An Bord Pleanála

FILE REFS. 03.HA0038 (Killaloe Bypass, Shannon Bridge Crossing and R494 Road Improvement Scheme) and

03.KA0025 (CPO application to facilitate the above scheme).

RE: Bypass of Killaloe, bridge crossing of the River Shannon and upgrade and widening of the R494 from the village of Ballina south to connect with the R445 to the north east of Birdhill.

LOCATION : Killaloe, Co. Clare and Ballina County Tipperary North.

APPLICANT: Clare County Council

ORAL HEARING: Monday 8 th October, 2012 to Thursday 18 th October, 2012.

INSPECTOR: Stephen Kay

An Bord Pleanala Page 1 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

CONTENTS: Page

1.0 Introduction 4

2.0 Scheme Location and Description of Area 4

3.0 Proposed Scheme 6

4.0 Submissions of Prescribed Bodies 14

5.0 Objections Received 16 5.1 Objections to the CPO 16 5.1.1 Individual Objections 16 5.1.2 Objections c/o Nagle Agri Consulting 28 5.1.3 Objections c/o John.Crowley Consulting 29 5.1.4 Objections c/o Martin and Rea Consulting 35

5.2 Environmental Objections 42

6.0 Further Information 44 6.1 Request for Further Information 44 6.2 Response to Further Information Request 46 6.3 Submissions Received on FI Response 48

7.0 Development Plan and Other Relevant Policy 50

8.0 Proceedings of Oral Hearing 53

9.0 Assessment 76 9.1 General Issues 76

9.2 CPO Issues 80 9.2.1 Overall Need 80 9.2.2 Scheme Alternatives 82 9.2.3 Compliance with Development Plan and Other Relevant Policy 86 9.2.4 Severance 90 9.2.5 Site Specific CPO Issues 91 Clients of Mr Nagle 91 Clients of Mr Crowley 92 Clients of Martin and Rea 102 Individual CPO Objectors 109

9.3 Environmental Issues 120

An Bord Pleanala Page 2 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.3.1 General Issues Relating to EIS 120 9.3.2 Ecology (Flora and Fauna) 124 9.3.3 Archaeology, architecture and Heritage 135 9.3.4 Landscape and Visual 140 9.3.5 Traffic and Transportation 144 9.3.6 Noise, Air Quality and Vibration 151 9.3.7 Material Assets 157 9.3.8 Soils, Geology, Water and Hydrology 158

9.4 Environmental Impact Assessment 165

9.5 Appropriate Assessment 175

10.0 Conclusions 177

11.0 Recommendation 179

Appendix A: Summary of Status of CPO Objections as at 8 th January, 2013 183

An Bord Pleanala Page 3 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This application relates to the proposed construction of a by pass of the village of Killaloe in east county Clare, the construction of a new bridge crossing of the river Shannon to the south of the existing town centre to connect with the existing R 494 route from Ballina to Birdhill and the improvement of this R494 route between the connection with the bridge crossing and the R445 (old N7) immediately to the north east of Birdhill village.

1.2 The application for the proposed development has been made by Clare County Council as the lead party in the development and has been undertaken on behalf of Clare County Council and North Tipperary County Council.

1.3 The application has been submitted under section 51 of the Roads Act 1993 (as amended) and the following section of the Act is of relevance. S.50(1)(a) of the Roads Act 1993 (as amended) requires that a Road Authority shall prepare an EIS in a number of situations including any proposed development consisting of ‘any prescribed type of proposed road development consisting of the construction of a proposed public road or the improvement of an existing public road.’ Prescribed development for the purposes of the Act includes ‘the construction of a new bridge or tunnel which would be 100 metres or more in length’. In the case of the proposed scheme for the Killaloe / Ballina area, the length for the bridge crossing of the River Shannon exceeds the 100 metre threshold and therefore requires an EIS to be prepared. The requirement for an EIS means that under s.51(2) the Road Act (as amended), the Road Authority (in this case Clare County Council) are required to make an application for approval of the proposed development to the Board.

1.4 In addition to the making of an application for approval under s.51(2) (as amended), the application is accompanied by an application for compulsory purchase of the lands that are stated by the applicant to be required in order to facilitate the proposed development.

1.5 Under s.51(3)(v) of the Roads Act, 1993 submissions may be made relating to the likely effects on the environment of the proposed development. It is also noted that as the application is accompanied by an EIS, issues addressed in the EIS are of relevance to the assessment of the proposal.

2.0 Scheme Location and Description of Area

2.1 The area covered by the proposed development is located in the vicinity of the towns of Ballina and Killaloe located on opposite sides of the River Shannon immediately to the south of Lough Derg. The area is located c.15km to the north east of Limerick City and forms one of a limited number of locations where the crossing of the River Shannon and connection between the M7 corridor / Limerick City and west Clare is currently available.

2.2 The towns are located in a valley between the Slieve Bernagh mountains located to the west and north west in County Clare and the Arra and Silvermine Mountains located to the east and north east. The area forms the start of the R. Shannon at the bottom end of Lough Derg and the area immediately to the north and south is characterised by the river being restricted in width from that to the north in Lough

An Bord Pleanala Page 4 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Derg and an area to the south where the river widens out again. The general width of the river in the section in the vicinity of the study area is c.150 metres.

2.3 The towns of Ballina and Killaloe are currently connected by a stone arched bridge that is located in the centre of the linked settlements. The bridge links the R463 which is on the Killaloe side of the river and which connects Tuamgraney to the north via Ogonnelloe and Killaloe to connect with the R.465 c. 5km to the north of Limerick City Centre, with the R.494 which runs on the eastern side of the river and which connects Nenagh, c.18km to the north east with Birdhill and the M7 to the south via Ballina. The existing bridge is configured with a single carriageway of c.4.95 metres in width with traffic signals at each end to regulate the one way movement of traffic. The existing layout has provision for pedestrian movement along the southern side of the vehicle carriageway with a marked pedestrian path however this is at grade with the main road carriageway. Small pedestrian refuges are also available on the existing bridge.

2.4 Movement of vehicular traffic across the existing bridge is restricted by the width of the bridge that limits traffic to a single carriageway and also by the fact that there are signalised traffic junctions located in close proximity at both ends of the bridge. Traffic flow is also restricted by the fact that on the Killaloe side of the river in particular there is a narrow street pattern and sharp bends that act to restrict the free movement of traffic within the town.

2.5 The area covered by the proposed scheme covers a number of areas that are distinct in terms of their visual character, topography and development. The scheme starts at the northern end of Killaloe on the R.463 in the vicinity of Ballyvally Estate. Ballyvally Estate in this location is characterised by mature trees fronting the existing R.463 and the lands to the west of the road slope up forming the lower slopes of Knockyclovaun Hill. The proposed route traverses to the west of the existing limit of development of the town on the lower slopes of Knockyclovaun Hill.

2.6 The section to the south of the Ballyvally Estate is located in more open relatively flat lands that is beyond the existing limits of the main built up part of Killaloe. The route in this area crosses two existing local roads, Hill Road and Creeveroe Road East and it is proposed that staggered junctions would be provided at the points where the bypass road intersects with these local roads. The section of the route from the southern end of the Ballyvally Estate to the R.463 is characterised by a limited amount of development, however there are dwellings located in close proximity to the proposed alignment at the points where it crosses the Hill Road and Creeveroe Road.

2.7 The section of the proposed route from the R.463 east to the location of the proposed river crossing is characterised by a recently constructed residential development located to the north east of the junction. There is also an area of mature trees located to the east and south east of this development which is located along the proposed road alignment. To the east, closer to the river, there is a local access road that runs parallel with the river and from which access is available to dwellings that back onto the river in this area. This road is also the access route to Clarisford House and lands in the vicinity at Clarisford Park that are proposed to be developed as a sports facility. To the west of this local road and to the north of the proposed route alignment is located the grounds of a secondary school and the area closest to the proposed alignment is the open space / sports pitches for the school.

An Bord Pleanala Page 5 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

2.8 The dwellings that are located backing onto the river in the vicinity of the proposed bridge crossing comprise large detached properties that are located on large sites. In the general vicinity of the proposed alignment, the ground levels of these properties slopes down from the road level to the west towards the rear of the site where a number of the properties including those in the immediate vicinity of the proposed route, have their own private docks / harbours accessing onto the canal that runs parallel to the river at this point.

2.9 The proposed river crossing point is at a location where the River Shannon is c.130 metres in width. The canal on the western side of the river crossing point is c.12 metres in width and is separated from the main channel of the river by a strip of land that is c.25 metres in width at this location. The river in the vicinity of the proposed river crossing point varies between c. 3 and 7 metres in depth.

2.10 On the eastern side of the river the proposed route connects with the outskirts of Ballina at a point where the R494 joins with the R.496. The route then follows roughly the existing alignment of the R494 in a southerly direction to finish in a position within c.150 metre of the junction of the R.494 with the R445 (old N7). The section of the proposed development from the bridge crossing to the R494 / R445 junction is characterised by mature roadside hedgerows along a significant extent of the route. There are a number of dwellings with individual entrances located along the route and these are particularly concentrated in the northern section within c.800 metres of the proposed river crossing point. In addition to these residential properties there are also larger scale commercial premises notably at chainage 900-1000 R where there is a filling station / garage adjoining a business park development and also at chainage 2800 R where there is a business development, (Shannonside Business Park) which comprises 6 no. large scale industrial / commercial units.

3.0 Proposed Scheme

3.1 Background to Proposed Scheme

3.1.1 The provision of a bypass of the town of Killaloe has been proposed for a considerable number of years and various options and route studies for the provision of a bypass and bridge crossing of the River Shannon have been examined over the course of this period.

Feasibility Report on Bridge Widening (Michael Punch and Partners, 1996) examined options for works to the existing bridge structure in Ballina / Killaloe. This was ruled out as a viable option due to concerns primarily relating to the listed / protected status of the bridge.

In 2000, Michael Punch and Partners undertook an environmental impact assessment of three alternatives which would address the capacity issues at the existing Killaloe / Ballina bridge. These options were (1) a new stand alone footbridge adjacent to the existing bridge, (2) a new vehicular and pedestrian bridge located c. 1.1 km downstream of the existing bridge and (3) a new bridge adjacent to the existing structure on the down stream side. Option No. 2 (the new bridge downstream of the existing location) was identified in the report as the preferred option and the location of this proposed new bridge was in a position north of the Clarisford estate and approximately in the location of the current proposed bridge.

An Bord Pleanala Page 6 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Copies of the M. Punch and Partners Report of 1996 and the EIS of 2000 were both submitted to the Board at the oral hearing and are attached with this report.

The following is a summary of the main studies undertaken on route selection options since the work of M. Punch and Partners in 1996 and 2000:

3.1.1.1 Shannon Bridge Crossing Feasibility Study and Preliminary Report – Constraints Study Report, RPS-MCOS Limited, May, 2005.

The primary constraints identified comprise the environmental, physical and landscape / visual issues. In terms of environmental issues, it is noted that the study area overlaps three designated sites (SPA, SAC and NHA) and that the river Shannon as a whole and its marginal habitats are environmentally sensitive and of a high conservation value at a national level. The river is also an important fishery and important for tourism and angling.

Physical constraints in the form of existing and proposed road, existing landuses and utilities (notably the 400kv line at Moys) are noted as is the width of the river and headrace canal.

In landscape terms, the proposed new bridge would act as a focal point for the area and significantly alter the landscape. The study area is noted to contain a range of landscape character types and have differing capacities to absorb the scale of structure proposed.

3.1.1.2Shannon Bridge Crossing Route Selection Report, RPS, January, 2006 (3 Volumes).

The report assessed 8 no. routes which extended from south of O’Briensbridge to north of Killaloe and each option was assessed on the basis of traffic, engineering and economic criteria. On the basis of this analysis, those routes considered to be feasible and which met the project objectives were shortlisted. The report states that the analysis indicates that no single route would effectively relieve the problems at both O’Briensbridge / Montpelier and Killaloe / Ballina while providing cost effective improvement to the traffic network as a whole and that the objectives of the project cannot be met by the provision of a single route. In this regard, it was concluded that Route 1 provides maximum relief to O’Briensbridge / Montpelier, while routes 6 and 7 provide maximum relief to Killaloe / Ballina. Routes 6 and 7 result in significantly greater benefits to the traffic network as a whole than is the case with route 1. Routes 1, 6 and 7 are also the cheapest and most technically feasible.

Routes 1, 6 and 7 were the subject of further detailed assessment and ranked according to Environmental, Site Investigations and Structures and assessed using multi criteria analysis. The result of this assessment was that route 7c is the preferred option. The report also recommends that a second crossing be provided at Route 1 in recognition of the limited benefit that Route 7c would have on Montpelier / O’Briensbridge.

An Bord Pleanala Page 7 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

3.1.1.3 Killaloe Bypass, Shannon Bridge Crossing and R494 Improvement – Constraints Study Report, Roughan and O’Donovan Consulting Engineers, July, 2008.

The constraints study was undertaken to enable the process of route selection to be undertaken and was based on consultations with a significant number of state and non state agencies. Public consultation was also undertaken in March and April of 2008 with a total of 42 responses received and the most important issues identified as community, road safety, landscape and flora and fauna.

3.1.1.4 Killaloe Bypass, Shannon Bridge Crossing and R494 Improvement – Route Selection Report, Roughan and O’Donovan Consulting Engineers, March, 2009.

This report set out to describe the route selection process and to recommend a preferred route for the bypass section of the town. Thirteen initial route options were brought forward to the route selection stage of the analysis and, in the case of the bypass section of the scheme these had varying potential impacts in terms of depth of cutting (max.), the number of houses directly affected and the length of by pass route.

The depth of cutting is potentially significant at the northern end of the town where there is a steep escarpment and varied between 4 metres and 45 metres in the initial options examined. Route options that were anticipated to generate cuttings in excess of 20 metres were considered unviable and omitted, reducing the options from 13 no. to 7 no. The analysis proceeded examining variations of a number of remaining route options for the northern, middle and southern sections of the route.

Criteria that influenced the final assessment of route options included route length, gradients, utilities, drainage, junctions, property purchase, severance, ecology, archaeology, heritage, landscape and visual and cost. The assessment of the options under these headings is given in Table 8.1.1 (pg.47) of the report and the final recommended preferred route is a slightly amended version of Route B which commences to the south of the Ballyvally Estate on the R463 and close to the existing developed area of the town. The change from the alignment of Route B is at the northern end of the route where it is proposed that the route would run slightly further to the west than routes A, B and C had indicated.

3.2 Scheme as Proposed

3.2.1 The proposed scheme has three distinct elements. Firstly, it is proposed to provide a bypass of the town of Killaloe running from the R463 in the vicinity of the Ballyvally Estate and skirting the western and southern fringes of the town to cross the River Shannon at a location c.900 metres to the south of the existing bridge in the centre of the town. The bypass section of the route has a length of 2.03 km. The second part of the overall development comprises the bridge crossing itself and this is proposed to be a five span steel arched bridge. The river crossing section of the proposed scheme from the end of the bypass, to the bank of the canal, across the canal and crossing the river, has a total length of 840 metres. The final section of the proposed scheme involves the section from the roundabout at the eastern end of the proposed bridge crossing south to a position close to the R445 (old N7). This route (the R.494)

An Bord Pleanala Page 8 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

is proposed to be improved and upgraded including the construction of new bridge crossings over the Kilmastulla River and the railway line. The following sections give a more detailed description of the proposed development.

Killaloe Bypass

3.2.2 The bypass route starts at the R493 c.1.2km to the north west of Killaloe town centre at the start of the Ballyvally Estate. The route exits the alignment of the existing R463 in a south westerly direction via a new roundabout to be located on raised ground to the east of the existing alignment of the R463 and rises significantly up the lower slopes of Knockyclovaun Hill. In addition to a rise in levels of almost 40 metres over the first c.650 metres of the route from the proposed new roundabout at the northern end of the scheme, the road will also be in a significant cut along this section. The extent of this cut is up to a maximum of c.17 metres (to road level) at the mid point of this 650 metre section and the alignment curves gradually to a more southerly direction. The route in this area requires the acquisition and removal of an existing private dwelling that is located at chainage 350 K. The route passes close to a number of other dwellings that are located to the south of this dwelling and which are accessed via a narrow roadway that slopes steeply up from the R 463 within the built up area of Killaloe.

