied by a Landscape & Visual Assessment Report – dated April 2012 ( Document ref. F0 ).

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 26 of 72 4.3.7.1 The brief of evidence of Siobhán Sexton, Conservation Architect, (and on behalf of Richard Gillespie, Archaeologist) includes the following points of note (Document ref. G )- • Pre-development archaeological testing will be carried out along the route in order to identify any previously unidentified archaeological deposits. • The National Inventory of Architectural Heritage for Co. Mayo has not been published to date. • Heritage structures, HC40 (Carrrowsallagh Bridge), HC42 (Knocknaboley Bridges), HC43 (Rossow Bridge), HC 58 (Single remaining bridge pier over original railway line – now N59), HC74 (Estate boundary wall at Kennedy’s Wood – part of Westport Demesne) & HC83 (Burrishoole Lodge) are identified. Project will not impact on Old Burrishoole Bridge. • The positions of 8 no. recorded monuments and 2 no. archaeological sites along the route are identified. • There are 3 no. grottoes/shrines identified along the route as well as a Tuck Mill site.

4.3.7.2 The submission is accompanied by a copy of the Archaeology, Architecture and Cultural Heritage Assessment Report which includes maps showing the archaeological and architectural constraints and the impacts which the scheme will have on each one ( Document ref. G1 ).

4.3.8 The brief of evidence of Mervyn Keegan in relation to Noise/Vibration and Air Quality/Climate, contains the following points of note ( Document ref. H )- • Baseline noise surveys were carried out at 12 locations. Ambient noise is dominated by traffic on the N59. • Road construction will result in additional noise, but this will be of limited duration. Construction noise at cut and fill locations will be greater – particularly the off-line sections at Rossow and Barleyhill. • Noise surveys did not take account of hedgerows, as they do not contribute to any significant degree to noise reduction – the benefit is principally visual and they do not act as noise barriers. Planting in the region of 100m thick would be required to provide any realistic reduction in noise. Solid noise barriers are the most effective acoustic barriers. • 481 out of 487 properties along the route of the scheme will register no or negligible impact. • Vibration impacts will be largely limited to the construction phase. Section 5.8 of the brief states that ‘ Prior to the construction and subject to written agreement of the relevant property owners, Mayo County Council will arrange for property condition surveys to be undertaken in relation to all buildings/structures in use located within 50m of the extents of the CPO boundary. The surveys will be carried out in two distinct phases, namely before and after the construction works. A copy of the Condition Reports will be forwarded to the house owner. Property condition surveys will be undertaken on all buildings within 150m of the development

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 27 of 72 boundary at the specific areas of proposed piling works along the proposed road development ’. • The main change is predicted noise levels is at Rosdooaun where an off- line section of the N59 is to be constructed. A number of houses will experience an improved noise regime, with the N59 being rerouted away from houses. • No noise mitigation measures were deemed necessary for any property on the route. • Dust nuisance is likely to occur during the construction phase. This will, however, be of limited duration. A dust minimisation plan will be put into operation during construction. Two sensitive receptors (houses) have been identified at the off-line sections of the N59 (Section C) – one at Rosdooaun and the other at Derrynanaff. The impact of the road scheme on these two properties is calculated as imperceptible in relation to air pollutant levels. Pollutant concentrations are expected to decrease with improvements in engine and fuel technology for vehicles. • The scheme will not result in increased traffic volumes.

4.3.9 The brief of evidence of Paula Kearney, Ecologist, contained the following points of note ( Document ref. I )- • The evidence relates to terrestrial and aquatic ecology constraints. • A Natura Impact Statement was prepared for the scheme. • 32 key ecological receptors were identified along the route. • No works are proposed at Newport or at the Newport River bridge. • The boundary of the Clew Bay Complex cSAC includes the N59 and the new bridge at Burrishoole Channel. It would appear that there is a discrepancy in the cSAC boundary at this location. It can be argued that the road marks the boundary of the cSAC and is not included within the cSAC itself. None of the qualifying habitats of the cSAC were recorded at the bridge or on the N59 at this location. Otter, which is a qualifying species have been recorded in the Burrishoole Channel. Rehabilitation works at the bridge include installation of a safety barrier and works to the farm access underbridge to the southeast of the bridge. Works will be largely confined to the existing road and verges. A widened swale at the drainage outfall is proposed to the south of the bridge. This swale will be constructed outside the boundary of the cSAC. The outfall is to the Burrishoole Channel via a toe swale which is a shallow grassed channel. The toe swale is located within the boundary of the cSAC. The habitats at this location comprise wet grassland – not a qualifying habitat of the cSAC. No otter holts were recorded in the vicinity of the proposed works. The principal threat is the uncontrolled discharge of sediment during construction phase, or accidental spillage of hydrocarbons/cement. • Slender Naiad (Najas Flexilis) has been recorded at Coolbarreen Lough – some 200m from the scheme. Coolbarreen Lough is a proposed Natural Heritage Area. The Slender Naiad is an Annex II and IV species of the Habitats Directive.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 28 of 72 • There is a large area of lowland blanket bog to the north of the N59 within Section A in the townland of Rosturk, to the east of the Bunnahowna River. A smaller section of lowland blanket bog is to be found to the north of the N59 – approximately 600m west of the Owengarve River. The latter example is degraded bog. • A small area of Acid Grassland (GS3) was found in Murreveagh townland – to the north of the N59 – again within Section A. • Badger setts were encountered along the route – mainly within Section C – at the offline section at Rosdooaun. • An otter holt was encountered 80m west of chainage 20900 within Section C. Otter activity was recorded in other watercourses along the route. • Many of the watercourses crossed by the N59 are suitable for salmon. • One bat roost only was discovered at Knocknaboley old road bridge – the N59 utilises an original railway bridge at this location. Two potential bat roosts were identified at Bunnahowna and Rosdooaun bridges. • Only native species will be used in landscape planting. • Recovery areas are outside of nature designated areas or sites with identified ecological receptors. • Banks of rivers/streams will be preserved beneath new bridge structures to allow for passage of mammals. Ledges will be provided at culverts. • An underpass will be installed at chainage 20540 to facilitate badger movement. • Mammal-proof fencing is not proposed along the route. • Where mature trees are to be felled, they will be examined for bat roosts. If any are found, tree-felling will be carried out only between late August and late October/early November.

4.3.10 The brief of evidence of Anthony Cawley in relation to geology, hydrology and hydrogeology contained the following points of note ( Document ref. J )- • The report outlines the rock types and faults encountered within scheme. • There are substantial deposits of peat scattered throughout the scheme – varying in depth up to 4m. • Bedrock was only encountered in a single rotary core. Trail holes up to 3m depth were also opened along the route. There is thick glacial subsoil at the offline sections with Section C. • There are no areas of geological heritage along the route. • A turlough at Knockysprickaun in Section C (west of chainage 22750) indicates karstification in the area. There were no surface karst features identified in the area. • The road scheme crosses 42 watercourses. A total of 6 new crossing structures will be required at the offline sections of road. • There are approximately 50 outfall locations from the road. • Run-off is high in the area due to clayey, silty and peaty soils. • Water quality within monitored rivers in the area is generally moderate to good, with only the Moyour River recording poor status.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 29 of 72 • There are 4 types of aquifer traversed by the route – the area south of Newport being a regionally important karstified aquifer – dominated by conduit flow. • The GSI has conducted only an interim study for this area. • There is only one active well identified within the land-take of the road. • No significant rock excavation is likely. Within cut sections, the majority of excavation will be within soil overburden. • Estimated 76,000 cubic metres of materials will have to be imported to the site. Excess excavated material from the offline sections in Section C could be reused in Sections A & B. • Peats, marl and soft clay will have to be disposed of to Recovery Areas along the route – estimated at 243,000 cubic metres. The estimated capacity of the Recovery Areas is 274,000 cubic metres. This on-site disposal will greatly reduce the traffic impacts involved with export of the materials to licensed landfill sites. • Release of sediment/concrete/hydrocarbons to watercourses during construction is the principal threat to hydrology in the area. • The realigned road will have a small impact on floodplains with the loss of 0.5-0.6ha at the Rossow River and 0.6-0.7ha at the Cranareen River. The predicted maximum flood level rises in these areas is 100mm, which is acceptable to the OPW. • Works to online/offline watercourse crossings have potential for pollution. • Attenuation of storm flows along the route is not proposed due to the high number of watercourses which intercept the road. The exception to this is at Burrishoole Channel because of direct discharge to a cSAC (50 cubic metre storage capacity proposed). The density of discharge points will help to reduce pollutant loads on receiving waters. Existing drainage will be largely unaltered. • Vulnerability of the underlying aquifer may be increased at cut sections through exposure and also the possibility of a lowering of the water table. • The cut at chainage 20540 to 20820 will have a maximum depth of 19.3m. The cut at chainage 21095 to 21210 will have a maximum depth of 6.4m. The cut at chainage 25925 to 26120 and at chainage 26210 to 26470 will have maximum depths of 12.65m and 7.65m respectively. • Private wells may be impacted by road construction. • All small rectangular stone slab culverts, where structurally required, will be replaced by 900mm diameter culverts. • Effluent and percolation areas will be relocated where necessary. • Abandoned wells will be backfilled with bentonite.

4.4 Objection no. 5

The objector, Patrick McGreal, indicated to the hearing that he had come to an agreement with Mayo County Council, and the objection was withdrawn.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 30 of 72 4.5 Objection no. 11

4.5.1 The objector, Niall O’Boyle, indicated that the Council had not contacted him, although it had contacted his son-in-law who resides in the adjoining house. The objector had not been aware of the Part 8 scheme. Removal of roadside boundary hedge will result in more noise. The percolation area for the septic tank serving the house is within the land-take area, and there is no room to relocate it within the remaining plot and still allow for gravity feed. The farmland on the opposite side of the road would have been better for land-take, as there are no houses (Document ref. 11 ).

4.5.2 Mayo County Council indicated that the Part 8 scheme had been advertised in accordance with statutory requirements and that Public Information Meetings had been held. Elected representatives had voted to adopt the scheme. It would not be possible to relocate the road into farmland on the opposite side of the road because of road geometry – the objector’s plot being located on the inside of a shallow curve. The land-take was required to improve sight visibility at side road A19. The percolation area would be relocated within the objector’s site. The roadside boundary would be replaced on a like for like basis.

4.5.3 The objector confirmed, on being questioned by the Inspector, that there were no cattle grids at entrances.

4.6 Objection no. 7

4.6.1 The agent for the objectors, Claude Germain & Christian Verges, indicated that there had been poor consultation by the Council. The small field in question was used for camping during the summer when language students were staying at the main facility nearby.

4.6.2 Mayo County Council indicated that the entire field and part of the Great Western Greenway would be acquired. The field was separated from the main property by the greenway. Planning permission on this field would not be forthcoming due to the current alignment of the N59 in this location. Access would not be granted from the newly aligned N59 – hence the entirety of the field was being acquired.

4.7 Objection no. 9

4.7.1 Jim Gaynor, on behalf of the objectors, Michael & Teresa Staunton (who also spoke at the hearing requested that the N59 be lowered in front of their house – which is currently about 1m below the level of the road.

4.7.2 Mayo County Council indicated that any increase would be no more than 10mm, but it might be possible to slightly lower the road. There would be no savings to the Council in lowering the road at this location, particularly if only surface dressing of the existing carriageway was required.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 31 of 72

4.8 Objection no. 13

4.8.1 Helena O’Malley, on behalf of the objector, Eithne Chambers, stated the objection to the new Great Western Greenway link onto the old N59 at chainage 4400. The greenway currently runs along the old N59 between Kiltarnaght junction to the east and the old Burrishoole Bridge to the west. The road is too narrow and cyclists and pedestrians are in danger. Sudden exits onto this road would be dangerous.

4.8.2 Mayo County Council pointed out that the scheme would remove a section of the Greenway from the old N59 – between the Kiltarnaght junction and the objector’s house. This would improve safety on the road. Barriers, as exist at other road crossings, together with signage would warn cyclists and motorists of shared use of the old N59.

4.9 Objection no. 21

4.9.1 Wessel Vossloo, on behalf of the objector, Luke Breach, stated that following further consultation with the Council, he was satisfied that the carriageway would be relocated approximately 2m further away from the house, and that levels would be more or less as existing. This would facilitate better sight lines at the entrance to the property. The only two issues remaining were noise and light pollution. It was suggested that the Board enshrine the issues, as settled with the Council, in its decision as a schedule of undertaking ( Document ref. 21 ).

4.9.2 The Inspector stated that he did not know if this was possible.

4.10 Objection no. 15

4.10.1 Helena O’Malley stated that proposed new side roads B10 & B10a be removed from the scheme. This short section of road would act as a new link between the old N59 and the existing N59 just to the east of the objector’s house. The objector submitted two A3 aerial colour photographs of Kiltarnaght ( Document ref. 15 ).

4.10.2 Mayo County Council indicated that it was willing to remove these side roads from the scheme as local residents did not want them and ready alternatives existed at Kiltarnaght junction to the east and old Burrishoole Bridge to the west. Recovery Area no. 18 would be extended into the road area to tie in with garden boundary of the objector’s house. This was acceptable to the objector.

4.11 Objection no. 19

4.11.1 Michael O’ Donnell and Padraig Finnerty, on behalf of the Burrishoole Residents Association, outlined concerns in relation to unsatisfactory nature of the current Greenway sharing the route of the old N59 with traffic between Kiltarnaght

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 32 of 72 junction and Old Burrishoole Bridge, as the road was too narrow. The Residents Association was not opposed to the scheme per se . It was acknowledged that a section of the Greenway would be removed from the old N59, but that it would re-emerge back onto the old N59 at Eithne Chambers’ house. The Greenway should be taken off the old N59. This could be done by constructing a new bridge beside the new Burrishoole Bridge or attaching a cantilevered walkway to it. Alternatively a dedicated cycleway could be provided on the 400m remaining section of the old N59, as there was space for it. It was recognised that this part of the old N59 was outside of the scheme boundary. On a separate issue, it was requested that the Kiltarnaght junction be left as it is. There are only 3-4 houses on side road B12, yet this was to become the through road – users of the old N59 having to give way to traffic on the B12 in the new configuration. There was no provision made for school bus drop-off and collection at the Kiltarnaght junction. An island was required in the centre of the of the N59 for right-turning traffic coming from Newport and wishing to turn into the old N59 at Kiltarnaght. The junction down to Burrishoole Abbey (side road B11) should be left as is. The proposed closure of the side road immediately to the west of the Old Burrishoole Bridge could result in antisocial behaviour and dumping on the redundant section of road. The objectors submitted an A4 aerial colour photograph showing preferred line of Greenway at New Burrishoole Bridge, and two photographs of walkers on the Greenway ( Document ref. 19 ).

4.11.2 Mayo County Council mentioned that the Greenway already existed along the length of the old N59. The proposed scheme would remove approximately 500m length of Greenway from the old N59. Signage and chicanes on the Greenway would alert cyclists and motorists. The part of the Greenway outside the scheme boundary was a matter for the Greenway promoters. [It was confirmed to the hearing that the principal promoter of the Greenway was Mayo County Council, along with Fáilte Ireland and Smarter Travel]. The scheme was removing an at- grade Greenway crossing at Kiltarnaght and replacing it with a new overbridge further to the west. A new bridge over the Burrishoole Channel would have implications for the cSAC, and could impact on an agricultural underbridge just to the east. In relation to the Kiltarnaght junction, any proposal to allow for old N59 priority over side road B12 would require a considerably larger land-take. Traffic counts indicated that a right-turning lane in the centre of the N59 was not required at Kiltarnaght. The junction with side road B11 had to be realigned to provide the necessary junction alignment and separation from the junction with side road B11. Space existed at the junction for a school bus lay-by. The Council would not be providing overflow car-parking at the junction for attendees at burials in Burrishoole Abbey cemetery. Following overnight contact with the National Roads Authority, it was confirmed to the hearing that funds had been found to construct a cycle lane on the remaining 400m of the old N59 between Eithne Chambers’ house and the Old Burrishoole Bridge. These funds would obviously only be forthcoming, if the N59 scheme was approved by the Board and proceeded to construction – as part of the scheme involved rerouting part of the Greenway off the old N59. It was noted that this stretch of road was outside the

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 33 of 72 proposed scheme. It was stated that a temporary section of cycleway could be constructed from Eithne Chambers’ house east to Kiltarnaght junction in the event that there was a delay in commencing the scheme. The objector expressed strong satisfaction with the outcome.

4.12 Objection no. 14

4.12.1 Karen O’Malley, agent on behalf of the objector George O’Malley, requested that the Greenway be left as it is on the opposite side of the N59 at Kiltarnaght. Screening would have to be removed from the garden of the house to facilitate the new Greenway on the south side of the N59.

4.12.2 Mayo County Council responded that the scheme would remove an at-grade crossing of the Greenway at Kiltarnaght. A cycleway along the old N59 between Kiltarnaght and Eithne Chambers’ house was only an interim measure should the scheme be delayed. The Council was willing to work with the objector in relation to the provision of screen planting. Timber panels could be used if the objector agreed to it.

4.13 Objection no. 22

Karen O’Malley, agent on behalf of the objector, Gerald Muldowney, indicated that the objection was withdrawn.

4.14 Objection no. 23

Karen O’Malley, agent on behalf of the objector, Madeline Jordan, indicated that the objection was withdrawn.

4.15 Objection no. 24

Karen O’Malley, agent on behalf of the objector, Padraig Murray, indicated that the objection was withdrawn.

4.16 Objection no. 25

Karen O’Malley, agent on behalf of the objectors Alan Moran/Michelle Davitt, indicated that the objection was withdrawn.

4.17 Objection no. 26

Karen O’Malley, agent on behalf of the objector, Tommie Moran, indicated that the objection was withdrawn.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 34 of 72 4.18 Objection no. 27

4.18.1 Karen O’Malley, agent on behalf of the objector, Seán McGlynn (also representing himself), pointed out that the roadside boundary wall at this location was not a modern stone wall. It had been constructed around the time of the railway. The conservation architects report did not refer to heritage stone walls in the area. Precedent has been set on other road schemes throughout the country where new stone walls had been constructed abutting agricultural land. The stone wall on this site measured 3m high on the field side. The level of the field being below the level of the road. The objector was also concerned that trees beside the stream in the recovery area (no. 28) field be retained.

4.18.2 Mayo County Council responded that it had not carried out an examination of all walls in this area. This wall had not been specifically referred to in submissions. It had not been examined by the Council. It is the policy of the NRA to use post and rail fences. Trees could be retained on site. Council would liaise with the objector. Level of house is above the level of the field – 2-3m.

4.19 General comments in relation to Objection no.s 28-44

4.19.1 Jim Gaynor & Kevin Miller from Gaynor Corr Associates, agents on behalf of objection no.s 28-44 outlined general concerns in relation to replacement stone walls on agricultural land ( Document ref. 28, 30 & 40 ), and the proposal by the Council to use post and rail fencing. General comments were also made in relation to the use of potential recovery areas – particularly as this had not been done in any other road schemes. Contractors generally deal with landowners on an individual basis – those willing to take spoil materials approaching the contractor – rather than in the current instance being forced to take spoil. It is unlikely that farmers will be able to get replacement lands. Lands may be out of commission for up to four years. Access to adjoining lands was needed in some instances through the recovery areas. Spoil material would often not be suitable for farming. Farmers were getting single farm-based payments from the Department of Agriculture: temporary removal of lands would interfere with this payments system. The jurisdiction of the Roads Authority to acquire lands for disposal of spoil was questioned. If lands could be so acquired, what was to stop the Council acquiring lands for gravel/rock for road building? It was pointed out that clients were not opposed to the scheme per se . There was a general concern in relation to the absence of attenuation within road drains, as is the case in motorways. Gaynor Corr submitted a number of letters indicating that objections were withdrawn ( Document ref. WD ).

4.19.2 Mayo County Council responded that the walls concerned were shuttered concrete and stone walls of modern construction. Dry-stone walls or heritage walls should be preserved throughout the county, as indicated in the Development Plan. It was policy of the NRA to only use post and rail fence on agricultural land. It was acknowledged that up to this the practice of the contractor dealing with individual

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 35 of 72 landowners for deposition of spoil had been in use. However, identifying recovery areas immediately adjacent to the road corridor would reduce transport and would confine the deposition to less ecologically sensitive areas. The Council indicated that it was willing to hand back recovery area lands to the farmers when the scheme was completed. Issues in relation to efficiencies in farming were a matter for compensation, as were issues relating to single farm payments from the Department of Agriculture. Drainage would follow what was there already. There was no need for surface water attenuation except at Burrishoole Channel on ecological grounds.

4.19.3 The Inspector questioned whether the contractor would be obliged to use the identified recovery areas. The Council indicated that whilst there would be no requirement to use them, it would be unlikely that the contractor would wish to transport spoil off-site when sites for the spoil had been identified. The Inspector questioned whether the Council had any latitude in reducing the number of recovery areas given the figures presented to the hearing of 274,000 cubic metre capacity within the 26 no. identified potential recovery areas and the estimated materials generated at 243,000 cubic metres. The Council responded that spare capacity was required as some recovery areas might not prove suitable, and particularly to avoid transporting materials over long distances throughout the scheme. The Council would abide by the Code of Practice for Potential Recovery Areas (a document submitted to the hearing – Document ref. A11).

4.20 Objection no. 28

4.20.1 Gaynor Corr, agent on behalf of Michael F. Loftus, stated that the wall at this location was not all modern.

4.20.2 Mayo County Council countered that the wall was mostly modern or had been repaired using modern construction methods.

4.21 Objection no. 29

Gaynor Corr, agent for Gerard McGinty, indicated that the objection was withdrawn.

4.22 Objection no. 30

Gaynor Corr, agent for Pat Ryder [general comments in relation to Recovery Areas apply].

4.23 Objection no. 31

Gaynor Corr, agent for Gerard McNulty, indicated that the objection was withdrawn.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 36 of 72 4.24 Objection no. 32

Gaynor Corr, agent for John McLoughlin, indicated that the objection was withdrawn.

4.25 Objection no. 33

4.25.1 Gaynor Corr, agent on behalf of Tom Ryder (also representing himself) had concerns in relation to the amount of his 30-acre farm that would be taken – up to 10% of it. The objector had already ceded land for the construction of the Greenway, and now the Council were taking the old railway embankment for a new Greenway. The existing one was fine. The railway embankment provided a dry-lie area for stock. A substantial corner of a field is being taken to realign the N59 junction with side road C5. It should be possible to move the junction with side road C6 on the opposite side of the N59 where there was a condemned co-op building. A small area of another field was being taken to realign the N59 junction with side road C4. This was unnecessary as the junction was already functioning fine.

4.25.2 Mayo County Council responded that the existing Greenway was hemmed in between the old railway embankment and the N59 and was at a lower level. To move it to the west would require excavating into the railway embankment. A stone culvert beneath the embankment was being retained. The N59 is being widened in this area. The use of the old railway embankment will improve the amenity of the Greenway and contribute to the heritage of the cycle route. A replacement dry-lie area can be provided for stock within the holding at an agreed location with the owner. Compensation will be paid for land acquired. The reason for the land-take at the junction with side road C5 is to provide the necessary 50m separation between this junction and the junction with side road C6. This in turn has to be separated at least 50m from the junction with side road C4. The Council would examine handing back the corner of the field at the new junction with side road C5. The Council was concerned in relation to severance of farmland at this location and need to provide access to a house on the south side of side road C5. A small parcel of land is needed to bring side road C4 into the N59 at a right angle and to allow for trucks turning. This will eliminate two junctions with just one replacement. Knocknaboley old railway bridge (currently line of N59) is to be widened and this will improve junction visibility at Clooneen.

4.26 Objection no. 34

Gaynor Corr, agent for Noreen Duggan Gavin, indicated that the objection was withdrawn.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 37 of 72 4.27 Objection no. 35

Gaynor Corr, agent for Tony McNeela, indicated that the objection was withdrawn.

4.28 Objection no. 3/16/36

Gaynor Corr, agent for Reps of Thomas Loftus and Doyle family [general comments in relation to Recovery Areas apply].