3.2.3 The route then follows a straight alignment and at a level that is roughly the same as the existing ground profile between chainage 650 K and 2000 K. Along this section of road that proposed bypass alignment crosses two existing local roads, Hill Road and Creeveroe Road. At the location where these roads are intersected by the proposed bypass alignment these local roads are local access roads with a rural character located outside of the main developed area of the town and having dispersed one off residential development. At the northern end of this section, the route is in a cut of up to a maximum of c. 3.3 metres while further to the south from the point of Hill Road onwards the proposed road level is generally higher than the existing ground level, most significantly to the south of the Creeveroe Road junction where the new road is proposed to be up to c.4.4 metres higher than the existing ground level.

3.2.4 The connections with the existing local roads at Hill Road and Creeveroe Road are proposed to be at grade priority junctions and a staggered layout is proposed in both instances with the alignment of the existing local roads being altered in the immediate vicinity of the bypass route in order to provide these junctions. The Creeveroe Road junction is proposed to have a ghost island to cater for cross traffic turning movements. The last part of this section of the route is proposed to swing in a south easterly direction immediately before it connects with the R463 to the south of Killaloe town centre. This regional road is the main connection to Limerick City and is characterised by significantly higher traffic volumes than either Hill Road or Creeveroe Road. The junction of the bypass and the R463 is proposed to be in the form of a four arm roundabout.

An Bord Pleanala Page 9 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Shannon Bridge Crossing

3.2.5 Beyond the roundabout linking with the R463, the bypass route is proposed to veer to the north before beginning its final approach towards the crossing point over the River Shannon and the canal that adjoins the River. The section to the east of the roundabout is indicated on the submitted drawings at the starting point of the Shannon Bridge Crossing section of the overall scheme and the road in this section immediately to the east of the roundabout runs in close proximity to a recently completed residential estate that is located on the R463 Limerick Road at what is currently the outskirts of the town. The road levels in the section to the east of the proposed roundabout on the R.463 are generally higher than the existing ground level however the degree of this raising in ground level is generally a maximum of c.2.0 metres between the section from the roundabout to the existing local road that accesses Clarisford House to the south of the proposed scheme.

3.2.6 The area in the vicinity of the local road that accesses Clarisford House and which also serves as an access road for the private dwellings that back onto the River Shannon in this area, is proposed to be severed by the bypass route. To the north of the route, the local road is proposed to be blocked off at the southern end with no direct access available to the bypass road. In the vicinity of the local road the bypass route is proposed to incorporate the provision of an off line set down car parking to serve the adjoining secondary school. It appears from the drawings that access to the set down area from the local road would be in the form of a left in and left out arrangement. To the south of the bypass, there is proposed to be a new junction created with the bypass that would provide access to Clarisford House and the Clarisford Park development lands. The result of the proposed layout would therefore be that access to Clarisford House and the surrounding lands would only be available via the proposed bypass route and that access from the town centre via the local road that runs parallel to the River Shannon would no longer be available.

3.2.7 The section of the River crossing route to the east of the local road (approximately from chainage 420 S onwards) comprises the immediate approach to the bridge crossing and the bridge structure itself. This section of the route involves the compulsory acquisition and demolition of a private dwelling located at approximately chainage 465 S. The alignment of the road in this section is closer to the northern side of the plot which is proposed to be the subject of compulsory purchase and the alignment is adjoined by residential plots to both the north and south. To the north, the dwelling on the adjoining site is a dormer property that is located c.18 metres from the edge of the road carriageway at the closest point. To the south, the adjoining residential site has a large dwelling located well forward (west) on the site. This dwelling is two storey to the front and effectively four storey at the back due to changes in ground level on site. The residential property on this site to the south is separated by c. 55 metres from the near edge of the proposed road at the closest point and the dwelling is also separated from the proposed road by a significant extent of mature planting.

3.2.8 The section of the route from approximately chainage 440 S to the start of the bridge itself rises significantly above existing ground levels. Within the site which is proposed to be the subject of compulsory purchase, the maximum extent of the increase in ground level is at c. chainage 560 S where the proposed road profile would be c.5.25 metres higher than the existing ground level at this point. In terms of the potential impact of the raised ground levels on adjoining sites and properties, the

An Bord Pleanala Page 10 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

immediate impact is less as the existing dwellings are located towards the western end of the sites where the increase in existing ground levels is gradual across the site rising from nothing at the western end at c. chainage 440 S to the maximum of c.5.25 metres referred to above. The extent to which the proposed road profile will be higher than the ground level at the points on the route alignment where the adjoining houses are located is difficult to estimate precisely as level information is only provided for the proposed route and not for the adjacent lands / sites. I estimate however that in the case of the dwelling on the adjoining site to the north, the ground level on this site is c.1.2 - 1.5 metres higher than that on the proposed road alignment. The road section data provided in Fig. 3.5 of the EIS indicate that at chainage 480 S (which is the point on the route where the adjoining dwelling to the north is located) the difference between the existing ground level and proposed road level is 3.01 metres. By virtue of the site to the north being at a level c. 1.2 – 1.5 metres higher than the ground on the proposed route, it is therefore estimated that the proposed road would be c.1.5 – 1.8 metres higher than the ground level immediately adjacent to the adjoining residential property to the north.

3.2.9 In the case of the adjoining dwelling to the south, the separation between this dwelling and the proposed road together with the boundary treatment and vegetation and the split level design of the house are such that it is impossible to get an accurate impression of the relative ground levels.

3.2.10 The river crossing point proposed is at a location where the R. Shannon is c.130 metres in width. The canal on the western side of the river crossing point is c.12 metres in width and is separated from the main channel of the river by a strip of land that is c.25 metres in width at this location. The bridge structure itself is proposed to be a five span steel arched bridge that will have a single carriageway in each direction. The road surface is proposed to be on a slim reinforced concrete deck with four concrete piers to be located in the river channel with two concrete abutments on either side that will be located clear of the river channel.

3.2.11 On the eastern side of the river, the road continues through an undeveloped area of land that lies between the river and the R.494. The road is then proposed to join with the R494 at a point to the south of the town where the R.494 joins with the R496 and a four arm roundabout junction is proposed in this location. The construction of this roundabout requires the acquisition of a section of the front gardens of two dwellings on the north side of the R494 in this location and the creation of new access arrangements to serve these dwellings. On the eastern side of the river, the land is sloping and falls a height of c.11.5 metres between the existing R.494 and the eastern bank of the river.

R494 Improvement

3.2.12 The road improvement section of the R494 runs south from the new roundabout and follows the existing alignment of the road for the first c. 1.0 km. The section to the south of this, between chainage 1000 R and 1500 R the proposed works are offline and to the west of the existing alignment with the stated reason at 3.2.3 of the EIS being traffic safety. The realignment in this area requires the acquisition of lands along the western boundary of a number of residential properties in this location and the provision of new access points. The realigned section of road between chainage 0+650 R and 0+820 R is also proposed to be raised slightly from the current ground level (by a maximum of c.1.65 metres). The road level is also proposed to be raised

An Bord Pleanala Page 11 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

in the vicinity of chainage 1+150 R – 1+350 R with the proposed road level a maximum of c.2.65 metres above existing ground level.

3.2.13 Between chainage 1500 R and 2300 R, the proposed development will leave the existing alignment and level approximately the same with the increased carriageway width necessitating some acquisition of parts of residential lands and the provision of new access points for such properties. To the south of chainage c. 2450, the R494 crosses the Kilmastulla River and the proposed development involves the construction of a new bridge of the Kilmastulla River and the construction of new sections of road off line from the existing R494 on either side of the bridge. The rationale cited in the EIS for the new bridge crossing is the wish to avoid directly impacting on adjacent residential properties on the western side of the R494 in this general location as well as minimising traffic disruption. Further to the south, the R494 crosses the Dublin – Limerick railway line and online improvements to this crossing point are proposed incorporating horizontal and vertical alignment.

3.2.14 The proposed widths in the development are for the Killaloe bypass and river crossing sections, including the bridge, to have two traffic lanes of 3.5 metres each, two 0.5 metre hardstrips, two 1.5 metre wide cycleways and two 1.5 metre wide footpaths on the Shannon bridge crossing sections and a single 1.5 metre footpath on the bypass section of the route. On the eastern side of the river, the upgraded R494 is proposed to have two 3.0 metre wide traffic lanes over the whole route. The route is divided into two sections with the section closes to the town having a 60 km/hr speed limit and that further out an 85 km/hr limit. Within the 60 km/hr limit area, the scheme is proposed to have two 0.5 metre hardstrips, two 1.5 metre wide cycle lanes and two 1.5 metre footpaths. Further out on the 85km/hr section, the design has two 0.5 metre hardstrips, one 2.5 metre grass verge on the eastern side, one separator verge on the western side that varies in width between 1.0 and 1.4 metre, one 2.5 metre wide combined 2 way cycle / footway (on the western side of the alignment) and one grass verge on the west side that varies in width between 1.1 and 1.5 metres.

3.2.15 The design also provides for the realignment of a short section of a number of roads that cross / are intersected by the mainline. Details of these roads are set out in Table 3.1 of the EIS and the roads involved are the R463 where there is proposed to be 430 metres realigned, the L3078 (Hill Road) where there is proposed to be 170 metres realigned, L3076 (Creeveroe Road) where 230 metres will be realigned and the R.463 at the southern end (Shanterraud area) where a total of 430 metres will be realigned.

3.2.16 The proposed project is located such that the drainage of the whole alignment will be to the R. Shannon catchment. On the Killaloe side of the R. Shannon, the proposed route crosses two minor watercourses while to the east on the alignment of the R494, the route crosses 6 no. watercourses including the Kilmastulla River, and all of which are part of the R. Shannon Catchment system. Drainage of the carriageway is proposed to be by means of a combination of kerb and gully systems, filter drains and over the edge drainage systems. Cut off drains are proposed at the top of cutting slopes where the adjoining land slopes towards the embankment and where possible, the EIS states that these interceptor drains would discharge to existing watercourses and not via the existing drainage system. The EIS also states that where the proposed road alignment is in cut, any land drains and ditches intersected would be diverted into cut off drains and diverted to drainage outfalls.

An Bord Pleanala Page 12 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

3.2.17 Drainage of the river crossing section of the scheme is proposed to be by way of a closed drainage system and there will be no discharge from the river crossing section of the alignment directly to the River Shannon. Details of the drainage of the river crossing section as well as details of the drainage of the rest of the route and the catchment of the drainage outfalls from the road were submitted by the applicant in response to the further information request. To provide for flow attenuation from the surface water discharge, flow attenuation ponds are proposed to be provided. These attenuation ponds are stated to have an adequate capacity to cater for a one in 50 year storm event and flows from the attenuation ponds will be limited to greenfield runoff rates. Petrol / oil interceptors are proposed at the discharge points and the runoff is stated in 3.6.5 of the EIS to go through a settling process to settle out suspended solids / materials.

3.2.18 The road is proposed to be constructed with a low road noise surface and this is stated to result in a reduction in the noise emission from the road of 3dB relative to normal rolled asphalt road construction. The 3dB reduction in predicted noise emission has been factored into the noise assessment calculations contained in section 7.3 of the EIS.

3.2.19 In terms of earthworks and fill balances on the route, the net overall balance is dependant on whether all sections of the scheme progress and what order the various elements of the scheme are undertaken as this will impact on the ability of surplus material from one section to be reused on other parts of the scheme. The EIS states (3.4.4) that there will be a surplus for the Killaloe Bypass section of the scheme and that there is a shortfall of fill material for the other sections, in particular the construction of the embankments on the Shannon rover crossing and the R494 improvement. Details of the earthworks balance is given in section 7.6 of the EIS and show that the Killaloe Bypass section of the is projected to have a surplus of material of c. 115 thousand cubic metres, while the Shannon Bridge Crossing and R.494 Improvements sections are projected to have deficits of 42.5 and 97.7 thousand cubic metres respectively. The overall scheme would therefore have a earthworks quantity deficit of c. 25,300 cubic metres.

3.2.20 It is envisaged that the construction works comprising the whole scheme would take approximately 24 - 30 months based on the works being undertaken as one continuous project. The EIS states that should a single contract be envisaged for the whole scheme then the overall construction period would be approximately 24 months for the construction of the main structures on the route, namely the Shannon River bridge, the Kilmastulla River Bridge and the railway bridge over the R494. C. 15 months for the construction of the Killaloe Bypass and c. 12 months for the construction of the R494 improvement works.

3.2.21 The main construction area for the scheme is proposed to be located close to the junction of the Killaloe Bypass and the River crossing sections of the scheme. The EIS states that acquisition of the lands required for this main construction area has been included in the CPO. It is also stated in the EIS that a satellite site construction compound will be required in the vicinity of the R. Shannon bridge crossing and it is proposed that this would be located on the western approaches to the bridge. A number of smaller satellite construction compounds are also proposed to be established along the route.

An Bord Pleanala Page 13 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

3.2.22 Lighting on the route is proposed to be provided throughout the full length of the Killaloe bypass as well as at the roundabouts on the R463 to the north and south of Killaloe. It is also proposed that lighting would be provided along the full length of the Shannon bridge crossing section of the scheme and at the R.494 / R496 junction located to the south of Ballina and along the approaches to this junction.

4.0 Submissions of Prescribed Bodies

A total of 3 no. submissions were received from prescribed bodies in relation to the proposed scheme and the EIS submitted. These bodies were the Development Applications Unit of the Department of Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht, the National Roads Authority (NRA) and the Mid West Regional Authority.

4.1 Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, (Development Applications Unit)

The following is a summary of the main points raised in the submission received from the Development Applications Unit:

Archaeology

That the DAU consider that the underwater archaeology section of the EIS is comprehensive and informative and that the recommendations regarding mitigation are in the most part agreed with. Locations where the specific mitigation measures are agreed with are identified and include the banks of R. Shannon in vicinity of the river crossing proposed. The submission also proposes recommendations for other locations including an updated survey in the Moys / Roolagh area to update that done in 2005/2006, survey of the Kilmastulla River and recommendation that in addition to recording of culverts / bridges in the Garrytineel area, that the area be archaeologically surveyed once the existing structures have been removed.

Ecology

The DAU submitted a detailed commentary on the nature conservation implications of the proposed scheme and identified a significant number of concerns and issues the most significant of which can be summarised as follows:

• Potential impact on bat and otters species and loss of roosts and holts. • Further information regarding the proposed sustainable drainage systems and the type of system proposed at each location is required having regard to the potential for differing types of system to impact on receiving waters and potentially impact on identified Natura 2000 sites and to support the conclusion contained in the NIS of no adverse impact on the conservation objectives of the c.SAC. • Further details regarding the type of pollution control system proposed for the R. Shannon crossing and the Kilmastulla Bridge such as would enable the conclusions contained in the NIS regarding the impact on qualifying interests of the cSAC to be supported and verified.

An Bord Pleanala Page 14 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• Concerns regarding the adequacy of this form of mitigation as it requires further assessment after the decision to approve the scheme thereby indicating that the full range of potential effects are not known at the consent stage. • Cross section plan of the Kilmastulla River Bridge and culverts demonstrating how it is proposed to ensure that otter movement within the cSAC will be facilitated post construction. • The provision of further information regarding the extent of salmon and brook lamprey habitat downstream of Cool Bridge on the Kilmastulla River. • Further details regarding the predicted zone of vibration influence of the proposed piling on the benthos of the river with the influence to be assessed in terms of significantly increased mortality of lamprey ammocoetes. • That section 10.1 of the NIS relating to Cumulative Impacts contains insufficient detail regarding the potential for cumulative impacts with other plans and projects. • Details of any derogation licences applied for and / or granted and any additional conditions that are relevant to the overall mitigation of the proposed scheme are required. • Full justification for the conclusion that the wet willow-alder-ash woodland (Ref. WN6 on drawings) does not comprise Annex I habitat is required. • Further clarification regarding the net loss of hedgerow linear habitat arising from the proposed development is required.