4.29 Objection no. 37

4.29.1 Gaynor Corr, agent for John T. Moran, also representing himself [general comments in relation to Recovery Areas apply]. Concern over the drains and deposition of spoil at Recovery Area 5. Also concern over grading of spoil with old railway embankment.

4.29.2 Mayo County Council stated that the reason for the land-take in this area was to improve the junction of the N59 with side road A17. There would be a roadside drain provided at this location. The carriageway would be relocated approximately 2m into the field at this location. The spoil could be graded into the old railway embankment to the north. A long culvert between this landholding and the adjoining one to the east would not be practicable for maintenance purposes. Mayo County Council submitted an A3 aerial colour photograph of the affected plot with drawing lines ( Document ref. L ).

4.30 Objection no. 38

Gaynor Corr, agent for Paul & Ann Moran, indicated that the objection was withdrawn.

4.31 Objection no. 39

Gaynor Corr, agent for Martin Moran, indicated that the objection was withdrawn.

4.32 Objection no. 40

4.32.1 Gaynor Corr and Tom McLoughlin, on behalf of Brendan McLoughlin, argued that stone boundary wall should be retained at this location.

4.32.2 Mayo County Council stated that that the wall was of modern construction using concrete.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 38 of 72 4.33 Objection no. 41

Gaynor Corr, agent for Patrick Hughes, indicated that the objection was withdrawn.

4.34 Objection no. 42

4.34.1 Gaynor Corr, agent on behalf of Michael McCormack, expressed concerns in relation to access to farmlands which were located slightly above the level of the road.

4.34.2 Mayo County Council indicated that access ramp could be created within the road verge or else a ramp could be created into the field with the owner’s consent.

4.35 Objection no. 43

Gaynor Corr, agent for Sinead Cusack [general comments in relation to Recovery Areas apply].

4.36 Objection no. 44

Gaynor Corr, agent for Francis Cusack [general comments in relation to Recovery Areas apply].

4.37 Objection no. 45

4.37.1 Catherine Walsh, Barrister, for the objectors, Martin & Liz Gillen, and their engineers, Christy O’ Sullivan & John Lambe (presented their objection to the proposed scheme. The brief of evidence of Christy O’ Sullivan ( Document ref. 45 ), supplemented by oral evidence of objectors and John Lambe, includes the following points of note- • The objectors are not opposed to the scheme per se , only to the roundabout at the Westport end of the scheme. • The objectors’ house is located immediately to the south of the proposed roundabout. No land of the objectors is to be acquired under the Compulsory Purchase Order. The objectors have resided abroad for the past 10 years – only returning home to holiday. They were unaware of the Part 8 scheme, and only became aware of the N59 scheme late in the day – hence the short letter of objection to the Board. The objectors will be returning to live permanently in Westport in June 2012. • The objectors should have been notified of the proposed scheme as affected property owners. Mayo County Council did not make any serious effort to contact them. The environmental scoping carried out for the scheme should have identified the Gillens as property owners who would be affected by the scheme.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 39 of 72 • The roundabout is to be located approximately 2m below the level of the house – separated from it by the hedgerow boundary and mature trees. • The roundabout is much closer to the house than the existing N59 – 40m as opposed to the existing 70m separation. This will result in increased noise. Traffic volumes are higher in the summer months when the objectors are most likely to be using their garden. • Proposals for street lighting will cause light pollution in this semi-rural area. If there was no roundabout, there would be no need for public lighting. It will not be possible to prevent light spillage into the objectors’ property. Proposals for screening at the roundabout will take some years to mature. • The roundabout location has been determined in advance of any route selection on the N59, by the necessity to tie into the proposed N5 Northern ring road for Westport – the route of which has been determined. When the N59 is examined in conjunction with the N5 ring road, the objector’s house will be surrounded by roads. No cumulative impacts have been examined – the N59 scheme with the N5 ring road scheme. • Drawings show only two arms to the roundabout – for northbound and southbound traffic only on the N59. A two-arm roundabout is not necessary at this location. It would have been possible to create two back- to-back curves at this location within the land-take of the current CPO. This would result in a lesser amount of land to be acquired by CPO – particularly in the field where the proposed roundabout is to be located. • Drainage at the roundabout will contribute to flooding in the adjacent Deerpark Stream which frequently floods the Attireesh Road in front of the objectors’ house. Water ponds within this field at present after heavy rain. No petrol interceptors are proposed on outfalls. • The objectors’ property will be devalued by this roundabout. • There is no history of accidents at Brown’s Corner/Rose Cottage (the bend on the N59 located just to the northwest of the proposed roundabout). • Construction dust and noise would cause a nuisance to occupants of the house. • Mr. Gillen suffers from a heart condition and noise and stress would exacerbate this condition. • The proposed roundabout is too close to the existing N59/Golf Course Road junction. • The NRA ‘National Secondary Roads Needs Study, 2011’ indicates a tie- in for the Westport by-pass ring road at a location beyond Barley Hill (further out of the town) – which does not accord with the Council’s preferred option of a tie-in at the proposed roundabout. • A roundabout will be challenging for cyclists. • The Council is invited to truncate the N59 scheme at the Industrial Estate Road to the north and to re-examine proposals for the portion of the N59 between the junction with the Industrial Estate Road and the junction with the Golf Course Road – including the back-to-back curves option. These options were presented in diagrammatic form to the Hearing in the form of

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 40 of 72 2 no. A3 size aerial colour photographs with appropriate road lines, and 2 no. A4 size aerial colour photographs indicating CPO lands which would not, as a result, have to be purchased to facilitate the scheme ( Document ref. 45A ). • Drawings have been produced for the National Roads Design Office in Mayo showing a roundabout at just the location proposed in the N59 scheme. This is indicated on a black & white A3 drawing handed into the Hearing ( Document ref. 45B ). • Two suggested conditions were presented for the consideration of the Board in relation to amending the road scheme at the Westport end.

4.37.2 The Council’s response included the following points of note- • The Part 8 road scheme was notified and advertised in accordance with statutory requirements. A number of public meetings were held in relation to the choice of route. Local newspapers and local radio was used to inform people of the scheme. Elected Representatives voted on the scheme. The CPO scheme was also advertised in accordance with statutory requirements. • The roundabout will be constructed at existing level – approximately 2m below the level of the objectors’ house. • Additional noise caused by a roundabout at this location will not be significant. • Yellow sodium lighting will be directed towards the roundabout to reduce glare into objectors’ property. A 1.0m earthen berm will be used in conjunction with mixed screen planting around the roundabout to help screen it from view. • A roundabout was chosen as the best option for the geometry of the area, as back-to-back curves were not considered optimal at this location. To provide better curve radii would have required additional property to be acquired in the field to the north and would have also involved severance. A roundabout will act as a traffic-calming feature. The choice of a roundabout for this location was not influenced by the fact that a roundabout could facilitate a future connection arm to the N5 northern ring road of Westport. • The proposed N59 scheme is being put forward as a stand-alone scheme. It is not dependent on the N5 ring road scheme. • Back-to-back curves could be achieved within the CPO boundary, but the tight geometry would involve relocating the 50kph speed restriction zone associated with the town, out beyond the industrial estate road to the north. This was indicated on an A3 colour aerial photograph of the area handed into the Hearing ( Document ref. M ). The roundabout option would allow for the 100kph zone to be brought in as far as the roundabout. The Council considers back-to-back curves at this location to be undesirable. Even if back-to-back curves were constructed at this location, there is nothing to prevent the construction of a roundabout in this area should a tie-in with any future N5 by-pass scheme be required. The two options

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 41 of 72 presented by the objectors, for revision of the road at this location, were not acceptable to the Council. • Drainage conditions in the area will not be significantly altered. Land has an already high run-off rate. The Deerpark Stream is not a salmonid river. The Inland Fisheries Board did not require hydrocarbon interceptors. • Funding for the design of the scheme has been made available and it is the understanding of the Council that funding for the N59 scheme itself will be forthcoming. Funding is available for the design of the N5 northern ring road for Westport. It was originally thought that the N5 scheme would precede the N59 scheme, however, the N59 came to the fore in National Roads Authority proposals. • The roundabout is located within the Westport Town & Environs Development Plan boundary. The location of the N59 scheme is indicated on Map 1 as ‘Proposed Road Corridor’. • It was confirmed that there was no history of accidents at Brown’s Corner.

4.37.3 Points elicited following Inspector’s Questioning • The Part 8 scheme for the N59 shows a third arm on the roundabout at Westport. • The objectors did not consult with adjoining property owners in relation to alternative proposals put forward at the oral hearing for the Westport end of the scheme.

4.38 Concluding Remarks

4.38.1 Concluding Remarks of Brian Semple

Mr. Semple, who had not previously addressed the hearing, requested to be heard. Mayo County Council was satisfied to deal with any comments made. Mr. Semple stated that the existing roadworks on the Kilbride and Knockbreaga sections of the N59 did not inspire confidence that the mitigation measures outlined by the Council in relation to the N59 scheme would be put in place. Mayo County Council had no comment to make on this submission.

4.38.2 Concluding Remarks of Martin Gillen/Catherine Walshe

Mayo County Council and the Board should carefully review the options put forward by the objectors at the Westport end of the scheme. The roundabout is entirely unnecessary and will constitute a traffic hazard. The roundabout will have a detrimental impact on the Gillen property. The third arm of this roundabout to serve the N5 scheme has not been addressed by the Council. A roundabout at this location has been selected to facilitate the N5 scheme. No environmental impact was carried out on the third arm of the roundabout. It has been difficult to obtain information from the Council in relation to the N5 scheme. Two related projects, the N59 and the N5 have been split: the elimination of the roundabout will remove the issue of project-splitting. The Board is requested to

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 42 of 72 truncate the project at the Industrial Estate Road or else to require the substitution of back-to-back curves within the CPO boundary as an alternative to a roundabout.

4.38.3 Concluding Remarks of Pat Butler for Mayo County Council

The proposed N59 scheme does not constitute project-splitting. The Board is invited to consider the case of Arklow Holidays Ltd. v An Bord Pleanála, where the courts decided that the development of a sewage treatment plant and the pipework necessary for it as two separate schemes did not constitute project- splitting. Judicial Review was taken in relation to the construction of one of the sections of the M8 Motorway to Cork. It was decided that sections could be dealt with in discrete parts and that the entire motorway did not have to be considered as one project. Recourse to the Courts remains an option for the Gillens if they consider that there has been project-splitting in this instance. Individuals constantly complain of inadequate notice in relation to planning schemes. The Council complied with the procedures set out in the relevant legislation. The Board is referred to the case of Talbot Grange Homes Ltd. v Laois County Council. The only notice required in that instance was in Iris Oifigiúil. Advertising of this scheme was extensive. Mayo County Council went beyond what was required in law. The decision on the Part 8 scheme was the decision of the elected representatives of the Council. The scheme is necessitated due to existing deficiencies in the road alignment and to improve safety.

5.0 COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER ASSESSMENT

5.1 Community Need

Having visited the N59 road network and the rural road network adjoining it; having travelled the Great Western Greenway between Westport and Mulranny; having conducted an Oral Hearing over a two-day period; and having examined all the written submissions made to the Board, I am satisfied that Mayo County Council has established a need for the N59 Westport to Mulranny road scheme. Most of the objections received in relation to the CPO are not objections to the scheme per se , but rather to particular aspects of it as it relates to particular plots of land, or junction layouts. The scheme will result in the upgrading of 21.2km of road, with two off-line sections at those stretches with the worst bends – within Section C. The scheme will result in improvements in the vertical and horizontal alignment of this road which caters for considerable volumes of traffic in summer months. The scheme will increase the overtaking opportunities on this stretch of road from 19% currently to 32% – thereby reducing driver frustration. The provision of a viewing lay-by in the townland of Rosgalliv will increase safety at a point where touring motorists are naturally inclined to stop when the first view of Clew Bay opens up for traffic travelling west from Newport. The realignment of side road junctions with the N59 and the rationalisation of these junctions, particularly at Kiltarnaght and Clooneen; the elimination of 2 no. at-grade Great

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 43 of 72 Western Greenway crossings of the N59; the creation of an additional 3.2km of cycleway; the provision of a footpath linking the Industrial Estate Road at Westport to the footpath network of the town at the Golf Course Road; the provision of public lighting linking the Industrial Estate Road at Westport to the public lighting network of the town; and the connection of the scheme to N59 improvement works already under way at Kilbride and Knockbreaga, will result in substantial improvements for road users and those using the Great Western Greenway in terms of comfort and safety.