4.2 National Roads Authority (NRA)

The NRA submitted a copy of a letter issued to Clare County Council and relating to the issue of existing PPP schemes, existing routes and competing routes. The following is a summary of the main issues raised in the submission received from the NRA:

• That the PPP contracts entered into by the NRA have provisions for relief for operators where traffic figures are reduced arising from the actions of the NRA, the local authority or third party. • That in the case of the Limerick Tunnel, the conditions included include a restriction on the provision of any new river crossing within 3km upstream of the River Shannon bridge in Limerick on the R466 and 13 km downstream.

4.3 Mid West Regional Authority

The following is a summary of the main issues raised in the submission received from the Mid West Regional Authority:

• That the development of the bypass, river crossing and R494 realignment has been identified in the Mid West Regional Planning Guidelines, 2010-2022 and the Draft Mid-West Area Strategic Plan, 2012-2032 as being of key strategic importance to the development of the region.

An Bord Pleanala Page 15 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• That the RPGs stress the importance of the protection of the environment and it is noted that the proposed development will impact on a number of Natura 2000 sites. On the basis of the NIS undertaken, the Authority considers that the conservation objectives for the Natura 2000 sites will not be compromised by the scheme. • That the Regional Authority supports the proposed development subject to adherence to the mitigation measures recommended in the submitted appropriate assessment report.

5.0 Objections Received

5.1 Objections to CPO

There were a total of 82 no. objections originally received by the Board relating to the proposed compulsory acquisition of land. My assessment (section xx of this report) notes the withdrawal of a number of objections.

5.1.1 Frank Conlan

CPO Ref. 104a. 101

Mr Conlon is the owner of the residential property that fronts onto the R.463 to the south of the proposed Ballyvally roundabout. The objection may be summarised as follows:

• Construction access provision. • Details of screening during construction. • Relocation of water stopcock to a more convenient location. • Impact on existing pedestrian gate / level unclear. • Impact on front boundary treatment unclear. • Rainwater currently discharges to the road and the method of collection and disposal via the new road is unclear. • Details of works to entrance to garden unclear. • That the trees along the northern boundary of the property with the Ballyvally Estate are in poor condition and hazardous. These trees are protected in the development plan but who will do this ? Suggested that the trees adjoining the bypass would be acquired by and maintained by the LA. • That the gap in trees arising from the proposed road will exacerbate a current c.30 metre wide gap in this area and the overall impact needs to be assessed. This potential impact is not adequately addressed in the EIS. • Presumed that street lighting will be restored / provided. • That the levels at the NW corner (Ref. 104a.103) were raised at the time of construction of dwelling to the west and should be restored to original. • That there would be no objection to landscape planting of the boundary extending beyond Ref. 104a.103.

An Bord Pleanala Page 16 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

5.1.2 Jim Benson (c/o Sweeney McGann Solicitors)

CPO Ref. 105a.101 and 102

Mr Benson is the owner and occupant of a dwelling located at Newtown, Killaloe, Co. Clare close to the northern end of the by pass scheme and on elevated lands that are to the south of the Ballyvally Estate. The objection submitted can be summarised as follows:

• That the level of the road in this location is excessive and dangerous. • That the demolition of Mr Bensons home could be avoided by alternative routing. • That the proposed route leaves part of Mr Bensons property excluded such that it is useless and unviable.

5.1.3 Heidrun Poppe and Klaus Sinnhoffer (c/o Ivor Fitzpatrick and Co. Solicitors)

CPO Ref. 106

That the proposed scheme will adversely affect their property and affect their constitutional right to property. An oral hearing is requested.

5.1.4 Kathleen Hawes

CPO Ref. 111a.101, 102

The objection submitted can be summarised as follows:

• Increase in traffic volumes, noise and proximity of road. • Volume and noise of construction traffic. Access during construction. • Construction will demolish the wall to the front and impacts in terms of dust, dirt and air quality. • Hazard for walking once scheme complete. • Existing view lost. • Change in feeling of security and safety. • Severance from neighbours and friends. • Negative emotional impact.

Further objection (C/o John Crowley Consulting) summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO additional to that required for to build the scheme.

An Bord Pleanala Page 17 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

5.1.5 HSE West (c/o DTZ Sherry Fitzgerald)

CPO Ref. 105a. 101 and 102

The objection may be summarised as follows:

That the proposed alignment is not optimal, will severely devalue the remaining land holding and does not appear to provide for adequate accommodation works for the remainder of the lands.

5.1.6 Tom Hayes Limited in receivership (c/o Holmes O’Malley Sexton Solicitors)

CPO Ref. 123a.101

The solicitors act for the developer of a residential estate located at the southern end of the bypass route at the junction of the bypass with the R463 Limerick Road. The following is a summary of the main points raised in this submission:

• That the proposed land take would make lands A to the north west of the junction completely inaccessible. • That there is only one other entrance to the company lands and this is via a narrow access between third party lands. • That the number and location of access points to the company’s lands would be reduced. The agriculturally zoned part of the lands would become landlocked by the residential and recreational areas. # • That were the CPO confirmed then access to the stream would be lost and implications for agricultural land and surface water drainage outfall. • That permission was refused for a number of reasons including prematurity pending a decision on the relief route.

5.1.7 AGT Services (c/o Cunnane Stratton Reynolds and John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 127a, 101 and 102, 127b.101 and 102

AGT Services own lands located at the south west corner of the junction of the bypass and the R463 Limerick Road. The following is a summary of the main points raised in this submission which is additional to that made by John Crowley Consulting:

• That the company owns significant additional lands located to the south of the bypass which are zoned TM2 Clarisford / Killestry Tourism site I the East Clare LAP and discussions are ongoing regarding a mixed use development on the site. • The LAP identifies the potential for the access to these lands to be from the west, i.e. via the lands identified as Ref. 127a.102 in the CPO. • The Board should ensure that the access to the lands zoned TM2 on a permanent or temporary basis is not compromised.

An Bord Pleanala Page 18 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• That it is essential that the council ensure that the capacity of the roundabout at this location is adequate to cater for the development of the 70 acres of TM2 zoned lands in addition to the recently permitted community recreation facility to the south east of the TM2 lands.

Further objection C/o John Crowley Consulting summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO additional to that required for to build the scheme.

5.1.8 ESB, (c/o Mr.Gerard Crowley)

CPO Ref. 130a. 101, 130b.101, 102, 130c.101 and 199a.103

The following points are raised in the submission received:

• That the ESB is supportive of the proposed scheme. • That the ESB owns lands and has infrastructure in close proximity to the route • That Parteen Weir which is the entrance to the headrace to Ardnacrusha is located c.5km from the proposed new river crossing / bridge. Water level and flow is critical to the operation of the power plant and the importance of continued consultation as the bypass project advances is critical. • That the new bridge should not reduce the conveyance capacity of the river channel in any way. • That the ESB have an involvement in fisheries in the Shannon catchment and that the Board should ensure that the fishery resource aspect of the river is protected. • That there are a significant number of potential conflict points between the proposed development and the low voltage network. Where conflicts arise provision for relocation will have to be made. • That more detailed analysis is required in order to determine the impact of the proposed scheme on the Moneypoint to Dunstown 400kv line. Detailed profile data and perhaps a survey will be required at this location.

5.1.9 Richard and Marella O’Toole

CPO Ref. 133a.101 and 102

These objectors are the owners of the residential property and adjoining lands that are located on the western side of the River Shannon at the point of the proposed crossing and which is proposed to be acquired in its entirety to accommodate the road.

The contents of this objection may be summarised as follows:

• That the route passes through a quiet residential area of high amenity and adequate consideration of alternative less costly and disruptive and intrusive alternatives has not been made.

An Bord Pleanala Page 19 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• That the proposed development would interfere with the setting of Clarisford palace which is a of significant architectural interest. • That the route is adjacent to the playing fields of St Anne’s Community School and will generate noise, dust and other environmental impacts on users of the school facilities and adjoining residents. • That the proposed route crosses a SAC and would negatively impact on the habitat of this SAC and be contrary to European law. • That the route selection process undertaken that arrived at the proposed route was flawed and the data contained in the assessments undertaken of the options technically incorrect. • That there are not resources available to undertaken the proposed scheme and the approval of the scheme at this time would enable the market value to be set at a time when values are very depressed. The CPO should be refused on this basis or, if approved, that compensation should be on long term normalised property values and that restriction on the time period for payment and works be included.

Further CPO objection C/o Martin and Rea Consulting summarised as follows:

• That having regard to the sensitive environmental setting and proximity to schools the route is totally inappropriate. • That the road levels are preliminary and may be revised. • That a small change in level would impact significantly on residential areas at bridge crossing and along the R494. • That the proposed school drop off will lead to unauthorised car parking and a traffic hazard. • That there are inadequate drainage details provided and more detail is required for the oral hearing. • That a commitment to a proper drainage system that will not make any problems worse. • That the culvert sizes Table 3.2 are not binding. • That the noise target is unclear and noise mitigation is required so that the road complies with WHO standards. • There is no additional mitigation proposed in locations close to dwellings where there will be significant additional noise. • That there will be a necessity for additional construction compounds. • It is requested that the local authority would discuss and agree accommodation works. • That the objector is willing to enter discussions with the local authority regarding the above.

5.1.10 Caroline and Herman Kikkers

CPO Ref. 134a.101 and 134b.101

The objection received may be summarised as follows:

• That the boundary with the adjoining property subject to CPO ref 133 is incorrectly indicated and that there are lands proposed to be the subject of

An Bord Pleanala Page 20 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

CPO ref. 133 that are in the ownership of Caroline and Herman Kikkers. That the CPO issued is therefore incorrect and needs to be amended. • Impact on privacy and amenity from removal of significant area of trees along the northern side of property. No screen / remedial planting will mitigate the impact. • That the bridge is 6.94 metres above the water level and will therefore be c. 6 metres above the ground floor level of the Kikkers property. • That the noise impact of the bridge within 60 metres of the house will be unacceptable. Clare Co Co do not allow residential properties within 60 metres. • The lighting proposed to accord with NRA guidelines will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the house. The lighting will be contrary to the low level lighting the council normally requires close to the river. • That the site is located within an area indicated as being at risk of fluvial and tidal flooding. The site requires a flood risk assessment. • That the conclusion of the Natura Impact Statement are hard to believe. • That Appropriate assessment does not deal with all significant ecological issues of relevance to proper planning and sustainable development. EIS screening for this development is recommended. • That local authorities have duties regarding nature conservation under the Birds and Natural habitats Regulations. • That the construction and operation of the bridge raise concerns regarding safety. Noise and dust impact during construction and noise and visual impact on operation. • That the issue of access for boats from the canal to the river is not addressed in the application.

Further CPO objection C/o Martin and Rea Consulting summarised as follows:

• That the CPO is incorrect as it relates to 133a.101 and 102. • That the level of land take is excessive. • That the road levels are preliminary and may be revised. • That a small change in level would impact significantly on residential areas at bridge crossing and along the R494. • That the proposed school drop off will lead to unauthorised car parking and a traffic hazard. • That there are inadequate drainage details provided and more detail is required for the oral hearing. • That a commitment to a proper drainage system that will not make any problems worse. • That the culvert sizes Table 3.2 are not binding. • That the noise target is unclear and noise mitigation is required so that the road complies with WHO standards. • There is no additional mitigation proposed in locations close to dwellings where there will be significant additional noise. • That there will be a necessity for additional construction compounds. • It is requested that the local authority would discuss and agree accommodation works. • That the objector is willing to enter discussions with the local authority regarding the above.

An Bord Pleanala Page 21 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

5.1.11 Mr Roy Benson

CPO Refs. 136a.101, 136b.101

The objection received can be summarised as follows:

• That the need for the bridge is questionable and the findings of the 2011 traffic survey are questionable. Traffic has reduced due to the economy, the Limerick Tunnel, the Dublin to Ennis motorway, the closure of Finsa Limited in Scariff. The figure of 6% HGV is hard to believe. • That the planned northern bypass of Limerick will further reduce traffic volumes. • That the choice of route 7c did not coincide with the majority preference for route 6. • That cost was a significant factor in the decision and has the river crossing been in a different location then the cost could have been less (e.g. if the need for the bypass was omitted). • That the river crossing decision proceeds the bypass being determined necessary and the whole process is flawed. • That the proposed crossing is in an area of especially high amenity. It is a SAC and the alternative routes within or outside the SAC that would have lower environmental impact have not been examined sufficiently. • That the description of the lands covered by 136b.101 and 136a.104 is described as agricultural and should properly be called residential. • That the project has gone on so long that lands have been frozen for an unacceptably long time. • That the CPO of additional lands that are part of the garden of Mr Bensons dwelling is not necessary and impacts excessively on his property relative to those on the opposite side of the road. • That funding is not in place and that property owners are being exploited by this CPO proceeding at this time. Should the project be approved then CPO should be on the basis of long term values.

Further CPO objection C/o Martin and Rea Consulting summarised as follows:

• That the level of land take is excessive. • That the location of the bridge in a residential area is inappropriate given the alternatives at route selection stage. • That the location of a major roundabout at this location close to entrances is inappropriate. • That the road levels are preliminary and may be revised. • That a small change in level would impact significantly on residential areas at bridge crossing and along the R494. • That the proposed school drop off will lead to unauthorised car parking and a traffic hazard. • That there are inadequate drainage details provided and more detail is required for the oral hearing. • That a commitment to a proper drainage system that will not make any problems worse. • That the culvert sizes Table 3.2 are not binding.

An Bord Pleanala Page 22 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• That the noise target is unclear and noise mitigation is required so that the road complies with WHO standards. • There is no additional mitigation proposed in locations close to dwellings where there will be significant additional noise. • That there will be a necessity for additional construction compounds. • It is requested that the local authority would discuss and agree accommodation works. • That the objector is willing to enter discussions with the local authority regarding the above.

5.1.12 Vivian (and Carol Ann) Cahalane

CPO Ref. 142a.101

The contents of this objection may be summarised as follows:

• That realignment of the roundabout at Roolagh junction in 2006 resulted in a reduction in boundary height and increased noise. • There will be a negative visual impact of the bridge. • The roundabout will restrict access to property and increase emissions. • Impacts in terms of noise, dust, vibration, lighting and wind impact. • Noise modelling was undertaken on the adjoining property and results extrapolated. The mitigation proposed is not adequate. • Redecoration and re-landscaping of the property required post construction. • Triple glazing, black out curtains and screen planting should be provided. • Reduction in area of percolation area and necessity for relocation. Houses impacted should be connected to the public sewerage system. • Increase in traffic volumes using this route and R496. • Devaluation of property.

Further CPO objection C/o Martin and Rea Consulting summarised as follows:

• That the location of the roundabout within 50 metres of the property has a significant safety impact. • That the level of land take is excessive. • The relocation of the septic tank will result in non compliance with planning and unsalable property. • The proposed new access is unsafe and unreasonable. • That the road levels are preliminary and may be revised. • That a small change in level would impact significantly on residential areas at bridge crossing and along the R494. • That the proposed school drop off will lead to unauthorised car parking and a traffic hazard. • That there are inadequate drainage details provided and more detail is required for the oral hearing. • That a commitment to a proper drainage system that will not make any problems worse. • That the culvert sizes Table 3.2 are not binding. • That the noise target is unclear and noise mitigation is required so that the road complies with WHO standards.

An Bord Pleanala Page 23 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• There is no additional mitigation proposed in locations close to dwellings where there will be significant additional noise. • That there will be a necessity for additional construction compounds. • It is requested that the local authority would discuss and agree accommodation works. • That the objector is willing to enter discussions with the local authority regarding the above.

5.1.13 Richard O’Donnell

CPO Ref. 151a.101 and 102

The objection may be summarised as follows:

• That the area of the entrance contains lighting and cabling that should not be interfered with. • That an alternative route via the picnic park in council ownership would be cheaper and was discussed with the council. • That confirmation is sought that the entrance way land can be taken back at the completion of works.

5.1.14 Mark D. Pollard

CPO Ref. 155a.101

The objection may be summarised as follows:

• That the design is proposed and the acquiring authority are free to amend the design without further consultation or application. This is contrary the decisions of the ECJ. • That the impact on the SAC is such that the scheme is contrary to the proper Planning and Sustainable Development of the area. The case of Sweetman v ABP is relevant. • That there is a requirement for the Board to undertake an appropriate assessment. • There is no vermin mitigation in the EIS. • Funding is not available. The scheme is not listed in the NDP and the effect of the application is to have a long term negative impact on property values. • That the contention that the improvement of the existing bridge is not a realistic option is not clearly established. • That the traffic analysis and surveys are flawed.

Further CPO objection C/o Martin and Rea Consulting summarised as follows:

• That design of R494 appears to be done with aim of maximising the impact on properties on the western side of the road. • Not clear what width the cycle track is between Birdhill and Roolagh. • That the level of land take is excessive and unclear due to the small scale. A small design amendment could significantly reduce the impact.

An Bord Pleanala Page 24 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• That the road levels are preliminary and may be revised. • That a small change in level would impact significantly on residential areas at bridge crossing and along the R494. • That the proposed school drop off will lead to unauthorised car parking and a traffic hazard. • That there are inadequate drainage details provided and more detail is required for the oral hearing. • That a commitment to a proper drainage system that will not make any problems worse. • That the culvert sizes Table 3.2 are not binding. • That the noise target is unclear and noise mitigation is required so that the road complies with WHO standards. • There is no additional mitigation proposed in locations close to dwellings where there will be significant additional noise. • That there will be a necessity for additional construction compounds. • It is requested that the local authority would discuss and agree accommodation works. • That the objector is willing to enter discussions with the local authority regarding the above.

5.1.15 Timothy and Elizabeth Shanahan (c/o Martin J.O’Brien Solicitors)

CPO Ref. 186a102

The objection may be summarised as follows:

• That the objectors have not been made aware how the proposed scheme and alteration to boundaries will impact them. • That someone from the project needs to contact the objectors to discuss the proposal. • That compensation is required.

Further CPO objection C/o Martin and Rea Consulting summarised as follows:

• That the cul de sac access to this property will be subject of illegal parking. • That given the impact of the elevation of the road, the gradient of the access road, land take and negative visual impact and impact on privacy, this property should be acquired. • That the road levels are preliminary and may be revised. • That a small change in level would impact significantly on residential areas at bridge crossing and along the R494. • That the proposed school drop off will lead to unauthorised car parking and a traffic hazard. • That there are inadequate drainage details provided and more detail is required for the oral hearing. • That a commitment to a proper drainage system that will not make any problems worse. • That the culvert sizes Table 3.2 are not binding. • That the noise target is unclear and noise mitigation is required so that the road complies with WHO standards.

An Bord Pleanala Page 25 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• There is no additional mitigation proposed in locations close to dwellings where there will be significant additional noise. • That there will be a necessity for additional construction compounds. • It is requested that the local authority would discuss and agree accommodation works. • That the objector is willing to enter discussions with the local authority regarding the above.

5.1.16 K. Noel Broderick

CPO Ref. 189a.101

Mr Broderick is the owner of an industrial unit on the R494 located within the Shannonside Business Park. The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the new boundary will mean that there will be no vehicular access to the premises and will render the use of the building unusable as a machinery distribution unit. • How will access be available to the yard area that remains to the south and west of the building and access to an existing loading bay to the building ? • That the above problem was brought to the attention of the council who indicated that the boundary line could be altered to resolve the issue however this has not been done.

5.1.17 Sylvester Addley, (c/o PJ Brett and Associates Limited)

CPO Ref. 190

Mr Addley is the owner and operator of Shannonside Business park and does not have an objection in principle to the proposed development. Notes that permission has been granted for the extension of the park and that there are additional lands available for further development. The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the level of detail and drawings provided to date regarding the proposal is not adequate to enable a detailed assessment to be made. • That the CPO line is clearly incorrect as the area between the red line and the retaining wall adjacent to the unit in the NW corner of the park does not need to be acquired and would not be sold. There is no objection to a temporary lease of this area to facilitate construction. • Clarification regarding the impact of the new railway bridge on the activities / operation of the business park and specifically the amount of land required for bridge abutments. • Specific requirements for the new boundary wall and entrance are specified. • That ground to the SE of the entrance road shall be kept level by the inclusion of a retaining wall. • Pedestrian footpath along the length of the new frontage. • Replacement of existing car parking spaces lost.

An Bord Pleanala Page 26 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• Lighting and signage to the new entrance. Full drainage to the new entrance road. • Requirement for a full traffic management plan for the site to show how access will be provided for during construction.

5.1.18 William Bird and Sons

CPO Ref. 192a.101, 102 and 103

The objection may be summarised as follows:

• Own lands located to the south of the railway bridge on the R.494 and which have been used for the storage of large vehicles. • No objection in principle to the CPO however want to ensure that the is safe access and egress to their lands and facilitates the access of large vehicles including along the access track to the lands which is proposed to run parallel to the R494.

5.1.19 CIE, (c/o Niall Grogan, Group Property Manager CIE)

CPO Ref. 198a.

The objection may be summarised as follows:

• That the CPO of land is contrary to section 130 of the Transport Act, 1944 which states that no CPO of lands or premises held for the purposes of any railway….save with the consent of the Minister. • That it is policy of CIE to co operate with infrastructure such as this and the objection relates to the CPO rather than the scheme. • It is requested that the CIE lands should be removed from the CPO and that CIE and Iarnród Eireann will proceed by way of agreement with the Council (a bridge agreement where lands sought will be transferred at a nominal sum). • That as part of any agreement that a permanent access to the line is provided for maintenance purposes and inspection. This access is indicated on a plan as being to the south of the bridge on the western side of the track.

5.1.20 Clare VEC and St. Anne’s Community College

CPO Ref. 129a.101 and 200a.201

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the school is facing pressure to accommodate significant additional numbers of students over the next few years and pressures on its available land. The lands at the rear of the school the subject of the CPO are part of the redevelopment for amenity / recreational use.

An Bord Pleanala Page 27 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• That the proposed drop off and collection point on the new road would create problems of safety, security and management. Instead of the proposed drop off a new vehicular access point from the new road to the rear of the college lands should be provided. Such an access would facilitate the future development of the college lands.

5.1.21 James and Miriam Ward, (c/o Nagle Agricultural Consultants)

CPO Ref. 177

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That there is an inadequate schedule of accommodation works. • Entrances to properties not correctly indicated. • Not all lands proposed are required. • Security issues. • Drainage (existing and proposed).

5.1.22 John and Johanna Ward, (c/o Nagle Agricultural Consultants)

CPO Ref. 178

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That there is an inadequate schedule of accommodation works. • Entrances to properties not correctly indicated. • Ownership of properties not correctly indicated. • Not all lands proposed are required. • Security issues. • Drainage (existing and proposed).

5.1.23 James P. Hayes, (c/o Nagle Agricultural Consultants)

CPO Ref. 182

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That there is an inadequate schedule of accommodation works. • Entrances to properties to be agreed. • Underpass required for dairy herd. • Type of farming incorrectly stated in EIS. • Not all lands proposed are required. • Security issues. • Road drainage and existing water run off.

An Bord Pleanala Page 28 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

5.1.24 James and Bernadette Hayes; (c/o Nagle Agricultural Consultants)

CPO Ref. 184

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That there is an inadequate schedule of accommodation works. • Entrances to properties to be agreed. • Security issues. • Road drainage to be agreed.

5.1.25 Peter Egan (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 107a.101,, 107b.101, 107c.101, 107b.102, 107c.103, 109a.101, 115a.101

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

5.1.26 Nora Smith (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 110

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme. • The schedule is incorrect in identifying buildings on the land as farm buildings.

5.1.27 Patrick Malone (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 112

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

5.1.28 Anthony Foley (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 113

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition.

An Bord Pleanala Page 29 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

5.1.29 Timothy Sullivan and Noreen Sullivan (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 114a.101, 102, 103 and 104

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

5.1.30 Anthony Quigley (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 114a. 101, 102, 103 and 104

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the owner has not been served with a CPO even though his property is affected. • That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

5.1.31 Patrick and Cindy Reddan (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 117

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

5.1.32 Norman and Marie Molloy (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 118

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

An Bord Pleanala Page 30 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

5.1.33 Gerard and Antoinette Ryan (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 120a.102, 103, 120b.102, 121

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

5.1.34 Christopher and Susan Moroney (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 124a.101, 102, and 103

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

5.1.35 Orla Kelly and Vincent Barrett (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 125a.101, and 125a.102

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

5.1.36 George and Raphaelia Hickey (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 138a.101 and 102

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

5.1.37 Peter and Louise Delaney (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 152a.101 and 102

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

An Bord Pleanala Page 31 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

5.1.38 Niall Hogan (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 154a.102, 103, 104, and 105

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

5.1.39 Michael and Breda Hurley (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 156a. 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, and 107

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

5.1.40 John and Kathleen Sheehy (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 156a.103, 104, 105, 106 and 107

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

5.1.41 Gordon Atkinson (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 159a.101, 102, and 103

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

An Bord Pleanala Page 32 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

5.1.42 Yvonne and Barry Bullman (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 183a.101, 102 and 103

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

5.1.43 Michael McHale (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 185a.101, 102, 103, 104, 105 and 106 and 185b.101, 102 and 103

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

5.1.44 Richard Lewis (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 188

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

5.1.45 Martin and Bridget O’Brien (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 191a.101, 191b.101 and 102

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

5.1.46 Bridie and John J. McKeogh (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 193a.101, 102, 103, 104 and 105

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

An Bord Pleanala Page 33 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

5.1.47 Gerard Floyd and Breeda C Darcy (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 194a.101, 102 and 103

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

5.1.48 Timothy Floyd and Cora Coffey (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 195a.101 and 102

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

5.1.49 Carmel McKeogh (c/o John Crowley Consulting)

CPO Ref. 196a.101, 102 and 103

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

An Bord Pleanala Page 34 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

CPO Objections c/o Martin and Rea Consulting

The following objections to the CPO (Paragraphs 5.1.50 – 5.1.78 below) are submitted by Martin and Rea Consulting on behalf of individuals along the route of the proposed scheme and subject to CPO. The objections received contain a number of general objections to the proposed CPO and are in many instances accompanied by more specific grounds of objection relating to the particular site in question. The following are the general objections to the CPO raised in the submissions received from Martin and Rea Consulting:

• That the road levels are preliminary and may be revised. • That a small change in level would impact significantly on residential areas at bridge crossing and along the R494. • That the proposed school drop off will lead to unauthorised car parking and a traffic hazard. • That there are inadequate drainage details provided and more detail is required for the oral hearing. • That a commitment to a proper drainage system that will not make any problems worse. • That the culvert sizes Table 3.2 are not binding. • That the noise target is unclear and noise mitigation is required so that the road complies with WHO standards. • There is no additional mitigation proposed in locations close to dwellings where there will be significant additional noise. • That there will be a necessity for additional construction compounds. • It is requested that the local authority would discuss and agree accommodation works. • That the objector is willing to enter discussions with the local authority regarding the above.

It is noted that a number of the points raised under the general objections relate to environmental issues and will be addressed in detail in the assessment section under the heading of environmental issues.

The following sections set out the specific objections received from Martin and Rea Consulting on behalf of their clients. Where there are no specific objections raised relating to the particular location this is noted below.

5.1.50 Ungrund GmbH (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 101

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the roundabout design does not minimise the impact on the architectural heritage of the property. • That the roundabout and road will have a profound effect. • The new access will generate illegal parking.

An Bord Pleanala Page 35 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• Plot 101a.102 not required. Plot 101a.101 should not be acquired permanently.

5.1.51 Derg Line Limited (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 102

That the project is supported subject to clarification regarding drainage details and the provision of an acceptable access to zoned lands where this appears to be blocked by the proposed roundabout at chainage 0.

5.1.52 William Daly (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 122

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That a right of way has been cut off and no alternative access provided. • That the land take proposed is excessive.

5.1.53 Liegenschaftsverwaltung Geselschaft GmbH (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 131

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the route is inappropriate having regard to impacts on many residents and road constructed on lands that are part of a protected structure. That the road will be elevated and impact significantly on the existing residence. • The attenuation pond will have a significant negative impact on the approach to the property. • The junction opposite the school set down area will result in a traffic hazard. • Not adequate account of existing and future business activity in this area.

5.1.54 Tyrone and Marie Elliott (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 132

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the route is contrary to proper planning given the recent date when permission was granted for this dwelling. • The school set down area is poorly designed and will be a traffic hazard. • The access road to the school from the set down area is poorly designed.

An Bord Pleanala Page 36 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• That the 3 metre wide footpath on the school access will result in removal of the existing hedgerow and / or reduced width of Moys Road. • Land take is inadequate at this location. • A new right of way is proposed. • That the council will occupy lands not in the CPO.

5.1.55 Dorothy Benson (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 135

General objection to CPO as summarised above.

5.1.56 Barry Ryan (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 137

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the location of a roundabout within 30 metres of the access to this property is highly dangerous. The junction could be redesigned and traffic lights installed.

5.1.57 Con Donovan (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 141

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the proposed roundabout and bridge at this location is contrary to proper planning.

5.1.58 William and Maura Nolan (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 143

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the realignment and reduction in level of the R494 will have a significant effect on this property and gradients. • The roundabout within 50 metres will impact on safety. • The land take is excessive. • The relocation of the septic tank will result in non compliance with planning.

An Bord Pleanala Page 37 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

5.1.59 James Kelly (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 144

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the land take is insufficient to construct new access given the reduced level of the road.

5.1.60 James and Nora Carroll (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 145

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the proposed level of the road outside this property is unclear. • Unclear what part of the entrance is being taken and works proposed.

5.1.61 John and Elizabeth Young (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 146

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the land take is excessive. • The septic tank will be impacted. • Cycle lane in this location is not going anywhere and is dangerous. • Realignment of the R496 will have a significant negative impact on this property.

5.1.62 Roisin Healy (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 147

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the land take is excessive. • The septic tank will be impacted and dwelling should be connected to mains.

5.1.63 Patrick O’Dowd (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 149

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• Unclear how far the land take extends into property. • Impact on lawn and trees unclear.

An Bord Pleanala Page 38 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

5.1.64 Eve Moloney (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 158

General objection to CPO as summarised above.

5.1.65 Brian and Patricia Byrne (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 161

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the location of the existing entrance is incorrectly shown. • Design drawings do not show that the Fort Henry gate is being relocated. • That the scale is such that cant accurately assess impact on residence on south side of road.

5.1.66 Joseph Doolan (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 162

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That Plot 162a.101 is incorrectly described as part of the public road. • Plot 162a.104 is part of house curtilage and not the public road.

5.1.67 Eamon and Maura Gilmore (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 163

General objection to CPO as summarised above.

5.1.68 Michael Larkin (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 165

General objection to CPO as summarised above.

5.1.69 Michael and Siobhan Larkin (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 166a.101

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the land take is excessive. • The land take is incorrectly described as a public road.

An Bord Pleanala Page 39 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• Part of the road is incorrectly described as a house curtilage.

5.1.70 AMR Limited (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 169

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the land take is excessive. • It is unclear what is proposed at the entrance to Fort Henry at chainage c.625R.

5.1.71 Henry and Noreen Mooney (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 170

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That part of Plot 170a.101 is described as road when it should be agricultural land.

5.1.72 JJ and Mary Larkin (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 171 and 180

General objection to CPO as summarised above.

5.1.73 Joan Bissette (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 172

General objection to CPO as summarised above.

5.1.74 Pauline and Cornelius Barry (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 173

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• Unclear what hedgerows are to be removed in this location or the type and length of new water pipe.

5.1.75 Declan and Joan McNamara (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 174

An Bord Pleanala Page 40 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

General objection to CPO as summarised above.

5.1.76 Joseph Shanahan Jnr (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 175 and 176

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• Unclear what exactly is proposed in this location. • No proposals re fencing to attenuation pond visible from house.

5.1.77 Brian Shanahan (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 176

General objection to CPO as summarised above.

5.1.78 Joseph Shanahan Snr. (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting)

CPO Ref. 176

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• Unclear what exactly is proposed in this location. • No proposals re fencing to attenuation pond visible from house.