5.2 Suitability of the Site

5.2.1 The N59 Westport to Mulranny Road Scheme makes use of the existing road reservation along most of its length in order to limit the amount of land it would be necessary to acquire to effect road improvement. A Part 8 scheme was passed by the elected representatives of the Council following the carrying out of Constraints Studies, public display of Project Corridor considered, Preliminary Options Assessment, Route Options Public Display, and Emerging Preferred Route (including the early construction of the Knockbreaga and Kilbride sections). There are just two off-line sections within Section C – a total length of approximately 1.6km within a scheme of overall 21.2km length. The off-line sections are necessitated by the constraints imposed by drumlins/ridges on the existing N59 road and the build-up over the years of houses/farmsteads flanking the road. The scheme will join with two improvement schemes at Kilbride and Knockbreaga which are currently under construction. No works are proposed within Newport – other than on the western outskirts of the town. The existing bridge over the Newport River is to be utilised.

5.2.2 It is acknowledged by the Council that the development will have negative impacts on some property, and measures have been considered to abate the potential nuisance or, where this could not be done, to pay relevant compensation (if necessary, and subject to arbitration). Existing agricultural, commercial and residential access points will be retained or set back/relocated, where necessary. A number of objections to the scheme were withdrawn at the Oral Hearing.

5.2.3 I would be satisfied that the proposed CPO lands are suitable for the road scheme proposed.

5.3 The Need for All the Lands

5.3.1 The decision to utilise the existing N59 road reservation (apart from two new off- line sections totalling 1.6km in length) has limited the amount of land to be compulsorily acquired by the Council. Old sections of the N59 are to be retained to provide access to houses, and agricultural land. No residents are to be deprived of their house. It is proposed to provide a single carriageway road of 6.0m width, flanked by 2 no. 0.5m wide hard strips and landscaped margins of varying width. The N59 has been realigned in the past. Property boundaries have been set back

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 44 of 72 from the edge of the road following development. This has resulted in a considerable corridor being available within which to realign the road – particularly at the Mulranny end of the scheme and in the vicinity of Tiernaur.

5.3.2 In relation to the proposed recovery areas, Mayo County Council has presented a convincing case as to why these 26 potential areas should be included within the CPO boundary lands. It is estimated that some 243,000 cubic metres of spoil (peat, marl top soil and subsoil) will be generated for disposal. The recovery areas (with an estimated capacity of approximately 274,000 cubic metres) will almost completely eradicate the need to transport spoil off the site for disposal. This is in accordance with the ‘Proximity Principle’ for the disposal of waste materials. The spare capacity of 31,000 cubic metres is required in case some areas prove unsuitable and to avoid unnecessary transportation of spoil along the length of the route. Deposition depths range from 1.0-2.75m. The recovery areas have been chosen to specifically avoid sensitive ecological receptors. They are generally poor-quality lands with rushes growing over them. There are no objections to the use of many of these areas. The Council will require the use of the land for a period of four years, but is prepared to transfer the land back to farmers if they require it at the end of that period. This would appear to be reasonable. The Council has put forward preliminary drainage plans for these areas and has had regard to the need to retain residential/agricultural access through recovery areas where required.

5.3.3 Mayo County Council has put forward a convincing case for the proposed tourist lay-by at Rosgalliv. There is already a tarmacadam lay-by area on the north side of the N59 at this location. However, the principal requirement for a lay-by at this location is on the south side of the road. This is the point where the first view of Clew Bay opens up to touring motorists travelling west from Newport. It is an attractive view of the Bay and the silhouette of Rosturk Castle. Document ref. A9 shows this lay-by feature. The ruined stone farm buildings and associated mature sycamore trees which form part of the CPO lands are to be retained: this retention is to be welcomed as the ruins and trees form an attractive feature in the landscape. The lay-by proper is to be located immediately to the west of these ruins. A retaining wall (1-2m high) and embankment is to be provided at this location, as the agricultural land to the south is at a considerably lower level than the road. Matters relating to littering and overnight stopping at such a feature are a matter for the Council and the Garda Siochána, and are not properly planning considerations.

5.3.4 Additional lands are to be acquired to make improvements to the Great Western Greenway cycle route: this involves the creation of a new underpass and over- bridge for cyclists/walkers. The separation of cycling traffic from vehicular traffic both on the N59 and side roads is appropriate, particularly in view of the popularity of the Greenway and the amount of visitor traffic it attracts. The replacement of the at-grade crossing of the Greenway at Kiltarnaght junction is appropriate – being replaced by a new overbridge further to the west. At the Oral

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 45 of 72 Hearing a commitment was given by the National Roads Authority (through Mayo County Council) for the creation of a cycle path on a 500m stretch of the old N59 immediately to the east of Old Burrishoole Bridge. Whilst this 500m stretch is outside of the CPO boundary, and does not form part of the scheme, it will improve road safety in the area and contribute to the amenity value of the Greenway in this area. A spur section of new Greenway is to be created on the north side of the N59 – immediately to the east of Tiernaur – to connect the Greenway proper with facilities in the hamlet of Tiernaur. The acquiring of part of the old railway embankment within Clooneen townland will improve the amenity and heritage value of the Greenway by relocating the Greenway back onto the old railway embankment from a position sandwiched between the embankment and the existing N59, where it is located at a lower level than the road. The increased separation will improve safety for users of the Greenway at this location. I would be satisfied that the inclusion of lands for the Greenway (and extensions to it) within the CPO boundaries of the scheme is appropriate.

5.3.5 The scheme provides for a roundabout at the Westport termination of the scheme. The Council has argued that a roundabout at this location is preferable to a pair of back-to-back curves. The evidence produced at the Oral Hearing indicated that a pair of back-to-back curves could be accommodated at this location within the CPO boundary – indicated on drawings produced at the Hearing by Mayo County Council (Document ref. M) and Objector no. 45 (Document ref. 45A). The two are largely similar. I would not be in favour of substituting back-to-back curves at this location as this could be considered a significant alteration to the scheme, which adjacent property owners and those with an interest in the N59 scheme in general have not had an opportunity to commenting upon. Objector 45 has argued that the section of the scheme from Brown’s Corner/Rose Cottage to the Golf Course Road could be omitted by the Board, and the N59 scheme tied into the existing road at Brown’s Corner. This suggested alteration too would be undesirable – removing the opportunity to take out a bad bend on the N59. Objector 45 has argued that the section of the N59 scheme from the Industrial Estate Road (Side Road C17) to the Golf Course Road could be re-examined and put back for future redesign and agreement/consent. The arguments that such a measure would reduce the amount of land to be compulsorily acquired and thereby save money does not stand up, as the road would likely have to be improved at some stage in the future. Similarly the back-to-back curves option, whilst it would eliminate the roundabout and reduce the amount of land which would have to be compulsorily purchased in the ‘roundabout field’ (plot P6360j.201), it is not an option favoured by the Council, and I would agree with that stance. The roundabout at Westport was indicated on the Part 8 drawings which were presented after considerable public consultation and advertising of the N59 proposed improvements. The Part 8 scheme was voted upon by the elected representatives of the Council. The land in this area is within the development boundary of the town of Westport. The Development Plan clearly indicates ‘Proposed Road Corridor’ in this area. The ‘Proposed Road Corridor’ incorporates a stretch of the existing N59 and then clearly links to what is a

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 46 of 72 potential corridor for the northern ring road of Westport (the N5 scheme). The Development Plan does not specify what type of junction will be used, but whether roundabout or T-junction, the road corridors clearly do meet at the site of the proposed roundabout – plot P6360j.201 of the current CPO lands. Lands adjoining ‘Proposed Road Corridor’ zoned lands in this area are zoned for residential use at different densities. The area is not a rural area – but rather the fringe of a developing town. Any proposal to create a third arm at the proposed roundabout to connect with any future scheme for a northern by-pass of the town would be subject to a separate planning and consent process, and does not form part of the scheme before the Board for consideration in this instance.

5.3.6 The need to create perpendicular side road junctions with the N59 has necessitated the compulsory acquisition of small amounts of land on either side of side roads. In the case of the junction at Kiltarnaght, the Council has tried to confine the amount of land to be compulsorily acquired, whilst still maintaining road safety. This has necessitated the re-positioning of the old N59 to a new T-junction on side road B12. Notwithstanding the arguments made by objector no. 19 at the Oral Hearing in relation to traffic volumes on side roads at this junction, I would be satisfied that the proposed arrangement is appropriate. The Council was agreeable to the omission of side roads B10 & B10a as desired by local residents, and the creation of a school bus lay-by at the junction. In relation to the junction at Clooneen, the Council design will result in 50m separation of side road junctions on opposite sides of the N59 in relation to side roads C4, C5 & C6. The achievement of right-angled junctions and the 50m separation distances between them, necessitated the compulsory acquisition of lands from objector no. 33. The Council was willing to reconsider the possible return of the corner of the field at the junction with side road C5. However, it is difficult to envisage any reasonable agricultural use for such a small plot of land. Any such arrangement should be at the discretion of the Council. The land-take at this junction is reasonable.

5.3.7 The off-line section of the N59 at Barleyhill requires compulsory acquisition of lands belonging to objector no. 7 – plot P6310a.201. This plot comprises a small field and part of the existing Great Western Greenway. The new road will be off- line through this small field and across the Greenway via a new bridge structure (Creggaunahorna Greenway Underbridge). The new N59 will sever the remaining portion of the field (not required for the new N59) from the remainder of the objectors’ land holding which is located to the northwest. It is not clear what use the Council will have for the severed portion of the field – sandwiched between the new N59 and the old N59. However, the proposed acquisition is reasonable in this instance as the remainder of the field could not easily be connected to the principal portion of the objectors’ lands in the area.

5.4 Compatibility with Development Plan Provisions

5.4.1 The Regional Planning Guidelines for the West Region 2010-2022 are of relevance to this scheme. Specifically, in relation to roads, Objective IO5 refers to

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 47 of 72 the need to upgrade and improve all National Secondary Roads – referring specifically to the N59 Galway to Ballina route serving the west of the Region: minimising environmental impact. The proposed scheme accords with the Regional Planning Guidelines.

5.4.2 The Mayo County Development Plan 2008-2014, at section 3.1.3, in relation to Transport & Public Infrastructure, states the following with regard to ‘Roads’

5.4.2.1 POLICIES P/ TI-R 1 It is the policy of the Council, in conjunction with all statutory agencies, to assist in the provision of a high quality road network to appropriate capacity and safety standards, to cater for the economic and social development of the County.

5.4.2.2 OBJECTIVES O/ TI-R 2 It is an objective of the Council to support improvements to the existing National Road network including road schemes and by-passes outlined in Appendix 1: Table 1.1, Table 1.2 & Table 1.4.

Appendix 1

National Secondary Routes

It is an objective to carry out major improvements on the N59 from the Mayo/Sligo County Boundary to Ballina-Crossmolina-Bangor-Mulranny- Newport-Westport-Leenaune.

Table 1.2: National Secondary Route Improvements Objective Route Proposal NS11 All Complete the provision of a high quality pavement, minor improvements, realignments and maintenance to the un- realigned sections of roads.

Whilst the County Development Plan identifies the N59 as a National Secondary Route on which major improvements are to be carried out between the Sligo county boundary and the Galway county boundary, it does not specifically identify the stretch between Mulranny and Westport. Table 1.2 of Appendix 1 does specifically refer to particular stretches of the N59 (amongst other National Secondary Routes within the County) at Objectives NS1, NS4 & NS5. The final objective within Table 1.2 – NS11 – is in the nature of a catch-all objective – ‘Complete the provision of a high quality pavement, minor improvements, realignments and maintenance to the unrealigned sections of roads’. This objective relates to all National Secondary routes within the County. It refers to ‘high quality pavement’ and ‘minor improvements, realignments and maintenance’. It is not clear that the works proposed within this road scheme could be classified as ‘minor’ – particularly the construction of new

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 48 of 72 bridges/underpasses and two off-line sections of new road (1.6km total). However, it may be that the word ‘minor’ only relates to ‘improvements’ and does not relate to ‘realignment’ and/or ‘maintenance’. It would not be reasonable to carry out only minor ‘maintenance’ works if major maintenance was required. I am satisfied that the proposed scheme is in accordance with the County Development Plan.