An Bord Pleanala Page 41 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

5.2 Environmental Objections to Bypass, Shannon Bridge Crossing and R494 Improvement Scheme

A total of 3 no. valid objections / submissions were submitted relating the environmental aspects of the proposed scheme and the submitted EIS and NIS. These three objections were received from the following parties:

• The Swans and the Snails, • Electricity Supply Board • Brendan and Maeve Ryan

In addition, the submissions received from John Crowley Consulting contains comments on the environmental impact. The parties represented by these submissions are as follows:

• Kathleen Hawes • AGT Services • Peter Egan • Nora Smith • Patrick Malone • Anthony Foley • Timothy Sullivan and Noreen Sullivan • Anthony Quigley • Patrick and Cindy Reddan • Norman and Marie Molloy • Gerard and Antoinette Ryan • Christopher and Susan Moroney • Orla Kelly and Vincent Barrett • George and Raphaelia Hickey • Peter and Louise Delaney • Niall Hogan • Michael and Breda Hurley • John and Kathleen Sheehy • Gordon Atkinson • Yvonne and Barry Bullman • Michael McHale • Richard Lewis • Martin and Bridget O’Brien • Bridie and John J McKeogh • Gerard Floyd and Breeda C Darcy • Timothy Floyd and Cora Coffey • Carmel McKeogh

The attention of the Board is drawn to the fact that a submission under the cover of Rea Agri Environmental Consultants which represented a number of parties was returned as invalid on the basis that the submission was not accompanied by the correct fee.

An Bord Pleanala Page 42 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Rea Agri Environmental Consultants submitted a further submission on behalf of their clients following the further information request and applicants response to same and that the content of these submissions is set out in section 6.3.3 below.

The following is a summary of the main issues raised in the valid submissions received prior to the FI request:

The Swans and the Snails

• That the development comes under the EIA Directives. Art. 3 of the EIA Directive requires the Board to undertake an EIA of the development. • That the development directly affects a SAC and there is a requirement for the Board as the competent authority to undertake an appropriate assessment. As the development impacts on a SAC the ECJ case Sweetman v ABP regarding the Galway bypass is of relevance.

Electricity Supply Board

• That the ESB is supportive of the proposed scheme. • That the ESB owns lands and has infrastructure in close proximity to the route • That Parteen Weir which is the entrance to the headrace to Ardnacrusha is located c.5km from the proposed new river crossing / bridge. Water level and flow is critical to the operation of the power plant and the importance of continued consultation as the bypass project advances is critical. • That the new bridge should not reduce the conveyance capacity of the river channel in any way. • That the ESB have an involvement in fisheries in the Shannon catchment and that the Board should ensure that the fishery resource aspect of the river is protected. • That there are a significant number of potential conflict points between the proposed development and the low voltage network. Where conflicts arise provision for relocation will have to be made. • That more detailed analysis is required in order to determine the impact of the proposed scheme on the Moneypoint to Dunstown 400kv line. Detailed profile data and perhaps a survey will be required at this location.

Brendan and Maeve Ryan

• That the proposed bypass will be very close to their garden and home and will be elevated above their property. • That there may be issues of ground movement and vibration . • That there are issues of air quality and dust nuisance arising. • That there is a requirement for security fencing screens during construction works. • Questions regarding what type of metal crash barriers are proposed and what panels are proposed to reduce visual impact. • Necessity for sound barriers to control noise from construction equipment.

An Bord Pleanala Page 43 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Submission from John Crowley Consulting on Behalf of Various Parties (27 no.) as Listed Above

The comments relating to environmental issues contained in these submissions can be summarised as follows:

That the EIS is flawed and does not contain sufficient design information relating to: • Drainage, • Access including entrances, • Potential damage to structures including houses, • Fencing, • Accommodation works, • Construction compounds, • Construction traffic movements, particularly outside of CPO lands, • Impacts on residential property, • Potable water supplies, • Services.

That the EIS contains inadequate mitigation measures during and post construction including the following areas: • Disturbance to property owners, • Noise, • Visual impact including screen planting, • Vibration, • Dust, • Preserving water quality, • Health and safety.

6.0 Further Information

6.1 Request for Further Information

6.1.1 Arising from a review of the submitted application documentation including the Environmental impact Statement and the Natura Impact Statement and having regard to the issues raised in the submissions received from the prescribed bodies, further information on a number of issues was requested from the applicant. The following is a copy of the FI request issued.

1. The applicant states that a sustainable drainage system is proposed to be installed on the road (p.7/31 of the EIS and p.24 of the NIS) and that this system will prevent significant pollution to surface receiving waters. Some details of the proposed water quality and treatment methods proposed are detailed in 3.6.5 of the EIS, (pg. 3/13) and it is noted that 3.6.5 of the EIS states that ‘ many factors affect the selection of appropriate pollution control facilities including soil characteristics, traffic flows and characteristics, the sensitivity of the receiving environment and the expected constituents of the runoff ’. Further information regarding the proposed sustainable drainage systems and the type of system proposed at each location is required having regard to the potential for differing types of system to impact on receiving waters and potentially impact on identified Natura 2000 sites and to support the conclusion contained in the NIS of no

An Bord Pleanala Page 44 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

adverse impact on the conservation objectives of the cSAC. Cross referencing of any statements contained in the NIS with relevant sections of the EIS and submitted additional material on foot of this FI request is required.

2. On the basis of similar considerations as set out at Item 1 above, further details regarding the type of pollution control system proposed for the R. Shannon crossing and the Kilmastulla Bridge are required such as would enable the conclusions contained in the NIS regarding the impact on qualifying interests of the cSAC to be supported and verified.

3. It is noted that as part of the mitigation measures contained in the EIS (7/30 and 12/2) and NIS (pg.23) it is stated that design and construction method statements will be submitted to IFI and NPWS for approval prior to commencement of construction’. Concerns have been expressed by the NPWS regarding the adequacy of this form of mitigation as it requires further assessment after the decision to approve the scheme thereby indicating that the full range of potential effects are not known at the consent stage. The Board note the outline of construction methodology for the Kilmastulla R, the railway and the Shannon R. crossing outlined in s.3.7.4 of the EIS (page 3/16) however notwithstanding these details the Board consider that such an approach is not consistent with the requirements of Habitats Directive. The applicant is requested to provide a more detailed assessment of the type of mitigation which would be included in the design and method statements and to assist in determining whether the proposed development would or would not have an adverse impact on the integrity of the cSAC and its conservation objectives.

4. The applicant is requested to submit a cross section plan of the Kilmastulla River Bridge demonstrating how it is proposed to ensure that otter movement within the cSAC will be facilitated post construction. The applicant shall also provide further details of the proposed culvert designs demonstrating how safe otter / mammal passage will be facilitated.

5. It is noted that the NIS makes reference to spawning habitat downstream of Cool Bridge (pg.16 of NIS) however the NIS and EIS do not explicitly state or indicate the extent of salmon and brook lamprey habitat downstream of this proposed crossing point. In support of the mitigation measures proposed and to facilitate assessment of the potential impact on cSAC qualifying interests and adequacy of mitigation proposed, the applicant is requested to provide further information regarding the extent of these habitats in this location.

6. The applicant is requested to provide an estimate (to be shown in map form) of the predicted zone of vibration influence of the proposed piling on the benthos of the river with the influence to be assessed in terms of significantly increased mortality of lamprey ammocoetes. The applicant is also requested to indicate whether there is any suitable spawning habitat for salmon or lamprey located within the predicted zone of vibration.

7. It is noted that section 10.1 of the NIS is headed Cumulative Impacts. It is considered however that this section does not address in sufficient detail the potential for cumulative impacts with other plans and projects. The applicant is requested to provide further details in this regard and should have regard inter alia to the potential impacts arising from the other plans and projects, including those referenced in the NPWS observation on the proposed development.

An Bord Pleanala Page 45 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

8. The applicant shall provide details of any derogation licences applied for and / or granted and any additional conditions that are relevant to the overall mitigation of the proposed scheme.

9. Areas of wet willow-alder-ash woodland (Ref. WN6 on drawings) are recorded at a number of locations along the proposed route and that the EIS / NIS determine that these areas do not comprise habitat that would come within the scope of Annex I priority alluvial woodland habitat. Full justification for the conclusion that the woodland does not comprise Annex I habitat has not been provided and in this regard the applicant is requested to provide botanical and ecological information to support the determination made in relation to the woodland type present.

10. Section 7.2 of the EIS contains information regarding the loss of hedgerow and roadside vegetation and proposals for mitigation including reconnection of severed linear habitat features (pg.7/36). The applicant is requested to provide further clarification regarding the net loss of such linear habitat arising from the proposed development when regard is had to proposed mitigation and to give an assessment of the residual effect on habitats arising from the net loss arising from the development.

6.2 Response to Further Information

6.2.1 The following is a summary of the response provided by the applicant to the further information request issued:

6.2.2 Item No.1 of the FI request related to the type of road drainage system proposed and the type of system proposed at each location. The applicant provided additional details of the type of system to be used and has also indicated on a series of figures showing the road layout, the extent of the catchment areas that will be discharged to each of the outfalls which is information that was not contained in the original application documentation / EIS.

6.2.3 Item No.2 of the FI request relates to drainage of the proposed new bridge over the Shannon River. The response indicates that drainage of the entire bridge will drain to outfall OB1. Similarly, with regard to the Kilmastulla R. bridge, the response clarifies that no discharge from the bridge to the river will be permitted. The route of the drainage from the bridge and outfall location are demonstrated on Figs. RFI1.4 and 1.5 submitted as part of the FI response.

6.2.4 Item No.3 relates to construction and design method statements and required that details of these be provided in advance of any decision on the application. In response, the applicant has highlighted the basic design of the bridge structure, the road drainage proposed as detailed in Item 1 of the FI response and bridge and culvert design to ensure safe passage of mammals (Item No.4 of FI) and the basic construction methodology as set out in 3.7 of the EIS. The response proceeds to detail the mitigation measures contained in chapter 7 of the EIS relating to the SAC, otters, invasive species, aquatic habitats and construction phase mitigation measures set out at 7/95 to 7/97 of the EIS. In addition, two further mitigation measures not contained in the EIS are proposed restricting piling works to vibratory techniques and secondly requiring that piling works within the river Shannon would be carried out from barge mounted plant that will be surrounded by a geotextile screen that will limit

An Bord Pleanala Page 46 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

sediment dispersal. With the exception of these two additional mitigation measures, the response does not provide significant additional detail regarding the design and construction method statements.

6.2.5 Item 4 related to how otter / mammal movement on the proposed Kilmastulla Bridge and culverts will be provided for. The response sets out the dimensions and location of the otter / mammal crossings proposed and also states that where these dimensions cannot be met that a separate underpass will be provided parallel to the watercourse culvert. Cross sections of the Kilmastulla R. Bridge and details of typical box culvert are provided. Culverts where underpasses and mammal ledges will be provided are identified.

6.2.6 Item No.5 of the FI related to clarification of the extent of spawning habitat downstream of Cool Bridge on the Kilmastulla River. The response clarifies that potentially suitable spawning habitat for both salmon and brook lamprey occurs intermittently for c.200 metres downstream of Cool Bridge. Spawning by either species has not been confirmed in this area however in view of the suitability of the habitat and the fact that it is within the SAC mitigation measures have been incorporated into the scheme.

6.2.7 Item No.6 relates to estimation of the potential zone of vibration from the piling works connected with the bridge construction and the potential impact of such piling. The applicant has submitted a predicted zone of vibration influence (Fig. RFI – 6.1). the response states that there is no spawning habitat for salmon and lamprey in the vicinity of the bridge structure. The submission states that in the event that pile driving activities give rise to disturbance to the ammocoetes larvae, that they are capable of relocating beyond the zone of disturbance and that they would have the ability to relocate and rebury themselves in the event of disturbance. Displacement would however likely lead to greater risk of predation. It is noted however that any risk of predation that arises should be seen in the context of the extent of similar habitat that extends to several hundred metres along the eastern river bank.

6.2.8 Item No.7 of the FI request relates to cumulative impacts and the extent to which these are addressed in the NIS. The response, notes that a Habitats Directive Assessment (HAD) was undertaken on the North Tipperary County Plan and the East Clare LAP. It is noted that these documents require individual projects to be the subject of further assessment. With regard to specific projects, the North Limerick Distributor Road is noted as having potential to impact on the Shannon SAC however as the proposed bridge is located c.18km from the subject site and the requirements for EIA and NIA to be undertaken on this project it is not considered that there will be any cumulative impacts arising. The bridge crossings constructed within the UL lands downstream are not considered to have had any adverse impact on the SAC. Finally, a proposed recreational / amenity development at the Moys / Clarisford area has been referenced and details provided of the NIA process undertaken, ecological issues identified and proposed mitigation measures.

6.2.9 Item No.8 relates to derogation licences applied for / granted by the NPWS in relation to the proposed development. The applicant has submitted copies of the licences granted in respect of bats and otters.

6.2.10 Item No.9 relates to areas of willow / alder / ash woodland along the route and justification as to why these habitats was not considered to comprise Annex I priority alluvial woodland habitat. The response outlines a number of locations along the

An Bord Pleanala Page 47 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

proposed route where there is wet woodland identified and where on the basis of lack of inundation / periodic flooding by the adjacent waterways, that the habitat does not comprise alluvial woodland. The exception to this is on the western side of the proposed bridge crossing where in the rear garden area of one of the dwellings there is an area that could be seen to comprise priority habitat immediately to the south of the proposed alignment (between chainage 430 and c.520). Mitigation measures additional to those set out in the EIS are proposed for works in this location.

6.2.11 Item No.10 relates to the clarification of the loss of linear habitat and mitigation proposed. The response clarifies that 8.7 km of hedgerow will be removed with a total of 7.2 km of replacement hedgerow proposed. Scrum / woodland loss is estimated at 2.5 ha. with a total of 8.4 ha. of replacement proposed. The response states that where severed hedgerows or woodland occur these linear features will be tied into the proposed new road. It is also stated that as severed hedgerows will be joined to new features there will be minimal impact as a result of severance of wildlife corridors.

6.3 Submissions Received Following FI Response

6.3.1 The FI response submitted by the applicant was deemed to contain significant additional data and the applicant was required to publish notices stating that FI had been submitted and inviting submissions. On foot of these notices, further submissions were received from three prescribed bodies (Development Applications Unit of Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht,. The NRA and the Mid West Regional Authority). Observations were also received from Rea Agri Environmental Consultants on behalf of 37 no. individual residential property owners and businesses, from John Young (c/o Rea Agri Environmental Consultants Limited) and from the OPW. The following is a summary of the main issues raised in these submissions

6.3.2 Prescribed Bodies

Development Applications Unit of Dept. of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht • Submission does not give any information regarding the FI response or the additional information related to ecology contained in the response received. • Requests that if any further information relating to underwater archaeology is received that this would be forwarded to the DAU.

National Roads Authority • Acknowledgement of receipt of further information notification. Stated that the previous comments of the Authority remain the position. (Subsequent correspondence from the NRA states that they will not be attending the oral hearing).

Mid West Regional Authority • That section 6.1.1 of the Mid West RPGs and section 5.4.4.1 of the Mid West Strategic Area Plan, 2010-2030 identify the provision of the bypass, river crossing and the improvements to the R494 as one of the key regional priority infrastructural objectives. • That the Regional Authority supports the proposed development as a key strategic infrastructural project.

An Bord Pleanala Page 48 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• That the proposed river crossing is a central part of this strategic infrastructure and will remove an existing traffic bottleneck and link the communities of east / south Clare and the lake side communities of Lough Derg to the M7. • That the proposed development of the roads infrastructure will have environmental and conservation benefits in the areas of air quality, reduction in noise pollution and benefits for the conservation of the existing historic bridge and its environs. • The authority notes that the FI requested by the Board relates to technical site specific environmental matters and the regional authority supports the development subject to compliance with the requirements of the Habitats Directive and the adoption of appropriate mitigation measures.

6.3.3 Other Submissions on FI Response

Various Parties (c/o Rea Agri Environmental Consultants Limited)

• That the constructed wetlands referred to in s.1.2.1 will be sized for 10 percent of the 5 year peak storm flow and are inadequate. • Regarding s.3.3.1 of the FI response, the river bank survey and emergency operation plan should have been undertaken and included in the EIS. • That the section 6 regarding piling should set out what method of piling will be used. • That the design and method statement sought in the FI Request is responded to in a brief manner and limited additional mitigation over and above the EIS is included. • Regarding the conclusions, 3.5, pg.18, the omission of the submission of the method statement for agreement means that it is not binding on the developer. The method statement should have been included in the EIS and IFI should have been consulted. • That the response at 3.4 regarding the design and method statement requirement is inadequate, essentially repeats the information already provided and that was considered inadequate by the Board.