5.4.3.1 Westport Town & Environs Development Plan 2010-2016, states under the heading ‘Infrastructural Services’ – Roads & Parking, relevant objectives are-

IO-01 It is an objective of the Council to safeguard routes for new roads which are likely to be required over the next 20 years from any development which would interfere with the design and construction of these roads.

IO-02 It is an objective of the Council to reserve lands for the provision of a southern and northern relief road over the medium to long term. The lines shown on Map 1 are indicative only and subject to modification or alternative lines. Each proposed project…

5.4.3.2 The line of the N59 as it is shown on the scheme submitted corresponds to the ‘Proposed Road Corridor’ line shown on Map 1 (copy included with this Inspector’s Report). Further, Map 1 shows a ‘Proposed Road Corridor’ for the N5 northern ring road around Westport joining the N59 ‘Proposed Road Corridor’ at the point which has been indicated within this scheme now before the Board. It is acknowledged that the N5 scheme does not form part of the scheme currently before the Board for consideration. The proposed N59 scheme is in accordance with the Westport Town & Environs Development Plan 2010-2016.

5.5 Consideration of Alternatives

The Part 8 process indicates the alternatives considered in the route selection process and preferred options, before the current proposed alignment was arrived at. It was argued at the Oral Hearing that the end point in Westport was pre- determined by the need to construct a roundabout to connect with a possible N5 northern ring road around Westport. All schemes must have start and end points. Objector no. 45 suggested an alternative end point for the scheme at the Westport end. There is nothing inherently wrong in the selection of start/end points for a scheme. The scheme runs between Mulranny and Westport. Starting and ending points must be somewhere in the vicinity of these two settlements. Certainly the finish point at Westport does accord with Map 1 of the Westport & Environs Development Plan 2010-2016. Through this Development Plan, interested parties would have been aware that the Roads Authority had road plans for this area.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 49 of 72 5.6 Other Issues

5.6.1 Extinguishment of Public Rights-of-Way Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Compulsory Purchase Order refers to extinguishments of 27 no. public rights-of-way. These largely relate to realignment of existing junctions, closing-off of redundant sections of the old N59, or small side roads where ready alternative access either exists or will be provided as part of the scheme. The Council is to provide alternative access where rights-of-way are extinguished. In the case of one side road (not numbered) – on the north side of the N59 and to the west of side road B9, the Council is to close the access from the N59 – leaving access only from side road B9. This short road leads down to Old Burrishoole Bridge – already accessed by side road B9. Residents are concerned that the road closure will result in anti- social behaviour on the closed stretch. The road does not provide any access to residential property – only to agricultural land. At the Oral Hearing the Council indicated that it would examine the possibility of gating this closed section of the old N59 in agreement with the adjoining landowners. This would appear to be reasonable. The extinguishments outlined in the Second Schedule are necessary in order to construct the realigned road and associated junctions with side roads. The extinguishments proposed are acceptable.

5.6.2 Extinguishment of Private Rights-of-Way Part 2 of the Second Schedule to the Compulsory Purchase Order refers to extinguishment of 4 no. private rights-of-way – to be replaced with alternative access arrangements. There were no objections to these road closures. The extinguishments proposed are acceptable.

5.6.3 Surface Water Drainage Matters relating to drainage are addressed in the Part 8 Scheme. Drawings handed in to the Oral Hearing give an indication of drainage proposals. The N59 already drains to more than 50 outfall points along its route. These outfalls will be retained. Expert evidence offered at the Oral Hearing on behalf of Mayo County Council (Document ref. J) indicated that lands in this area experienced a high run-off rate due to the poor percolation characteristics of the soil. The proposed scheme will not significantly alter this situation. It is not proposed to construct any attenuation features on outfalls, other than where road drainage will discharge to the Burrishoole Channel (Document ref. B4) – part of the Clew Bay Complex cSAC. Existing road drainage at New Burrishoole Bridge and the adjoining sections of road already discharges to this Channel. It is proposed to construct a 50 cubic metre capacity swale on each side of existing New Burrishoole Bridge – with ultimate discharge to the Channel. The swales will provide for some element of attenuation and are constructed immediately outside of the cSAC. The discharge toe swales are located within the cSAC. New bridges and culverts are to be created for the off-line sections of the road. Some existing bridges and culverts are to be either entirely replaced, or else widened to facilitate the scheme. Comments were made at the Oral Hearing that accidental

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 50 of 72 spillages of polluting substances on the road would result in pollution of watercourses and the cSAC . Traffic is already using the N59, and the proposed development will not result in any increased level of traffic on the road. The proposed scheme will not make any difference to the potential for accidental spillages. The arrangements put in place by the Council in relation to road drainage are acceptable.

5.6.4 Boundary Treatments It is proposed to construct timber post & rail fencing and hedgerows along the new N59 where it abuts agricultural land. It was argued by objectors that such fencing had a limited lifetime and should be replaced with concrete post & rail fencing. The Council pointed out that timber fencing was standard along all new National Primary and National Secondary Roads. The Council would not replace an existing boundary with an inferior type of boundary without a resultant claim for compensation. Any animal pens which had to be removed would also be replaced by the Council. The Oral Hearing heard evidence in relation to stone walls which were to be removed to facilitate the scheme. Some of the walls referred to were of modern shuttered concrete construction with stone insets. I would see no difficulty with the replacement of such walls with timber post and rail fencing where the boundary is an agricultural one. Older stone walls to be removed were not identified by the Council as being of heritage status. There is one roadside boundary wall within the townland of Drumard – plot ref. P5950f.201 – which is somewhat overgrown, but which would appear to have been constructed in association with the adjoining railway. This wall is to be removed. There is a stream running directly inside the wall. Recovery Area no. 28 is located at this plot. This will result in ground levels being raised by up to 2m. The level of the field is considerably below the level of the road at present. It would be desirable that stone from the demolished wall be used to construct the set-back roadside boundary at this location. The boundary treatments proposed are, in general, acceptable.

5.6.5 Residential Foul Drainage Where septic tanks/effluent treatment plants or percolation areas are impinged upon by the proposed scheme (at least two have been identified), it will be necessary for the Council to provide satisfactory alternatives – either through relocation or replacement of units/systems. This is a matter for compensation.

5.6.6 Wells and Water Supplies Where private wells, either for agricultural or residential use, or access to watering for animals is interrupted by the scheme, particularly at cut sections within Section C, the Council will have to arrange for alternative sources of water. This will be a matter for compensation.

5.6.7 Severance Resulting from the mostly on-line nature of improvements at the N59, the issue of agricultural severance does not arise within this scheme. Where plots of land are

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 51 of 72 small, the CPO covers the entire plot, rather than leaving a small area severed from the principal portion of the farm. The Council undertakes to maintain access through recovery areas where it is needed to reach other agricultural lands or residential property. There is no issue of community severance as the road will be open with existing access points for residential, commercial and agricultural lands retained, or alternative access provided. This would appear to be reasonable.

5.6.8 Impact on Electricity/Telephone Cables The proposed scheme will of necessity have to reroute overhead and underground cables in association with the relevant service providers.

5.6.9 Costs The Board can direct the local authority to pay costs incurred by the Board or to any person appearing at the hearing (Section 219 of the Planning and Development Act 2000). I would not recommend that the Board should direct any such payment to be made.

6.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 Requirement for Environmental Impact Assessment The public notice for the CPO states that the Council screened the project for EIA, and came to the conclusion that the preparation of an EIS would not be necessary. The legislative requirements for road development which requires screening for EIA relate to the following classes of development- • Construction of a motorway. • Construction of a busway. • Construction of a service area. • Any prescribed type of proposed road development consisting of the construction of a proposed public road or the improvement of an existing public road, namely:- 1) The construction of a new road of four or more lanes, or the realignment or widening of an existing road so as to provide four or more lanes, where such new, realigned or widened road would be eight kilometres or more in length in a rural area, or 500 metres or more in length in an urban area; 2) The construction of a new bridge or tunnel which would be 100 metres or more in length. • Where An Bord Pleanála considers that a proposed road development; would be likely to have significant effects on the environment it shall direct the road authority to prepare an EIS. • Where a road authority considers that a proposed road development would be likely to have significant effects on the environment it shall inform ABP in writing and where ABP concurs it shall direct the road authority to prepare an EIS. • Where a proposed road development would be located on certain environmental sites the road authority shall decide whether the proposed

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 52 of 72 road development would be likely to have significant effects on the environment. “The sites concerned are”: (i) Special Area of Conservation (SAC); (ii) A site notified in accordance with Regulation 4 of the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997 (S.I. No. 94 of 1997); (iii) A Special Protection Area (SPA); (iv) A site where consultation has been initiated in accordance with Article 5 of Council Directive 92/43/EC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna; (v) A Nature Reserve within the meaning of sections 15 or 16 of the Wildlife Act, 1976; and (vi) A Refuge for Fauna under section 17 of the Wildlife Act, 1976.

6.1.1 The proposed road scheme is clearly not a motorway or busway. It does not involve the construction of a service area. The upgrading of the road will not result in the creation of a four-lane highway. The development, whilst it does involve the construction of new bridges, none are greater than 100m in length. No detailed drawings have been submitted with the Part 8 drawings. Such drawings are likely to be carried out only if the CPO is confirmed. The Kiltarnaght Greenway overbridge, at chainage 4400, will span a 7m wide road at a point where there is already an existing stone abutment on the south side of the N59. The existing Burrishoole Bridge has a span of 48m – supported by two piers located within the channel of the estuary.

6.1.2 Having regard to arguments presented during closing submissions at the Oral Hearing, I would not consider that the proposed scheme could be viewed as “project splitting” in the context of a future connection between the N59 scheme any possible future N5 northern by-pass scheme for the town of Westport. The two schemes are clearly separable, and one does not depend in any way upon the other.

6.2 Section 177AE(14) & (15) This section of the Planning Acts, as substituted by article 15 of the European Union (Environmental Impact Assessment and Habitats) Regulations, 2011, provides that section 177AE shall apply to proposed road development, other than proposed road development within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Roads Act 1993, by or on behalf of a road authority. Proposed road development is defined in section 2(1) of the Roads Act, 1993 as “means any proposed road development in respect of which an environmental impact statement is required to be prepared under section 50”. The effect of this is that any local authority road development which requires AA but not EIA must be the subject of an application to the Board under section 177AE. Section 177AE(15) as inserted by article 15 of the European Union (Environmental Impact Assessment and Habitats) Regulations, 2011, clarifies that where a local authority development requires both EIA and AA, one application is adequate (applications under both sections 175 and 177AE are not required).

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 53 of 72 6.3 Visual Impact The principal visual impact of the road will be confined to the new off-line sections within Section C. In particular, it is proposed to cut through a drumlin at Rosdooaun – maximum depth 19.3m. This will have a significant impact on the landscape. The sides of the cut are to be planted with willow/alder/ash woodland. There a no listed views or prospects in the immediate vicinity of this cut – visually sensitive areas being located at the western end of the scheme between Rosgalliv and Mulranny. The cuts at Barley Hill will not be so deep – 12.65m and 7.65m. Willow/alder/ash woodland is proposed for part of this cut area – there already being a newly-planted ash wood at the deepest part of the proposed cut. The embankment at chainage 25800 to 25950 will also be a significant construction within the landscape. It is proposed to landscape such embankments and cuts. The brief of evidence submitted to the Oral Hearing (Documents ref. F & F0) outline the landscape and visual impact of the proposed scheme. Mitigation measures in the form of proposed woodland, hedgerows, tree lines and screen planting are outlined in drawings 1-13 attached to Document ref. F. [These drawings rather confusingly show landscaping flanking New Burrishoole Bridge – within the Burrishoole Channel]. The visual impact of the roundabout at the Westport end of the scheme will not be significant in terms of development at the edge of a town. The roundabout will be constructed on or about existing ground level. It is proposed to screen the roundabout with a 1m high earth embankment, surmounted by screen planting. Public lighting on the edge of a town cannot be considered to be detrimental to the visual amenities of an area, particularly where it promotes traffic safety and will be used to light new public footpaths. Details of road signage are not included within the scheme as outlined.

6.4 Archaeology The brief of evidence presented to the Oral Hearing on behalf of Mayo County Council (Document ref. G & G1) indicated that there were no archaeological monuments directly impacted by the proposed development. This arises partly from the fact that much of the improvement works proposed are on-line. There are two off-line sections of the road within which previously undiscovered archaeological remains may be unearthed. It would be appropriate to carry out prior archaeological testing within these areas and to monitor all ground disturbance in these areas during construction.

6.5 Architectural Heritage The brief of evidence presented to the Oral Hearing on behalf of Mayo Council, indicated that there were six architectural heritage constraints – Carrowsallagh Bridge, Knocknaboley Bridges, Rossow Bridge, Single free-standing stone abutment to east of New Burrishoole Bridge, Boundary wall at Kennedy’s Wood in the demesne of Westport House, and the boundary wall of Burrishoole Lodge. In these instances, part or all of the architectural features are to be removed or lost. The mitigation measures, involving re-use of stone and reconstruction in some instances, are acceptable. The rerouting of traffic off Rossow Bridge is to be welcomed.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 54 of 72

6.6 Cultural Heritage Three grottos/shrines along the N59 are to be retained. There is a tuck mill site identified in Murrevagh townland. It is stated that no trace of it now exists.

6.7 Geology & Hydrogeology The scheme will only impact on the geology of the area at the proposed cuts at Rossow and Barleyhill. It was stated that rock was not encountered in drill cores along the proposed route. The brief of evidence in relation to geology, hydrology and hydrogeology (Document ref. J), presented at the Oral Hearing on behalf of Mayo County Council, indicated that the majority of excavation at cut sections is likely to be in overburden. Gabions, soil nailing, and structural retention systems will be used where stable slopes cannot be guaranteed. Appropriate herringbone drainage will be used in the event of seepage of groundwater from excavated slopes. Excess fill materials from the cut sections in Section C will have to be exported to sections A & B. A deficit of 76,000 cubic metres of fill will have to be imported to the site. Excavations in the cut areas may reduce the level of the water table in these areas, which could in turn impact on private wells. The region closest to Westport has a karstified bedrock aquifer which is of regional importance. This bedrock aquifer will not be intercepted by any of the cut sections of road.

6.8 Noise & Vibration The proposed development will not result in any significant increase in the level of noise during the operational phase of the development, as there will be no increase in the traffic levels on the road as a result of the scheme. The realignment of certain sections of the road, will result in the road being brought closer to some noise-sensitive receptors, but further away from others. The brief of evidence presented at the oral hearing on behalf of Mayo County Council (Document ref. H) indicated that no receivers were deemed to require noise mitigation in either the opening year 2015 or the design year 2030. The proposed road will be relocated closer to the house of objector no. 45. However, within the context of an edge-of-town location where lands are indicated for a ‘Proposed Road Corridor’ in the Development Plan for the area, the proposed scheme will not result in any significant increase in the noise environment in this area. There will be noise impacts during the construction phase, but these will be of limited duration. Appropriate good construction practice and hours of construction will mitigate the worst of these effects. In relation to vibration, there are no proposals for rock blasting at cut sections. The construction of the road may result in some temporary impacts in relation to vibration. Pre- and post-construction surveys are to be carried out on all properties flanking the route. This should help to identify any damage which may be caused by vibration during construction.

6.9 Dust & Air Quality The proposed scheme will not result in any increase in traffic on this road. Therefore, there will be no change in the air quality regime. Off-line sections of

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 55 of 72 the road will bring the N59 closer to some sensitive receptors (two of which are identified in Document ref. H). There will be no predicted exceedence of the relevant pollutant concentration values at these two houses. Pollutant concentrations in the vicinity of the proposed development are predicted to improve in future years with improvements in engine and fuel technology. Air quality standards will be complied with throughout the length of the scheme. Dust nuisance may be caused during the construction phase. This will, however, be of limited duration. The implementation of a dust minimisation plan will assist in mitigating the negative impacts of dust.

6.10 Flood Risk The off-line sections of road will impact on floodplain storage at two locations – the Rossow River and the Cranareen River – both within Section C. The loss of floodplain area in the former is 0.5-0.6ha in the former and 0.6-0.7ha in the latter. The impact is stated to be locally moderate, with predicted maximum flood level rise of less than 100mm. New culverts and bridges will be appropriately sized to cater for run-off. Some existing culverts will be replaced with 900mm diameter culverts.

6.11 Community Gain Section 177AE(8)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) allows the Board to attach a condition requiring the construction or the financing, in whole or in part, of the construction of a facility, or the provision or the financing, in whole or in part, of the provision of a service, in the area in which the proposed development would be situated, being a facility or service that, in the opinion of the Board, would constitute a substantial gain to the community. I would not recommend that such a condition be attached in this instance. The upgrading of the road will provide a substantial benefit to the community in terms of traffic safety and improved travel times. In addition, the construction of 3.2km of dedicated cycle/pedestrian track as part of the Great Western Greenway and associated tracks (including the provision of a new dedicated underpass and a new dedicated over-bridge) would constitute a substantial gain for the local community (and visitors) in terms of amenity. These improvements to the Great Western Greenway constitute a substantial improvement to local amenities.

6.12 Costs Section 177AE(9) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) states that the Board shall direct the payment of such sum as it considers reasonable by the local authority concerned to the Board towards the costs and expenses incurred by the Board in determining the application under this section for approval of a proposed development, including- the costs of holding any oral hearing, the fees of any consultants engaged by the Board [none in this instance] and staffing costs. This would appear to be reasonable. The Act does not make any provision for the Board to direct the local authority to pay the costs of any other parties in relation to the Section 177AE application for approval.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 56 of 72 7.0 APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT

7.1 Proposed Scheme & Legislative Context

7.1.1 Mayo County Council is seeking approval from An Bord Pleanála for the N59 Westport to Mulranny Road Scheme. The development is located close to and within a number of European sites- • Clew Bay Complex SAC (site code 001482). • Owenduff/Nephin Complex SAC (site code 000534). • Owenduff/Nephin Complex SPA (site code 004098) • Newport River SAC (site code 002144). A Natura Impact Statement (NIS) is therefore required for the proposed development.

7.1.2 Section 177AE of the Planning and Development act 2000 (as amended) requires that where an appropriate assessment (AA) is required in respect of development by a local authority, the authority shall prepare an NIS, and the development shall not be carried out unless the Board has approved the development with or without modifications. Furthermore Section 177V of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) requires that the AA shall include a determination by the Board as to whether or not the proposed development would affect the integrity of a European site and the AA shall be carried out by the Board before consent is given for the proposed development.

7.1.3 Mayo County Council is therefore seeking: • A determination by the Board as to whether or not the proposed development would affect the integrity of a European site. • Approval from the Board, with or without modifications, for the proposed development which requires the Board to assess-

o The likely effects on the environment.

o The likely consequences for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

o The likely significant effects on a European site.

7.1.4 The site comprises the N59 road between Westport and Mulranny – excluding portions of the road where roadworks are already under way at Kilbride and Knockbreaga and also the road as it passes through the town of Newport. It total some 21.2km of road is included – with upgrade works being for the most part on- line. There are 2 no. off-line sections at Rossow/Rosdooaun and Barleyhill (total length 1.6km). The affected lands extend to some 95ha – much of which comprises the existing N59. The upgraded road will be single carriageway (6.0m in width). The scheme provides for extensions to the Great Western Greenway cycle route and construction of new bridges, culverts and associated works.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 57 of 72 7.1.5 The EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) 7.1.5.1 The Habitats Directive deals with the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora throughout the European Union. Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of this Directive require an appropriate assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposed development on its own and in combination with other plans and projects. This document requires competent authorities to carry out an appropriate assessment of plans and projects which may have an effect on a European site (SAC or SPA).

7.1.5.2 Article 6(3): “Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.”

7.1.5.3 Article 6(4): “If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted. Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences for the environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.”

7.1.6 National Nature Conservation Designations 7.1.6.1 The proposed development is located within the Clew Bay Complex (cSAC) – site code 001482. The SAC includes Clew Bay and the Srahmore River (Burrishoole Channel) linking the Bay with Lough Furnace (a saline lake or lagoon). The N59 crosses the Burrishoole Channel at New Burrishoole Bridge. The site contains Annex I habitats and Annex II species listed for protection in the E.U. Habitats Directive. The N59 is located in close proximity to the Owenduff/Nephin Complex cSAC (site code 000534) – a large area of relatively intact blanket bog and mountains to the north of the scheme. The site contains Annex I habitats and Annex II species. The N59 is located in close proximity to the Owenduff/Nephin Complex SPA (site code 004098) a large area of relatively intact blanket bog and mountains to the north of the scheme. The site contains Annex I bird species. The N59 is located in close proximity to the Newport River cSAC (site code 002144). This is a relatively short river linking Beltra Lough with Clew Bay. The cSAC extends for a 7km stretch from Derrynafreva Lough to the old railway bridge in Newport. The site contains Annex I habitats and Annex II species.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 58 of 72

7.1.6.2 The detailed NPWS Site Synopses, are included within the NIS at Appendix B.

7.1.7 Planning and Development Acts 2000-2010 7.1.7.1 Part XAB of the Planning and Development Acts 2000-2010 sets out the requirements for the appropriate assessment of developments which could have an effect on a European site, its qualifying interests or conservation objectives.

7.1.7.2 Section 177(AE) sets out the requirements for the appropriate assessment of developments carried out by or on behalf of local authorities. • Section 177(V) (3) states that a competent authority shall give consent for a proposed development only after having determined that the proposed development shall not adversely affect the integrity of a European site. • Section 177AE (6) (a) states that before making a decision in respect of a proposed development the Board shall consider the NIS, any submissions or observations received and any other information relating to- o The likely effects on the environment. o The likely consequences for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. o The likely significant effects on a European site.

7.2 Details of Natura Impact Statement

7.2.1 The NIS, prepared by RPS Consultants on behalf of Mayo County Council, is dated August 2011. An Appropriate Assessment Screening Report was prepared for the N59 road scheme and circulated to the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) and Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) for comment. The one response from NPWS is included at Appendix A. Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment was considered necessary because of potential impacts on European sites. Six such sites were identified within 10km of the scheme (and are indicated on maps), viz- • Clew Bay Complex cSAC (site code 001482). • Owenduff/Nephin Complex cSAC (site code 000534). • Owenduff/Nephin Complex SPA (site code 004098) • Newport River cSAC (site code 002144). • Lough Gall Bog cSAC (site code 000522). • Corraun Plateau cSAC (site code 000485).

7.2.2 The methodology comprised a desk study, and site walkover studies by ecologists undertaken from 9-12 July 2010 for habitat mapping, mammal survey 15-16 November 2010, aquatic surveys in September 2010, and on-going bat surveys. The NIS describes the existing environment in terms of geology, hydrology and hydrogeology. Groundwater bodies are listed and their status, and risks to that status, identified. Flooding events are indicated on OS Discovery Map extracts. The details of the European sites, including site characteristics, qualifying features, potential pressures and threats, and conservation objectives are outlined.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 59 of 72 7.2.3 Section 4.3 of the NIS, maps out all the habitats flanking the entire length of the N59 – Figure 4.4 (14 separate maps). The habitats are described in their relation to the existence of Annex I habitats within adjoining European sites, or support of Annex II species. Four such habitats were identified – Eroding Upland Rivers, Depositing Lowland Rivers, Dry Humid Acid Grassland, and Lowland Blanket Bog. The N59 traverses the Clew Bay Complex SAC at Burrishoole Channel and the Newport River SAC at the bridge in Newport. The section of the N59 flanking the Newport River SAC is excluded from the proposed upgrade works. All streams and rivers traversed by the N59 ultimately discharge to the Clew Bay Complex SAC. A total of 25 water bodies either crossed by or immediately adjacent to the N59 scheme are identified at Table 4.14.