John Young (c/o Rea Agri Environmental Consultants Limited)

• That the constructed wetlands referred to in s.1.2.1 will be sized for 10 percent of the 5 year peak storm flow and are inadequate. • Regarding s.3.3.1 of the FI response, the river bank survey and emergency operation plan should have been undertaken and included in the EIS. • That the section 6 regarding piling should set out what method of piling will be used. • That the design and method statement sought in the FI Request is responded to in a brief manner and limited additional mitigation over and above the EIS is included. • Regarding the conclusions, 3.5, pg.18, the omission of the submission of the method statement for agreement means that it is not binding on the developer. The method statement should have been included in the EIS and IFI should have been consulted.

An Bord Pleanala Page 49 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• That the response at 3.4 regarding the design and method statement requirement is inadequate, essentially repeats the information already provided and considered inadequate by the Board. • That the EIS is inadequate and lacking in legal commitment. • That the design is a proposed one and the acquiring authority are free to change the design without further consultation which is considered to be contrary to the decision of the ECJ. • That the proposal impacts on the Shannon SAC and is therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. The issue of the ECJ case Sweetman versus ABP also applies. • That there is a requirement for the Board to undertake an Appropriate Assessment. • That the EIS is deficient in its treatment of human beings.

Office of Public Works

Submission received stating that the documentation received (FI response) has been examined and that the OPW has no comments or observations to make.

7.0 Development Plan and Other Relevant Policy

7.1 The Mid West Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022

The Mid-West Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022 highlight that road and rail access, and transportation generally, are crucial elements for the strategic sustainable development of the region in terms of enhancing connectivity. Public transport, in the form of rail and bus, are important elements of the overall transport network. The guidelines identify the road networks within the Mid-West Region as critical in terms of linking the Gateway of the Mid-West with adjoining regions, in providing access to Shannon International Airport and in providing access to the inter-city and regional rail networks. Investment in rail infrastructure would provide a sustainable option in the long-term, particularly in relation to the provision of a rail link for the towns of Ennis and Shannon. The Guidelines also outline the key investment priorities for the national and regional road networks and stress the need for an integrated and balanced overall transportation strategy.

Section 6.1.1 of the Mid West RPGs identifies the provision of the bypass, river crossing and the improvements to the R494 as one of the key regional priority infrastructural objectives.

Section 5.4.4.1(8) of the Draft Mid-West Area Strategic Plan, 2012-2032 also identifies the provision of the bypass, river crossing and the improvements to the R494 as one of the key regional priority infrastructural objectives.

7.2 The area of the proposed development covers the administrative area of two county councils, Clare County Council and North Tipperary County Council and is covered by a number of county and local development plans as follows:

An Bord Pleanala Page 50 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• Clare County Development Plan, • East Clare Local Area Plan, • Tipperary North County Development Plan

7.2.1 Clare County Development Plan, 2011-2017

The following strategic aims are included in the Plan under the heading of transportation: • To provide a safe and efficient network of transport to serve the needs of the people, goods and services travelling to and within County Clare; • To promote and encourage the use of alternative sustainable modes of transport;

It is an objective of Clare County Council: ‘ To upgrade and improve, where necessary, the regional roads in the County as outlined in Table 11.1 and Table 11.2. ’

Table 11.1 sets out the Strategic Regional Roads in the county. One of these routes is the R463 Limerick – Killaloe – Tuamgraney route.

Table 11.2 (Proposed Projects Identified for Future Development) includes the following road projects:

• Western By-Pass of Killaloe, • Shannon Crossing South of Killaloe,

Objective 11.18 of the Plan states that It is an objective of Clare County Council: ‘a To promote and encourage sustainable, environmentally friendly modes of transport; b To provide, where appropriate, the necessary physical infrastructure to make cycling and footpaths more user-friendly.‘

Objective 9.9 of the Plan states that It is an objective of the Development Plan: ‘a To ensure that all proposals for development with regard to transportation infrastructure shall comply with the provisions of the Clare Noise Action Plan (2008); b To seek to minimise noise pollution. Proposals for development will be required to demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable disturbance to the amenities of the area or to farm livestock and wildlife.’

Objective 9.10 of the Plan states that It is an objective of Clare County Council: ‘To implement the provisions of national policy and air pollution legislation, in conjunction with other agencies as appropriate.’

Objective 9.11 of the Plan states that it is an objective of the Development Plan: ‘a To require proposals for development that include the provision of external lighting, to clearly demonstrate that the lighting scheme is the minimum needed for security and working purposes; b To ensure that external lighting and lighting schemes are designed so that the incidence of light spillage is minimised ensuring that the amenities of adjoining properties, wildlife and the surrounding environment are protected.’

An Bord Pleanala Page 51 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

The Clare County Development Plan lists the R463 from O’Briensbridge, through Killaloe and onwards to a point close to Ogonnolloe as a scenic route that is to be protected, (route no.27).

The existing road bridge in Killaloe is a protected structure. The gate lodge of Ballyvally estate to the north of the town on the R463 is also listed in the development plan as a protected structure as is Clarisford House which is located to the south of the proposed bypass close to the proposed bridge.

The trees in the vicinity of the Ballyvally Estate to the north of the town are identified in the Plan as being protected.

7.2.3 East Clare Local Area Plan, 2011-2017

The section of the East Clare Local Area Plan which specifically relates to Killaloe contains a general objective as follows, ‘to secure the provision of a Shannon Bridge crossing and the Killaloe Western Relief Road’ .

With regard to tourism, the plan identifies lands at Ballyvally, on the eastern side of the R.463, which are adjoining the roundabout at the northern end of the proposed bypass route, as being suitable for sensitive tourism and heritage development. It is proposed that the site would be linked to the River Shannon by a single drainage channel and that a Masterplan for the overall development of the area would be prepared.

The area to the immediate south of the proposed bypass route in close proximity to the proposed bridge crossing of the River Shannon is indicated in the Plan as being a tourism site and is identified as being such that it could contribute to tourism at a local and regional scale.

7.2.4 North Tipperary County Development Plan, 2010-2016

Section 7.4 of the Plan states that:

‘The route of the new Shannon Bridge Crossing was decided upon in November 2006 – (Route 7C). It commences on the R494 at its junction with R496, approximately 1 km. south of the existing Killaloe/Ballina Bridge. In addition to the Bridge, construction of this scheme also includes the upgrade of the R494 regional Road from Birdhill to the junction with the R496 Ruaille junction. The proposals here allow for the widening, upgrading and possible local realignment over some sections .’

Objective INF9 states that it is an objective of the council:

‘To continue to pursue the provision of a new bridge over the Lower Shannon at Ballina and to seek to provide for the widening, upgrading and possible local realignment over some sections of the R494 regional road from Birdhill to the junction with the R496 Ruaille junction.’

An Bord Pleanala Page 52 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

8.0 Outline of Proceedings of Oral Hearing

8.1 Introduction

The oral hearing on the applications for the road scheme and CPO commenced at 11.00am on 8th October, 2012 in the Abbey Court Hotel, Nenagh, County Tipperary.

The following parties were in attendance at the hearing:

First Party – Clare County Council

Dermot Flanagan SC Barrister Sinead Nunan Solicitor, Michael Houlihan and Partners, Solicitors acting for Clare County Council Michael Conroy Project Engineer, Roughan O’Donovan Consulting Engineers Kevin Brennan Engineer, Roughan O’Donovan Consulting Engineers Sinead Gavin Roughan O’Donovan Consulting Engineers Tony Cawley Hydrologist Paul Murphy EirEco Ecological Consultants Jenifer Harmon AWN Consulting Kate Taylor TVAS Ireland Limited Mark Boyle Murray and Associates Landscape Architects Brian McCarthy Senior Executive Planner, Clare County Council Brian Beck Senior Planner, Tipperary County Council

Prescribed Bodies Jervis Good Department of Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht, Development Applications Unit Michael Fitzsimons Inland Fisheries Ireland

Objectors The following objectors made submissions to the hearing: • Frank Conlon • Richard and Marella O’Toole • Roy Benson • Mark Pollard • Kathy Pollard • Michael O’Donnell BL on behalf of Heidrun Poppe and Klaus Sinnhoffer

Ned Nagle Agricultural Consultant made submissions to the hearing on behalf of the following objectors: • James P Hayes • James and Bernadette Hayes • Donal Ward

An Bord Pleanala Page 53 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

John Crowley of John Crowley Consulting made submissions to the hearing on behalf of the following objectors: • Peter Egan • Martin and Bridget O’Brien

The following agents / expert witnesses made submissions to the hearing on behalf of the clients of Martin and Rea and Rea Agri Environmental Limited: • Richard Rea • Peter Sweetman • David Brown BL • William Morrissey (Engineer) • Karl Searson (Noise and Vibration Consultant)

These agents / expert witnesses were representing the following objectors: • Ungrund GmbH • Derg Line Limited • William Daly • Domus Liegenschaftsverwaltung Geselschaft GmbH • Tyrone and Marie Elliott • Dorothy Benson • Barry Ryan • Con and Ann Donovan • William and Maura Nolan • Jimmy and Ann Kelly • James and Nora Carroll • John and Elizabeth Young • Róisin Healy • Patrick O'Dowd • Eve Moloney • Brian and Patricia Byrne • Joseph and Suzanne Doolan • Eamon and Maura Gilmore • Michael Larkin (and Siobhán Larkin) • Michael and Siobhán Larkin • AMR Limited • Henry and Noreen Mooney • JJ and Mary Larkin • Joan Bissette • Cornelius and Pauline Barry • Declan and Joanne McNamara • Joseph Shanahan Jnr. (Brian Shanahan) • Brian Shanahan • Joseph Shanahan Snr. • Tony Gahan • Catriona Gilmore • Evelyn Quigley

An Bord Pleanala Page 54 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Note 1: The proceedings of the oral hearing were recorded and the recording is attached with my report. The following sections are a brief outline of the proceedings of the hearing and is intended to assist the Board in following the recording and identifying relevant sections.

Note 2: The assessment section of the report makes reference to the details submitted in evidence at the oral hearing.

Note 3: A list of the written texts and other submissions / items of evidence given to the inspector during the course of the hearing is set out at the end of this Outline of Proceedings. These submissions have been numbered and are cross referenced with the summary text below and the assessment section of the report which follows.

8.2 Opening of Hearing

Day 1 - Monday 8 th October

At the start of the hearing I outlined the details of the proposal, the objections received by the Board and the proposed order of proceedings. A role call of all objectors who had made written submissions was taken. At the outset of the proceedings, I drew the attention of those present to the fact that revisions had been made to Figures 10.1 and 10.2 of the EIS (relating to changes in notation of locations to match those contained in the EIS text) and also that copies of Figures 10.3 – 10.6 (inclusive) which had been omitted from the EIS document in error were now available for inspection. These figures relate to historical maps of the scheme environs connected with the archaeology and architectural heritage sections of the EIS.

Comments at Opening Prior to the commencement of the applicants presentation a number of issues were raised by agents acting for third parties.

Submission of New Figures The first issue regarded the mechanism by which the revised figures were requested / provided to the Board and also the implications of the production of this information at this stage of the proceedings. It was submitted that it was not appropriate for the hearing to proceed until such time as the proper public notification procedures regarding the information presented had been completed and that it was inappropriate that the applicant be allowed to correct deficiencies in the application in the manner proposed.

In response, the Inspector stated that the Board had highlighted the issue of the missing Figures to the applicant and sought clarification and that it was in response to this that the applicant had proffered the amended and new figures. The Inspector noted to the hearing that copies of the correspondence was on the file. The Inspector informed the hearing that the concerns raised regarding the manner of request and new information provided would be noted, reported and brought to the attention of the Board. The hearing was informed that the inspector considered the

An Bord Pleanala Page 55 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

hearing to be an information gathering exercise, that copies of the relevant documents were available for inspection and could be commented upon and that, without prejudice to any subsequent recommendation or Board decision, it was proposed to proceed with the hearing.

Absence of CIE,.OPW, ESB and NRA Concerns were raised by third parties regarding the absence of the NRA, CIE, ESB and OPW from the hearing. It was submitted that the comments of these bodies was important to the decision making process and that they had relevant information relating to individual objectors lands (in the case of CIE), environmental / ecology issues (OPW and ESB) and traffic demand issues (NRA). (The fact that the NRA were quoted in a national newspaper on 10th October as being against the proposed scheme was specifically cited). The inspector informed the hearing that the concerns expressed were noted and would be brought to the attention of the Board. With regard to the NRA it was specifically noted by the inspector that a written submission had been made by the NRA.

Ml. Punch and Partners Report on Existing Bridge Third parties requested that a report from 1996 on the condition and options for prepared by Michael Punch and Partners be made available to the hearing. The request was noted by the inspector. The inspector also noted the fact that the conclusion of the Punch Report as cited in the EIS discounted the option of the upgrading of the existing bridge for reasons related to cultural heritage, character, historical integrity and architectural impact and that the applicant would be given an opportunity to address these issues during their presentation. The inspector subsequently requested that this report be submitted and this was complied with.

8.3 Applicant’s Submissions

Mr Michael Conroy , (Evidence tabbed A1) Project Engineer Roughan & O’Donovan Engineers, gave an overview of the proposed scheme incorporating need for the scheme, progression of the proposed route and issues relating to construction. The objectives of the scheme were outlined by Mr Conroy and the existing deficiencies in the road network and access to the existing bridge were outlined. The route selection process undertaken for the Bridge Crossing was briefly outlined and came down to a choice between routes 1, 6 and 7. The reasons for the choice of Route 7c was stated to be due to it having the least impact on the acquisition of land within the SAC and better landscape and visual factors. On the bypass route, the process by which route options A and B were merged to get the preferred option was outlined. The traffic modelling and survey exercise was outlined and it was indicated that the S Paramics model was used to run data obtained from surveys undertaken in September 2011. The future scenario without the proposed scheme (2032 design year) indicates that the level of traffic on the existing bridge would increase by c. 10 percent to c. 7,500 per day.

Mr Conroy outlined the benefit to cost ratios of the scheme of 2.93 assuming medium traffic growth and 2.55 with low growth.

An Bord Pleanala Page 56 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Section 10 of Mr Conroy’s evidence included clarifications regarding the predicted traffic volumes and revised Figures 5.2 and 5.3 from the EIS were submitted. There were also a number of errors in the traffic figures cited in the brief of evidence presented by Mr Conroy that came to light at the time of the presentation and where the figures in the text of the brief did not match the revised figures in Tables 5.2 and 5.3 (revised). It was stated that the revisions to these tables arose due to the fact that the original tables in the EIS referred to survey work undertaken in 2009 while the revised tables reflected the most recent survey work undertaken in 2011.

Day 2 - Tuesday 9 th October

The evidence of Mr Kevin Brennan , Engineer with Roughan & O’Donovan (Item A2), covered soils and geology and gave an overview of the bedrock, sub soil and topsoil conditions along the route of the proposed scheme. Mr Brennan outlined how an assessment of earthworks volumes has been derived from a digital ground model and how the overall earthworks deficit for the entire scheme is c. 25,000 cubic metres. The earthworks balance and necessity for importation / disposal of materials will to a significant degree be influenced by the phasing of the three elements of the scheme. Mitigation measures were outlined and included potentially steepening the sides of the cuttings, maximum reuse of materials within the scheme. Mr Brennan also gave evidence regarding hydrology and hydrogeology (Item A3) and this brief of evidence was in conjunction with Mr Anthony Cawley of Hydro Environmental Limited. This evidence described the existing environment, the proposed river crossings, the flood risk and road drainage proposals. Groundwater conditions along the route were described and a summary of the main potential impacts on hydrology and hydrogeology during both the construction and operational phases given. Construction and operational phase mitigation measures were also outlined.

Ms Sinead Gavin of Roughan and O’Donovan gave evidence relating to Human Beings and Material Assets (Item A4) . This evidence covered the construction and operational phase impacts of the proposed scheme on human beings and focusses on the traffic implications of the scheme on human beings. The evidence also set out the impact on material assets and refers to an agricultural assessment undertaken by Philip Farrelly Agri. Consultants. There is one farm where the impact after mitigation is identified as major however it is noted that this assessment does not take account of the provision of an underpass which is included in the final design. Impacts on residential properties and business premises along the route is noted.

Evidence relating to Landscape and Visual Impact was presented by Mr Mark Boyle of Murray and Associates Landscape Architecture, (Item A5). This presentation detailed the general landscape character of the area, the prominent landscape elements, the landscape planning context and assesses the impact. The impact on individual property groups and specific locations including the bridge crossing is summarised. The impact on specific receptors who objected to the proposed scheme was included in the submission.

Ms Kate Taylor presented evidence relating to Archaeology, Architectural and Cultural Heritage, (Item A6, parts 1 and 2) . The submission summarised the impact on architectural and archaeological heritage sites. It was also noted that since the preparation of the EIS a number of structures have been added to the RPS, notably the canal (to the Clare RPS) and Gortna House, Fort Henry and Fort Henry

An Bord Pleanala Page 57 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

gate Lodge in Tipperary. It was clarified that a minimum of 10 percent of the road route would be the subject of trench testing / excavation and notes that mitigation measures agreed with the DAHG regarding underwater archaeology will be implemented. Figures 10.1 and 10.2 (revised) and 10.3 – 10.6 (inclusive) were submitted.

Mr Brian Beck and Mr Brian McCarthy gave evidence regarding the planning aspects of the proposed scheme. These briefs of evidence are tabbed Item A7 . The submissions outlined the context under the NSS, NDP, Smarter Travel, the Regional Planning Guidelines as well as the county development plans and East Clare Local Area Plan.

Evidence regarding Flora, fauna and Fisheries was presented by Mr Paul Murphy of EirEco Consultants, (evidence Item A8 attached). The evidence set out the assessment methodology used and a general description of the habitats and species of the study area. A summary of mitigation measures and residual impacts is given at sections 6 and 7. The evidence is accompanied by a report on the lamprey ammocoetes survey that was undertaken in the vicinity of the proposed Shannon bridge crossing, (Item A8, part 2).

Ms Sinead Gavin of Roughan O’Donovan presented a brief of evidence regarding Air Quality . This submission states that the air quality and climate assessment was carried out by Dr Edward Porter of AWN Consulting. It was stated that the assessment was undertaken in accordance with the NRA Guidance for National Road Schemes and other relevant standards. No predicted pollution level exceeded 50 percent of the relevant limit values.

Ms Jenifer Harmon of AWN Consulting presented evidence regarding Noise and Vibration (Item A10) . This presentation set out the assessment methodology, the baseline survey undertaken, the prediction methodology and outcomes and how none of the noise sensitive locations identified and analysed are predicted to accord with the 3 criteria that justify mitigation.

The Council submitted a letter to the hearing from the CIE Group Deputy Property Manager stating that subsequent to negotiations the objection of CIE was being withdrawn subject to Plot 198a.104 was withdrawn from the CPO Schedule. The hearing was informed that this was the case. This letter is included tabbed Item A12 .

In response to concerns expressed at the start of the hearing, the applicant presented details of the traffic model used and the survey data collected in September, 2011. This information is presented as Item A11 . As part of this evidence, the traffic flows for the Killaloe Bridge, R 494 south of Ballina, the proposed Shannon bridge and the Killaloe Bypass are presented. These figures (Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8 of evidence A11) were stated to effectively replace the information contained in Tables 5.2 and 5.3 (revised) that were submitted with the evidence of Mr Michael Conroy (Item A1). The changes in the figures presented in this evidence relative to Tables 5.2 and 5.3 (revision A) relate to the 2032 year and specifically the total vehicles in the PM do nothing scenario and the AM and PM do something scenarios. The figure for the 2032 do minimum scenario on Killaloe Bridge has changed most significantly, from 585 in Table 5.3 (Revision A) to 704.

An Bord Pleanala Page 58 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

In response to the submission of the information regarding the traffic survey information and the model, Mr O’Donnell and Mr Sweetman raised objections to the submission of this evidence on the basis that the information is replacing that in the EIS and is not supplementary to the EIS. It was stated that changes very significant and that in some cases by a factor of 2 or 3. Concerns expressed regarding the public notification requirements and adjournment of hearing requested. These points were refuted by Mr Flanagan for the applicant.

Mr Frank Conlon (CPO Ref. 104) made a submission to the hearing. Mr Conlon stated that his property adjoins Ballyvally Estate and that he has concerns regarding the impact of the scheme on the trees at Ballyvally which he considers to be understated in the EIS and which will take 20 years to be mitigated.

Day 3 - Wednesday 10 th October

The hearing commenced with presentation of the traffic survey information and modelling exercise (Item A11) presented by Mr John Bell .

8.4 Presentations of Development Applications Unit (DAU) of Department and Inland Fisheries Ireland

The submission of the Development Applications Unit of the DAHG was presented by Dr Jarvis Good, (Item B1) . The submission covers the topics / issues identified in the FI request and specifically highlights the likely effects of the proposed scheme on the Annex I priority habitat located on the western side of the river Shannon, alluvial woodland. The submission states that there is insufficient information on the area and location of this habitat, the extent of likely direct and indirect impacts and how are where the mitigation will be implemented. In response, Mr Paul Murphy for the applicants submitted a copy of the habitat map from the EIS (OH Fig. 1.1) showing that areas of habitat permanently lost, that which will be recolonized and compensatory habitat, (Item B2) . Mr Murphy subsequently submitted to the hearing details of the area of woodland that would be lost during construction and the proposed re instatement measures post construction (Item B3 ). This information was further developed by the submission of a copy of the habitat map for this area by Mr Sweetman annotated with the stated location of a wood and pond in the garden of his clients property (Item B4). Mr Murphy of EirEco Consultants subsequently submitted (Items B5 and B7) which were further revised versions of the proposed Protection and Reinstatement Strategy initially submitted as Item B3. The revisions in these documents reflected the comments of Dr Good of DAHG on the first version.

Questioning of Dr Good was undertaken by Mr Sweetman and related primarily to the status of the wet woodland habitat and the connectivity with the river and across the embankment. Mr Sweetman questioned why part of the habitat in this location was not designated and contended that the fact that it was not designated meant that there was no room for compensatory measures.

An Bord Pleanala Page 59 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Mr Ned Nagle made a submission stating that 3 objections to the CPO were being withdrawn but that he was still in discussions with the Council regarding a further two of his clients who had no objection in principle but who needed to agree accommodation works.

Mr Michael Fitzsimmons of Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) submitted a brief of evidence (Item B6) which stated that the IFI did not have an objection in principle to the scheme but identified some amendments to detailed design that could be incorporated. The initial submission was augmented by a subsequent submission on Thursday 11 th October which highlighted a number of issues regarding the dredging and cleaning operations on streams in the vicinity of the R494. The necessity of the dredging of the streams is questioned and justification / flood study showing this should be provided. The problems may result from the existing road bridges and could be resolved by the capacity of the bridges being increased to provide a flood relief mechanism that would operate during period of high flow.

There was questioning of Mr Fitzsimmons by Mr Sweetman, and Mr Brown. Related to this questioning Mr Conroy stated that piling for the Shannon River supports would possibly be rotary coring to receive a driven pile and that such works would be undertaken with a silt curtain in place.

Mr Flanagan for the applicant stated that the issues raised by Mr Fitzsimmons would be reflected in the final mitigation strategy to be submitted. Mr Flanagan also submitted a revised Table 5.2 and 5.3 from the EIS that reflected the changes in the evidence / traffic Modelling Report submitted by Mr Bell, (Item A11, part 1). These tables further revise those included in the evidence of Mr Conroy, Item A1.

Day 4 – Thursday 11 th October

Mr Mark Pollard (CPO 155) gave evidence to the hearing and covered issues relating, inter alia, to alternative routes, choice of river crossing point, option of upgrading the existing bridge, loss of trees, funding, flawed traffic analysis specifically with regard to HGV’s, traffic delays from personal experience, reduced amenity for residents along the R494 and that the land take, particularly on the west side of the road is excessive. Mr Pollard stated that the scheme would benefit long distance journeys to and from west Clare _ M7 and would result in traffic diversion from the Limerick tunnel.

Mr Richard O’Toole (CPO Ref. 133) gave evidence. Mr O’Toole is the owner and occupier of the property on the western side of the proposed river crossing which is proposed to be acquired to facilitate the scheme. The submission of Mr O’Toole questioned the route selection process and the justification / basis for the proposed route. It was suggested that the initial planning related to the bridge / river crossing and that the by pass followed this with no coherence. The alternative route 6 to south of Clarisford was the preferred option but changed following an April 2005 meeting of councillors and that the notes from this meeting should be required by way of discovery. The traffic figures and analysis were queried and the impact on the SAC and species, specifically Kingfisher questioned and the consideration of alternatives that don’t impact as severely on SAC not examined in sufficient detail. The absence of a funding commitment and the potential impact on property owners and the implications for compensation and serving of Notice to treat / valuation date

An Bord Pleanala Page 60 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

was highlighted. In response to a question from Mr Sweetman, Mr O’Toole stated that access to his site was provided to council officials on one occasion and also to a woman undertaking a bat survey.

Mr Sweetman then addressed a number of questions to the applicant relating to the attenuation of road drainage from the R494 and the location of a number of outfalls of this drainage.

Mr Fitzsimmons of IFI then presented a second submission ( Item B8 ) referred to above.

Mr Searson for Mr Rea’s clients then made a submission regarding noise and vibration at a number of properties along the route. The submission of Mr Searson was based on noise assessment undertaken the results of which are given in evidence tabbed Item C2 and accompanying photographs (tabbed Item C1 ). Mr Searson gave evidence that in his opinion the standards set out in the NRA Guidance were not appropriate for a location such as Killaloe / Ballina where there is a generally low level of existing noise at many receptors and made suggestions of noise attenuation measures that could be implemented at various locations to mitigate both construction and operational noise. Mr Searson’s presentation was followed by questioning of Ms Harmon . Regarding questions relating to specific locations along the route and the provision of permanent noise attenuation measures, the basic response of Ms Harmon was that such structures would only be considered in locations where it was not feasible to meet the NRA noise limits under Lden and that the modelling exercise did not indicate any such locations. Mr Sweetman questioned the procedure when the specified limits were broken and enforcement of same and also relating to interactions between noise and ecology (Mr Murphy) and architectural heritage. Mr Brown had questions relating to the survey points and noted that S07 appeared to be missing from Fig. 7.3.1 and 7.3.2. It was also clarified to Mr Brown that the 2009 noise survey undertaken is the most recent such survey. Mr Brown raised questions relating to the NRA methodology and contended that under the Environmental Transport Noise Directive it was appropriate for countries that have no national computational standard (such as Ireland) to use the methodology set out at Annex II, which makes reference to the French method of calculation and makes no reference to CRTN. He also contended that the 2004 NRA Guidelines on Noise and Vibration does not support the approach used.

Day 5 - Friday 12 th October

Mr O’Donnell on behalf of the Sinnhoffers’ (CPO Ref. 106) had questions for the applicant and expert witnesses. The following issues were amongst those covered in the questioning. Regarding funding, Mr Conroy stated that funding was in place to advance planning and that it was understood that the scheme was no. 3 on a priority list for regional routes within the department. The extent of rock removal was noted and Mr O’Donnell contended that on its own this work would require an EIS and that the submitted EIS deficient in this regard. Also questioned how clarity regarding the treatment of material / overburden could be given when no information regarding sequencing or funding. Storage was stated by Mr Conroy to be in the compound or at other locations along route where there was a requirement for fill and that the contractor would have to comply with the mitigation measures contained in the EIS. Mr Conroy also confirmed that the water table will not be breached. Mr Cawley for

An Bord Pleanala Page 61 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

the applicant stressed that the aquifer was poor and that high volumes of water would not be generated in the proposed cuttings. In response to a direct question, Mr Conroy stated that he could not state definitively that there would not be any blasting undertaken in the Ballyvally area and that there were alternative blasting techniques available, such as chemical blasting. Mr Conroy also made reference to the fact that there would likely be a crusher and grader in the main site compound and in response to a question from Mr O’Donnell stated that there was no specific reference to this fact in the EIS. Mr O’Donnell stated that if the processes were not detailed then there could not be an adequate consideration of significant environmental effects as required. Reference was made to photographs of trees in the curtilage of Clarisford House which were submitted by Mr Sweetman ( Item C25 ) showing their proximity to the proposed alignment. Mr Murphy stated that he considered that these trees were sufficiently removed from the CPO line to ensure protection. In response to questions, Ms Taylor confirmed that the canal was not referenced as a protected structure in the EIS and stated that the impact on this structure was direct, negative and significant and not profound as it was not of national or international importance.

Mr O’Donnell proceeded with questions for Ms Taylor relating to qualifications, the procedure for listing and curtilage, specifically in the context of Ballyvally House. Mr O’Donnell questioned how if there were works to elements within the curtilage of the protected structure at Ballyvally that the assessment of a moderate impact could be justified. Mr O’Donnell queried how statements in the EIS relating to the removal of the least number of trees possible was adequate and got confirmation from Mr Boyle that no tree survey had been undertaken to date.

Mr O’Donnell then made a submission to the hearing. This stressed how there were three distinct processes relating to CPO, EIA and habitats. Regarding the CPO it was stated that demand does not exist and therefore there is no need for the scheme. The NRA objections were noted and the potential cost implications for the taxpayer. Doubts regarding the traffic figures raised during the hearing and the entire basis for the scheme is in error and statements of council that basis of EIS assessment not altered is not correct. The validity of the traffic model was questioned. It was asserted that the scheme is in clear contravention of the development plan as it relates to protected structures. With regard to the EIS it was stated that the public participation requirements of the directive have not been met arising from the changes made and that the document gives an inadequate account of the nature of the proposed works and is not consistent with art 1(a) of the Sixth schedule of the 2001 Regulations and that the process of likely significant effects and mitigation has not been adequately followed. The lack of clarity regarding the excavated material, rock extraction, piling works are among those noted and there has not been provision for the public to engage as required on these issues. The idea that standards for dust, noise etc. set and that compliance with these is sufficient for mitigation is not accepted. The noise assessment should have incorporated the French method and accounted for background noise / context. The analysis regarding material assets only covered agricultural lands and no proper analysis of cultural heritage. On habitats, any damage to the integrity of the site prevents the development being permitted and the Supreme Court referral on this issue was noted. The proposed development impacts on a priority habitat and will result in the total destruction of that habitat and breach of the directive. The compensatory measures proposed are ad hoc and under Art. 6(4) can only arise in relation to human health and public safety.

An Bord Pleanala Page 62 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Mr Sweetman then had questions for Mr Cawley and Mr Brennan on Water and Hydrology . These questions related to the proposed works within Fort Henry estate to which Mr Flanagan stated that the proposed works were precautionary should cleaning be required. In the Ballyvally area, Mr Cawley confirmed that the direction of groundwater movement was towards the river and that the area of recharge to the west of the cutting was narrow with the result that there would not be any impact on the ponds in Ballyvally Estate. In response to questions from Mr Brown and Mr Morrissey, it was stated by Mr Cawley that the use of 1:50 year flood event design is a standard practice and that when combined with the low flow in River then is acceptable. The large base flow in the Shannon is such that the additional discharge is relatively insignificant. Mr Cawley also stated that he was not concerned with issues relating to rock slurry or contaminants impacting on groundwater in the cuttings however disposal of waters to surface waters is a potential issue. Interceptor drains would be utilised and mitigation outlined in 7.5 of EIS. It was also stated that the mitigation measures regarding the proposed storage compound was set out at 3.7 of the EIS.

Day 6 - Monday 15 th October

Proceedings opened with questions from Mr Sweetman to Mr Brennan regarding water and hydrology. Contended that the proposed compensatory habitat at the western end is not wet while it is wet at the eastern end and that Mr Murphy could not have been certain regarding the compensatory habitat when he gave evidence as required under the Waddenzee judgement.

A list of survey dates undertaken by Mr Murphy on the site was submitted to the hearing. This is tabbed Item A13 in the attached documents.