7.2.4 Section 4.5 lists protected or vulnerable species within the study area- • Atlantic Salmon – Salmo salar. • Common (Harbour) Seal – Phoca vitulina . • Otter – Lutra lutra . • Semi-Aquatic Snail – Vertigo geyeri . • Freshwater Pearl Mussel – Margaritifera margaritifera . • Shining Sickle Moss – Drepanocladus vernicosus . • Yellow Marsh Saxifrage – Saxifraga hirculus .

7.2.5 Section 5.0 of the NIS looks at the in-combination effects of the scheme when taken together with the objectives of the County Development Plan, other road schemes (such as the N59 Kilbride Scheme & N59 Knockbreaga Scheme), water and nature conservation plans, licensed waste activities and any significant/large scale planning applications/developments in the area.

7.2.6 Section 6.0 identifies possible impacts, and seeks to characterise their magnitude, extent, duration, reversibility and timing/frequency. The principal impact of the development is likely to be during the construction phase, and relates to watercourses. Table 6.1 identifies major structures to be constructed as part of the scheme: Table 6.2 identifies minor structures – such as culverts. Dust is identified as a temporary potential nuisance during construction. No major alterations are proposed at Burrishoole Bridge (the crossing point of the N59 within the Clew Bay Complex SAC). Minor alterations will relate to levels (maximum 0.25m difference) and possible small encroachment into the SAC for improvements to the junction with the side road to the old Burrishoole Bridge. Roadside drainage in this area will discharge to the Burrishoole Channel. Possible impact on Annex II species are outlined at Section 6.3.1.5. Possible impacts, during the operational phase of development, are likely to be on watercourses.

7.2.7 Section 6.3.3.4 refers to the Kilbride Road Scheme (a 2.8km stretch of the N59 just south of Newport) which has been excluded from the current scheme before the Board. This stretch of road is to be advanced ahead of the rest of the N59 upgrade [work had been commenced on date of site inspection in February 2012].

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 60 of 72

7.2.8 Section 7.0 outlines the mitigation measures to be incorporated into the proposed scheme – some of which provide that- • No work to be carried out inside European sites – except at Burrishoole Channel. • Annex I habitats outside of European sites not to be used for deposition of peat or spoil. • NRA Guidelines on management of noxious weeds to be adhered to. • Pollution control for works at or near watercourses such as:- timing of works outside spawning season for salmon, use of geo-textiles, silt traps, sediment mats on base of streams, no on-site batching or mixing of concrete, spoil not be placed within 10m of a watercourse. • Use of clear span bridges where possible. • Use of arch-type bottomless culverts where possible. • Use of box culverts of limited length with standing water not less than 500m depth. • Mammal ledges within culverts and bridge crossings.

7.2.9 The conclusion of the NIS is that with the implementation of best practice and, if the recommended mitigation measures are taken into consideration, it is considered that there will be no significant negative impact upon the qualifying habitats, species and integrity of the Clew Bay cSAC, Newport River cSAC or Owenduff/Nephin Complex cSAC.

7.2.10 The NIS includes four appendices as follow-

Appendix A – Observation from NPWS (dated 3 rd February 2010) in relation to the Appropriate Assessment Screening Report prepared for the N59 scheme, in relation to archaeological heritage, architectural heritage and nature conservation.

Appendix B – NPWS Site Synopses for- • Clew Bay Complex cSAC. • Owenduff/Nephin Complex cSAC. • Owenduff/Nephin Complex SPA. • Newport River cSAC.

Appendix C – Aquatic Ecology and Fisheries Assessment Report (December 2010), prepared by ‘ecofact’. The Report includes a survey of all watercourses and their catchments – all within the Western River Basin District. A watercourse description and evaluation of rivers, streams and lakes in the study area is provided at Table 2. Table 3 provides species lists of macroinvertebrates recorded at the eight locations where biological sampling was carried out. The Report includes colour plates of all the major watercourses traversed by the N59.

Appendix D – Comprises an EIA Screening Report on Hydrogeology, Hydrology and Geology (dated August 2011), prepared by Hydro Environmental Ltd. The

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 61 of 72 report indicates water supply schemes within the study area, aquifer vulnerability (particularly in relation to new off-line sections of road and excavations on on- line sections), arterial drainage in the area (particularly along Section C), flood risk, possible impact on Clew Bay Complex SAC arising from accidental spillages of concrete/sediment/hydrocarbons, and roadside drainage ameliorative measures. The report is accompanied by a series of coloured maps of the area identifying- • Special Areas of Conservation. • Natural Heritage Areas. • Special Protection Areas. • Shellfish Areas. • Aquifer classification. • Aquifer vulnerability. • Groundwater bodies. • Water Framework Directive status of water bodies. • Water supply sources. • Principal water bodies. • Watercourse catchments. • Benefitting lands for OPW arterial drainage. • 31 no. potential outfall locations from watercourses bridged by the N59.

7.3 Circulation of NIS to Prescribed Bodies

Mayo County Council circulated the NIS to the following bodies- • An Chomhairle Ealaíon • Fáilte Ireland • An Taisce • The Heritage Council • Westport Town Council • National Roads Authority • Inland Fisheries Ireland • Department of Arts, Heritage & Gaeltacht • Department of Agriculture Food & the Marine • Department of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources • Córas Iompair Éireann • Minister for Environment, Community & Local Government • Commissioners for Public Works in Ireland

7.4 Written Observation to NIS

There is one written submission in relation to the NIS from the Department of Arts, Heritage & Gaeltacht, received by the Board on 28 th February 2012, which can be summarised in bullet point format as follows- • Some significant deficiencies exist both in terms of project details and in terms of the assessment of the likely significant ecological effects.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 62 of 72 • Lands for the Part 8 are substantial. • A detailed project description is required – to cover all relevant aspects of construction and operation of the scheme. This should include site preparation, advance works or contracts, site access, site compounds, works areas, development footprint, realigned roads or junctions, modified new bridges and culverts, tie-ins, drainage proposals, settlement/balancing ponds, storage and disposal/recovery sites, extraction or quarry areas, lighting, landscaping, and ecological mitigation. • Minor works at Burrishoole Bridge need to be assessed fully as this general area supports Habitats Directive Annex I habitats and/or is linked to the structure and function of Annex I priority habitats that are conservation interests of Clew Bay Complex cSAC (site code 001482). The NIS states – ‘There may be some encroachment into the cSAC adjacent to the existing junction from old Burrishoole Bridge due to junction safety improvements and tie-in of the junction to the N59 realignment’ and ‘The proposed works may result in direct and indirect impacts on the habitats and species of European sites’. No reasonable scientific doubt may remain as to the absence of significant effects. • The likely significant effects on otter (Habitats Directive Annex II and IV species) and conservation interest of Clew Bay Complex cSAC require further assessment, taking habitat loss and fragmentation, creation of barriers, road mortality and cumulative effects into account. Mammal ledges are specified as being necessary in the NIS, but are not included in the project details or scheme design. An otter holt was identified during site surveys. Whilst it is to be avoided by the road footprint, its location with respect to the road and construction activities is unclear. The NRA ‘Guidelines for the Treatment of Otters Prior to the Construction of National Road Schemes’ should be followed in relation to any mitigation that may be required. • Conservation interests at potential risk of being affected are not clearly identified. Generic rather than project-specific threats are identified. On the basis of information supplied, it is considered that reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of adverse effects on the integrity of European sites. • The project has potential to have significant effects on ecology, flora and fauna outside European sites, and outside the scope of the NIS. An ecological impact assessment is required for the scheme as a whole. Much of the information needed to undertake the assessment is available within the NIS, but the likely effects on habitats and species are not fully assessed. In particular, there is potential for impacts on Habitats Directive Annex IV species such as bats and otter, and their breeding sites and resting places, which are strictly protected wherever they occur. Bridges that are to be modified or which may be disturbed may contain bat roosts. No bat survey information is available. The extent of the otter surveys is unclear.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 63 of 72 7.5 Appropriate Assessment

7.5.1 Background The N59 National Secondary Road with which the proposed development is concerned traverses the Clew Bay Complex cSAC at New Burrishoole Bridge.

7.5.2 Relevant Considerations The appropriate assessment of the proposed development is based on all of the relevant information submitted in relation to the site and surrounding area including- • A description of the proposed scheme as set out in section 1.2 of this Inspector’s Report. • The NPWS Site Synopsis including the qualifying interests and conservation objectives. • The Natura Impact Statement submitted. • Written submissions and observations from Prescribed Bodies and interested parties. • Information presented at the Oral Hearing into the N59 Westport to Mulranny Road scheme.

7.5.3 Relevance of Proposed Scheme to the Management of the European sites The proposed scheme is not directly relevant to the management of any European site.

7.5.4 Relationship Between Proposed Scheme and European sites The site extends from Westport to Mulranny. The scheme has been broken down into three separate sections A-C. Five European sites which could be potentially affected by the scheme were identified in the NIS- • Newport River cSAC . The N59 crosses the Newport River in the town of Newport. There are no works proposed on this stretch of the N59 – this section of the road lying between the end of Section B and the beginning of Section C. The N59 road bridge over the Newport River forms the western extremity of the cSAC. The principal importance of the Newport River cSAC is the presence of the Freshwater Pearl Mussel and salmon. Irish Heath and blanket bog comprise habitats which form a qualifying feature. The habitats will not be impacted by the N59 scheme – the proposed road improvements being located approximately 2.25km to the south and 0.3km to the north respectively. There are no direct pathways linking the scheme to the Newport River cSAC. The proposed scheme will not impact on the SAC. • Corraun Plateau cSAC . The proposed scheme terminates approximately 1km due east of the village of Mulranny. The Corraun Plateau cSAC is located just to the west of Mulranny village and extends as far as Achill Island Sound to the west – separated from Section A of the scheme by a distance of approximately 1.5km – with the village intervening. The cSAC has four Annex I habitats – wet heath, dry heath, alpine heath and

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 64 of 72 juniper heath. There are a number of rare species present on site including Alpine saw-wort, Mediterranean heath, juniper, bearberry, filmy ferns, reindeer moss, and lizard. There are no direct pathways connecting the scheme with the Corraun Plateau – other than the N59 itself and the Great Western Greenway. The proposed scheme will not impact on the SAC. • Owenduff/Nephin Complex cSAC . This European site covers a large mountainous area to the north of the Burrishoole to Mulranny section of the N59. At the Mulranny end, the N59 is within 0.4km of the cSAC at its closest. The lands of the cSAC are located uphill of the road – separated from it by farmland and houses. The principal habitats of the cSAC include Oligotrophic to Mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoeto- Nanojuncetea; natural dystrophic lakes and ponds; water courses of plain to montaine levels with the Fanunculion fluitantis and Callitricho- Batrachion vegetation; northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix; Alpine and Boreal heaths; Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands; blanket bog; oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals of sandy plains (Littorelletalia uniflorae; transition mires and quaking bogs. Annex II species include salmon, otter, shining sickle moss and yellow marsh saxifrage. Rivers and streams which may be used by otters and salmon connect the road scheme with this cSAC. Migrating salmon and feeding/breeding otters use these potential pathways. With appropriate mitigation measures in relation to prevention of siltation and spillages in watercourses during the construction phase, the proposed scheme will not adversely affect the conservation objectives of the cSAC. • Owenduff/Nephin Complex SPA . This European site covers a large mountainous area to the north of the Burrishoole to Mulranny section of the N59. The boundaries of the SPA are not quite the same as those of the cSAC of the same name. At the Mulranny end, the N59 is within 0.4km of the SPA. Annex I species include merlin, Greenland white-fronted goose, golden plover and peregrine. The lands of the SPA are located uphill of the road – separated from it by farmland and houses. The proposed scheme will not adversely affect the conservation objectives of the SPA. • Lough Gall Bog cSAC . This site is located approximately 3km northwest of the termination point of the scheme in Mulranny: it will not be impacted by the proposed scheme. • Clew Bay Complex cSAC . This European site covers most of the eastern half of Clew Bay (exclusive of the islands within it). The site extends into Furnace Lough to the north of the Bay. The connecting Burrishoole Channel is crossed by the N59 at New Burrishoole Bridge. The proposed scheme directly crosses through the SAC. In addition, all watercourses (rivers and streams) traversed by the N59 ultimately discharge into the Clew Bay Complex cSAC. The proposed scheme is most likely to impact on this European site.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 65 of 72

7.5.5 Clew Bay Complex cSAC Site Details The overall aim of the Habitats Directive is to maintain or restore the favourable conservation status of habitats and species of community interest. Conservation objectives for Qualifying Interest – the 8 no. Annex I habitats and 3 no. Annex II species have been published by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The Annex I habitats are as follows- • Large shallow inlets and bays • Coastal lagoons • Annual vegetation of drift lines • Perennial vegetation of stony banks • Atlantic salt meadows • Embryonic shifting dunes • Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenarai (white dunes) • Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide None of these habitats are present at the point where the N59 bridges the Burrishoole Channel. The Annex II species are as follows- • Common (harbour) seal • Otter • Whorl Snail (only identified on a site approximately 8km from the road)

7.5.6 Scope of Proposed Scheme and Main Characteristics The proposed scheme is located mostly on-line on an existing National Secondary Road. Off-line sections (total length 1.6km) are located within Section C. These off-line sections will necessitate cutting into drumlins/ridges by up to 19.5m. The water table will not be impacted and the cut sections will not have any significant impact on rivers or streams – apart from the necessity to construct new bridges and culverts. A number of new bridges/culverts are to be constructed along the length of the scheme. Some bridges are to be widened and some culverts lengthened or replaced entirely.

7.5.7 Relationship Between the Proposed Scheme and the cSAC 7.5.7.1 The N59 where it crosses the Burrishoole Channel on New Burrishoole Bridge is within the boundary of the cSAC. The boundary of the cSAC in this area is illustrated at Appendix B of Document ref. B4 (submitted at the Oral Hearing). This shows the 50m span bridge and a stretch of N59 to the northwest as far as side road B9 as being within the boundary of the cSAC. At the Oral Hearing a letter was submitted from the NPWS, following discussions with Mayo County Council, which cast doubt on whether this section of road should be included within the cSAC boundary, and whether a section of side road B9 (as referred to above) should have been included either. It would appear to be reasonable that a busy National Secondary Road should not be included within a European site.

7.5.7.2 Construction works in the vicinity of rivers and streams could potentially result in silt/concrete/hydrocarbons being washed into watercourses which ultimately drain

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 66 of 72 into the cSAC, and which provide pathways for migrating salmon. Some 40 watercourse crossings are identified within the scheme boundaries.

7.5.8 Impact on Site’s Conservation Objectives and Qualifying Interests The New Burrishoole Bridge (50m span approximately) crosses the Burrishoole Channel. Minor works are proposed on the bridge and the road will be resurfaced. Drainage swales are to be created on either side of the bridge with 50 cubic metres attenuation provided, and toe swale discharges into the Channel. An agricultural underpass on the east side of the bridge will be re-roofed from above. There are no Annex I habitats at Burrishoole Bridge. The Channel is used by otters. There is no record of seals using the channel.

7.5.9 Likelihood of Significant Effects The Department of Arts, Heritage & Gaeltacht raised a number of issues in relation to the NIS by way of letter, received by the Board on 28 th February 2012. Since that time, meetings have taken place with Mayo County Council to address the concerns set out. It was confirmed at the Oral Hearing that the Department considered that no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of adverse effects on the integrity of any European site. This is confirmed in a letter, dated 12 th April 2012, (Document ref. B3) which was addressed to An Bord Pleanála, but which was actually submitted to the Oral Hearing on 17 th April 2012. Indirect effects are likely from road drainage. The road is separated from the marine cSAC in all but one location. Bat surveys were carried out and only one possible bat roost was identified. The bridge identified will not be altered by the scheme. An otter holt was discovered outside the boundary of the cSAC and outside of the works area of the scheme – at Rosdooaun. No works are to be carried out in the vicinity of this holt if cubs are located within it. In relation to works in the vicinity of the Burrishoole Channel, the Department was satisfied that works to the bridge would not impact on the cSAC. Drainage from the bridge would be through swales which would improve the quality of run-off. No in- stream works are proposed at the Channel. There is no possibility of a significant negative impact on conservation objectives from these works and a probability of slight improvement.

7.5.10 Likely Duration of Impacts The principle impacts on habitats and species is likely to occur during the construction phase. There will be no significant loss of habitat along the route of the scheme. Any impacts arising during the operational phase are not likely to be any different from the situation which obtains at present, as road improvements are mostly on-line, and there will be no increase in traffic arising from the proposed scheme.

7.5.11 Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures to be implemented in relation to this scheme include the following-

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 67 of 72 ••• Any areas within the scheme which correspond to Annex I habitats within adjoining cSACs (Dry Humid Acid Grassland and Lowland Blanket Bog) will not be used for deposition of spoil materials. ••• NRA Guidelines on management of noxious weeds to be adhered to during construction. ••• Pollution control for works at or near watercourses such as:- timing of works outside spawning season for salmon, use of geo-textiles, silt traps, sediment mats on base of streams, no on-site batching or mixing of concrete, spoil not be placed within 10m of a watercourse. ••• Use of clear span bridges where possible. ••• Use of arch-type bottomless culverts where possible. ••• Use of box culverts of limited length with standing water not less than 500m depth. ••• In-stream works will be carried out outside of the salmonid spawning season and in consultation with Inland Fisheries. ••• Mammal ledges within culverts and bridge crossings. Culvert lengths will be restricted to the minimum length required. Mammal-proof fencing will not form part of the road works. ••• Drainage swales at Burrishoole Channel.

7.5.12 Consideration of In-Combination Effects of the Scheme The proposed scheme has been assessed taking into consideration the works already under way on the Kilbride (2.8km) and Knockbreaga (1.0km) sections of the N59 between Mulranny and Westport.

7.5.13 Residual Impacts The overall long term impact of the proposed development on aquatic habitats and species downstream of the proposed scheme will be neutral and there will no significant adverse negative impact on the site’s Conservation Objectives provided that all the mitigation measures are implemented.

7.5.14 Recommendation for Determination I consider it reasonable to conclude, on the basis of the information available, that the proposed scheme, individually and in combination with other plans or projects, would not adversely affect the integrity of the Clew Bay Complex cSAC, Newport River cSAC or Owenduff/Nephin Complex cSAC, regard being had to the conservation objectives and qualifying interests indicated.

8.0 RECOMMENDATION ON COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER

I recommend that the Board should confirm the Compulsory Purchase Order subject to the modifications set out in the Schedule hereto, and based on the Reasons and Considerations set out below.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 68 of 72 REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Having considered the objections made to the compulsory purchase order and the report of the person who conducted the oral hearing into the objections, and having regard to the purpose of the compulsory acquisition as set out in the compulsory purchase order, and having regard also to-

(a) the provisions of the National Spatial Strategy and Implementing the National Spatial Strategy: 2010 Update and Outlook, the National Development Plan 2007- 2013, and Transport 21, which identify improvements on inter-regional transport corridors between National Spatial Strategy Gateways, and the need to revitalise the west region,

(b) the provisions of the Regional Planning Guidelines for the West Region 2010- 2022, which identify the N59 between Ballina and Galway as a key national secondary road investment priority for the essential functioning of the strategic road network and the connection of all parts of the region,

(c) the provisions of the Mayo County Development Plan 2008-2014 and to Specific Roads Objective O/ T1-R 2 “to support improvements to the existing National Road network including road schemes and by-passes outlined in Appendix 1: Table 1.1, Table 1.2 & Table 1.4”. Under the heading National Secondary Routes , it is an objective to carry out major improvements on the N59 from the Mayo/Sligo County Boundary to Ballina-Crossmolina-Bangor-Mullranny- Newport-Westport-Leenaune route. Within Table 1.2, Objective NS11 states- “Complete the provision of a high-quality pavement, minor improvements, realignments and maintenance to the unrealigned sections of roads”, and

(d) the need to provide a safe road infrastructure for the N59 and its associated local roads and for the Great Western Greenway,

it is considered that the acquisition by the local authority of the lands in question is necessary for the purposes stated and that the objections cannot be sustained having regard to the said necessity. It is also considered that the extinguishment of the public rights of way referred to in Part I of the Second Schedule to the compulsory purchase order are reasonable and necessary, and the objections to the extinguishment of those public rights of way/junction realignments cannot, therefore, be sustained having regard to the said necessity.

SCHEDULE

1. The compulsory purchase order shall be modified as described in the amendment to Part 1 of the Schedule of the order, contained at Document Ref. B1 of Mayo County Council’s submission (Engineer’s Brief of Evidence) to An Bord Pleanála at the oral hearing held on 17 th & 18 th April 2012.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 69 of 72

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

2. The Kiltarnaght series of junctions shall be amended by the removal of side roads B10 & B10a from the scheme, as outlined in submissions made by Mayo County Council at the oral hearing on 17 th & 18 th April 2012.

Reason: In the interest of traffic safety and convenience.

9.0 RECOMMENDATION ON SECTION 177AE APPROVAL

I further recommend that the Board approve the scheme for which a Natura Impact Statement has been submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 177AE of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended), for the Reasons and Considerations set out below, and subject to the attached conditions.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

The Board had regard to-

(a) the Part 8 procedure undertaken by the local authority in relation to the N59 Westport to Mulranny road scheme,

(b) the National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020 and the objectives set out therein to support balanced regional development and improve infrastructure networks such as roads,

(c) the National Development Plan 2007-2013 and the objectives set out therein to ensure strong linkages between hubs and their wider catchments, and delivery of enhanced connectivity in terms of the roll-out of Transport 21,

(d) the Regional Planning Guidelines for the West Region 2010-2022, and policies and objective contained therein to improve national roads in the region – in particular the N59 between the boundary with Co. Sligo and the boundary with Co. Galway,

(e) the Mayo County Development Plan 2008-2014, and specific policies and objectives to improve national secondary routes within the county,

(f) the Westport Town & Environs Development Plan 2010-2016, and objectives contained therein to safeguard identified routes for the N59 and the northern relief road for the town, in particular,

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 70 of 72 (g) the Natura Impact Statement submitted by the local authority, including the mitigation measures set out therein and the consideration of likely ‘in- combination’ effects of other plans and projects,

(h) the submissions and observations received in relation to the likely effects on the environment, and on European sites in particular, of the proposed scheme, and

(i) the report and recommendation of the person who conducted the oral hearing, the Board considered the Natura Impact Statement submitted with the application for approval and the mitigation measures contained therein, and carried out an Appropriate Assessment of the potential impacts on the affected Natura 2000 site - namely the Clew Bay Complex candidate Special Area of Conservation, taking into account the submissions on file in relation to ecology and the Inspector’s assessment. The Board was satisfied that the proposed development would not be likely to have a significant effect, individually, or in combination with other plans or projects on this European site. The Board concluded that the proposed scheme would not have an adverse affect on the integrity of the European site, in the light of its conservation objectives.

The Board considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions set out below, the proposed development would not seriously injure the visual amenities or landscape character of the area, would not seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity, would be acceptable in terms of traffic safety and convenience, would not be prejudicial to public health and would not, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

CONDITIONS

1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the Part 8 plans and particulars and with the Natura Impact Statement, lodged with An Bord Pleanála on the 10 th day of January 2012; and in accordance with design drawings presented and submitted by Mayo County Council to the oral hearing, held on the 17 th and 18 th days of April 2012. In particular-

(a) Side roads B10 & B10a shall be omitted from the proposed scheme.

(b) The termination of the scheme at the Westport end shall be a roundabout with associated tie-in roads to the N59, as shown on drawings submitted as part of the Part 8 scheme, and also as shown on design drawings submitted by Mayo County Council as part of the Council’s oral hearing submission – Document refs. A0 and A7.

(c) The existing stone wall on the N59 roadside boundary of plot ref. 5950f.201 shall be replaced with a stone wall (of similar construction) on the set-back line of the new road, to the agreement of the property owner.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 71 of 72

Reason: In the interest of clarity, traffic safety and visual amenity.

2. Mayo County Council, and any agent acting on its behalf, shall comply with the mitigation measures contained within the Natura Impact Statement which was submitted with the application for approval.

Reason: In the interest of clarity and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, and to ensure protection of European sites.

______Michael Dillon, Inspectorate.

18th May 2012.

16.CH3163 & 16.JP0001 An Bord Pleanála Page 72 of 72