Proceedings continued with questioning of Mr Murphy relating to surveys undertaken. It was confirmed that the survey for Kingfisher concentrated c. 50 metres up and down stream of the proposed bridge crossing and that outside of that area there was abundant habitat for Kingfisher. Mr Murphy also confirmed that he was satisfied with regard to the impact of the development on Kingfisher and with the culvert design. Regarding the culvert design and dimensions, Mr Conroy stated that the dimensions had been agreed between waterways Ireland and RPS when they were working on the project. In response to questioning regarding access for Mr Kikkers sailing boat, Mr Conroy stated that Figure 2.3 of the EIS shows how access is available from both ends of the canal. Mr Sweetman stated that this is not correct as downstream the canal was not navigable. Mr Conroy appeared to suggest that these obstructions could be removed however the fact that it is within a SAC was highlighted by Mr Sweetman.

There followed a discussion between Mr Sweetman and Mr Flanagan regarding the provisions of Art. 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive . The basis of Mr Sweetmans argument was that the Board has to find with reasonable scientific certainty that there is no adverse effect on the SAC and that mitigation measures are only available when move to Article 6(4). Mr Sweetman also noted that the issue as to what constituted an adverse impact on the integrity of a European site is the subject of current referral to European court and noted that the wording of Art. 6(4) makes reference to situations where there is no alternative solution. It is contended that this is not the case with the subject proposal as there is the option of the

An Bord Pleanala Page 63 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

redevelopment of the existing bridge / addition of a pedestrian walkway to the bridge. In response, Mr Flanagan highlighted to the hearing that the applicant has produced a Natura Impact Statement and that the area in question is located outside of the boundary of the c.SAC. The site has been assessed and there is wet woodland that conforms with priority habitat on one side of the CPO line and it is the opinion of the applicant that the integrity of the site is not being impacted upon. Mr Flanagan stated that the applicant is replying on Article 6(3) and the matter is one for the Board to determine in its assessment. Mr Flanagan also made the point that under Irish regulations, it is open to have regard to conditions or limitations. In response Mr Sweetman stated that as the applicant is an emanation of the State, Irish regulations are not relevant and that European law and case law takes precedence. He also stated that there was a duty on the State to designate all relevant habitat and that it is not open to the State to use incompetence as a defence in this regard and that there was a duty on the NPWS to progress the designation of this area. With regard to scientific certainty as required under Art. 6(3), Mr Murphy highlighted other bridge projects that he had been involved in, notably in the University of Limerick, which were more sensitive that the subject site and where continuous monitoring over a five year period had concluded that there was no habitat loss or significant adverse impact. This is cited as the basis for scientific certainty.

Discussion moved on to the survey of the island and the installation of the culvert in the canal. In response to a question, Mr Brennan stated that the installation of the culvert in the canal will require the excavation of the canal and that the depth of the excavation would be c. 2 – 3 metres in depth. It was stated by Mr Conroy that the relevant section of the EIS regarding the installation of the culvert was 7.5.8 and that there would be a bund used to close off the canal. Regarding the navigation rights over the canal, Mr Flanagan contended that is a public right and not specific to individual property owners with access to the canal. Mr Sweetman noted that this issue was not addressed in the human beings section of the EIS.

Questions of Mr Murphy related to Kingfisher and it was stated that there was no suitable habitat on the western side of the island within the c. 50 metres up and downstream of the alignment that was surveyed in detail. Questions followed related to pine martin and deer (in the Ballyvally area). It was clarified in response to questions that the ponds in the Ballyvally estate were not examined by Mr Murphy and neither were buildings on the Ballyvally Estate.

Mr Morrissey had questions for Mr Murphy. It was confirmed that the analysis undertaken by Mr Murphy assumed complete annihilation within the identified construction compound. General construction activity was assumed within the compound and the impact of blasting was considered to be temporary and not significant. Mr Murphy also stated that noise impacts were taken into account in the assessment undertaken of ecology and reference was specifically made to Item No.6 of the Response to FI. In response to a question from Mr Rea it was confirmed by Mr Murphy that there were no vermin control measures proposed however it was not considered that this would be a major problem. Mr Brown noted to the hearing that objectors (Mr and Mrs Pollard) had identified Whooper swan in the vicinity of their dwelling. Mr Murphy responded that the area around the proposed route was not a suitable habitat for Whooper Swan. Mr Brown highlighted what he considered to be deficiencies in the interactions section of the EIS (Table 12.1) where ecology is indicated as only having an interaction with hydrogeology and geology and questioned compliance with the requirements of Art. 5 of the Directive. Mr Murphy

An Bord Pleanala Page 64 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

stated that this was a summarised matrix and Mr Flanagan highlighted that the interactions were addressed in more detail in the individual chapters.

In response to a question as to whether stone would be crushed at Ballyvally in the cutting or in the compound, it was stated by Mr Conroy that crushing activity could be at the cutting or at an alternative location along the route. It was also stated by Mr Conroy that the rock volumes were more c.95,000 – 10,000 tonnes and that may be deposited at various locations along the route.

Mr Sweetman had questions for Ms Taylor relating to Fort Henry and Ballyvally House. It was conformed that the EIS was not updated or revised to reflect the fact that Fort Henry was included on the RPS prior to the publication of the EIS. Mr Sweetman submitted photographs of the lands within Fort Henry estate ( Items C3 – C7 ). Discussion ensued regarding the section of the stream within Fort Henry that is proposed to be included within the CPO (temporary acquisition). The need for this was questioned by Mr Sweetman and in response to a question from Mr Flanagan, it was confirmed that it was requested that this area be omitted from the CPO. Mr Conroy committed to examining the scope for accommodating a larger drain at the road crossing point to alleviate flooding / backup at this point. In response to a question from the inspector, it was stated that the road would be raised at this point and that it was envisaged that the increased level of the road would facilitate the insertion of a culvert of adequate dimensions to alleviate flooding at this point.

In response to questions from Mr Brown, Ms Taylor stated that the Brian Boru site was not assessed as it was outside of the study area. Mr Brown questioned the consistency of the approach taken in architecture and architectural heritage where locations outside the study area were specifically identified and flagged as significant while the towns of Ballina / Killaloe were not identified at all even though Ms Taylor admitted at the hearing that she considers that both towns are significant from a cultural heritage perspective.

Tuesday 16 th October – Day 7

Mr Morrissey had questions for the applicant in relation to the vertical and horizontal tolerances on the road alignment. Mr Flanagan stated that the appointed contractor will be bound by the approval and that changes may be possible but only where there will not be an environmental impact arising. It was confirmed that the type of build contract has not be determined at this stage and Mr Morrissey stated it was important this information be before the Board. A variation of 200mm horizontally and 300mm vertically was suggested by Mr Morrissey. Mr Morrissey noted that there were schools on both sides of the bridge and that the scope for a reduction in pedestrian traffic using the bridge therefore limited. Mr Morrissey also noted that there was no information available with regard to alternative within the CPO corridor / preferred corridor identified. With regard to septic tanks and connection to drainage, in response to a question from the inspector it was stated by Mr Conroy that connection to mains drainage is an option. Regarding the planning status of relocated / reconfigured tanks and systems, it was stated by the applicant that such works (scheme works) would be exempt under this permission. Mr Morrissey continued questioning relating to, inter alia, rock and spoil and storage along the route, the ability of the contractor to acquire additional lands outside of the scheme boundary, and shadow studies relating to embankment areas. In relation to

An Bord Pleanala Page 65 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

this latter issue it was stated by the applicant that such studies were not done however it is not considered that this would be a significant impact. Mr Morrissey requested that the option of use of LED lighting would be examined.

Mr Morrissey proceeded to outline the negative impact of the proposed scheme on the property of Mr Roy Benson (CPO Ref. 136) and particularly the access to existing garages on site and connection to the adjoining property. Discussion ensued regarding the possible impact of the removal of the cycleway in this location and Mr Brown suggested that the abrupt stopping of the cycleway in this location was not ideal practice. The option of the cycleway being reduced in extent in this location was raised by Mr Flanagan and the Inspector sought clarification from the applicant as to whether they were seeking this change to the scheme however no direct response was provided.

Mr Brian Smith made a submission to the hearing on behalf of Dr Krup of Clarisford House . The submission raised concerns regarding the length of time the scheme has been proposed and uncertainty. The various proposals for rock extraction / blasting were noted, noise guidelines questioned and issues regarding the site compound and restoration of same highlighted. The lack of information relating to the canal was highlighted. Stated that lands to the front of Clarisford are intrinsic part of the house and will be impacted. Noted that 5 rental houses located within the site and no reference to these in EIS and that if crushing was allowed in compound will have vacant units. Noise will be an issue and cant change single glaze windows as is a protected structure. Considered that road arrangement in vicinity of palace and the school drop off area is dangerous and access not adequate for the Clarisford Park development.

Mr Brown asked questions of Ms Gavin relating to Air Quality and raised issues regarding the air quality regulations now in force (SI 180 of 2011) which repeals the 2002 Regulations. Also questioned reference to the 2008 Poznan meeting on climate change – 3 meetings since then. Mr Brown also questioned where the assessment of SO2 and lead was undertaken by Directive 2008/50/EC. In response to a question, it was confirmed by the applicant that the Dust Minimisation Plan referred to in Ms Gavin’s Brief of Evidence will be undertaken by the contractor.

Mr Flanagan raised the issue of the sending of text message by Mr Rea to Mr Liam Brown, a valuer retained by the Council in which Mr Rea gave instructions to his team to prolong the hearing and be obstructive. Mr Flanagan stated to the hearing that he had been requested by the Clare County manager to place their concerns regarding this incident on the record of the hearing.

Haring continued with questioning of Mr Ball (Traffic ). In response to questions, Mr Ball confirmed that a registration plate survey was undertaken, that journey purpose was not examined and that he was not aware of any specific events in the area at the time the surveys were undertaken. Mr Bell stated that a survey of origin and destinations was not considered necessary due to the limited extent of the study area. This was refuted by Mr Brown who stated that the NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines indicate that surveys should be used. Mr Brown also highlighted the discrepancy regarding the reduction in traffic on the existing bridge which Table 5.1 indicates as c. 50 percent (8,163 to 4,044) while the brief of evidence states that the reduction is c.40 percent. Mr Brown also highlighted the fact that the displacement from the old bridge is more than offset with the increase on the new route and that it

An Bord Pleanala Page 66 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

appears that there will be traffic attracted into the area. In response, Mr Bell stated that the model was for AM and PM peaks and that the AADT involves a factoring up of values as there will be more vehicles capable of being accommodated through the network. In response to a question, Mr Bell stated that he did not believe that there would be any impact arising from the Limerick tunnel and any diversion from same. It was confirmed by Mr Conroy that all links in the network will operate within capacity in the design years and that there was no specific analysis of modal split re pedestrians or cyclists.

Mr Benson had questions for Mr Bell . Mr Benson cited his experience of travelling between his dwelling and the Scariff Road where he works on the northern side of the town and the lack of delays. Regarding HGV’s Mr Bell confirmed that the applicant did not have information regarding where the HGVs entered and exited the town. Mr Benson contended that the HGVs would use the tunnel and not the bridge in Killaloe however Mr Conroy noted the fact that the Limerick tunnel opened in July 2010 and the survey in Killaloe was undertaken in September 2011. Mr Benson took issue with Mr Conroy’s statement that traffic connecting the densest population area on the Ballina side of the river and schools on the Killaloe side would use the proposed new bridge.

Wednesday 17 th October – Day 8

Mr Crowley made a submission to the hearing on behalf of two clients. Mr O’Brien (CPO No. 191) has a dwelling on the R494 between the Kilmastulla R. crossing and the railway crossing. Mr Crowley highlighted concerns regarding shadowing from the embankment, access to the property and drainage at this location. Mr Conroy for the applicant stated that the junction design proposed can accommodate all vehicle types and that two normal sized vehicles can pass. There could be a lay by provided. Mr Conroy also stated that there will be safety barriers provided at the top of the embankment and that there will be pre and post construction surveys undertaken.

Mr Crowley for Mr Peter Egan (CPO No. 107) (who owns agricultural lands along the proposed by pass route) objected to the proposal on the basis that his dairy farm of c.120 acres will be severed at this location. Specifically, it was contended that 53 acres would not be accessible to the herd as there is a disconnect between the existing route used to move cattle which is severed by the proposed alignment. Mr Egan also set out concerns with regard to the open sloping nature of the field to the south west of the Ballyvally cutting and lack of a flat area for the safe operation of agricultural machinery and that the aerial photograph was not accurate in this area.

Mr Ashley Poynton then gave evidence to the hearing. A copy of Mr Poynton’s evidence is enclosed as Item C8 . The submission highlighted, inter alia, the errors, omissions and revisions to the EIS, the landscape impact and passage of route through last untouched woodland in the town, that the economy and opening of M7 and Limerick tunnel mean the scheme is no longer valid, absence of traffic detail in EIS, inaccuracies in assessment and variation in figures now submitted from those in EIS, lack of accident data and change in accident statistics in last 10 years. The costs to the taxpayer arising from the inaccurate traffic assessment were highlighted as was the potential environmental impact from road runoff. Concerns regarding the potential runoff to Lough Derg and the wet woodland to the east of Ballyvally particularly highlighted. The flora and fauna sections of the EIS are considered to be

An Bord Pleanala Page 67 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

unclear regarding survey methodology and access and inadequate detail regarding other mammals (e.g. pinemartin). Inadequate detail regarding blasting and transportation / processing of materials and the project should not be phased. The lack of clarity regarding levels is not acceptable.

Questions were invited of Dr Porter of AWN Consulting with regard to Noise . In response to questions from Mr Brown, Dr Porter stated that the most up to date air quality regulations were those from 2011, that he undertook the air quality assessment in 2009 and that this was pre the transposition of the directive 2008/50/EC. Dr Porter also stated that the relevant limit values for the subject proposal had not changed and that if he was to undertake the assessment again it would be the same. Dr Porter also stated that lead was not considered to be significant and was screened out in the assessment and that NOx is referred to in s. 7.4.7 of the EIS and is only relevant to ecologically sensitive areas. With regard to information and alert thresholds contained in Schedule 5 and 12 of the 2011 regulations, Dr Porter considered that these related to the EPA and come into play when there is a significant exceedance of an air quality standard. Dr Porter also stated that SO2, lead and ozone were not important in relation to a scheme such as that proposed and that this view was supported by the EPA.

Evidence was presented to the hearing by Ms Elaine Carway of Ballyvally House. This evidence is attached as Item C9. Ms Caraway outlined concerns in relation, inter alia, to the availability of the revised traffic information, the lack of congestion and therefore lack of need, the impact of the projected 500 HGV’s, the impact on the Ballyvally gate lodge from the road due to proximity and relative levels, unfair and biased nature of the hearing proceedings, impact of blasting on the stone and rubble foundations of the house, impact on the landscape outside the CPO take, the unsafe and unfit evidence of Mr Murphy regarding ecology which should be removed from the EIS and redacted from the record. Regarding Ms Taylor’s evidence submitted that she had inadequate competency and errors / inconsistencies in the assessment mean that this evidence should also be redacted from the record of the hearing.

The hearing continued with questions for Mr Boyle relating to Landscape . In response to questions from Mr Sweetman, Mr Boyle clarified that there was no assessment undertaken of the loss of light to Mr Benson’s property (CPO No. 136). In response to questions from Mr Morrissey it was stated that there was no detailed height information regarding spoil heaps / site compounds however a worst case scenario of c.8-10 metres was taken for the assessment of construction stage visual / landscape impacts and that there was no assessment of temporary spoil heaps outside of the CPO line. Mr Morrissey also raised a question relating to the location of a retention pond located to the east of the Ballyvally roundabout on the scheme and noted that this blocked access to zoned lands and would access to these lands be provided / facilitated from this roundabout ? In response, Mr Conroy for the applicant stated that it would not be normal practice for access to such lands to be provided.

Mr Morrissey then made a submission on behalf of Mr Patrick O’Dowd (CPO Ref. 149). This submission was accompanied by photographs that are attached with this report as Item C10 . This submission detailed how Mr O’Dowd is involved in the training of guide dogs and requested that the boundary of the property would be upgraded to provide a 2.5 – 2.7 metre high stone wall to match that on the adjoining property and that the this would be back planted with a hedge.

An Bord Pleanala Page 68 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Discussion returned to the Fort Henry area and Mr Brennan for the applicant gave more detailed information to the hearing in relation to the level of the pond at c. 0+950 on the R494 and that the pond outlet / invert level was at 31.20 m.OD Malin. This led to a discussion between the applicant and Mr Sweetman regarding the relative level of the outfall from this retention pond and the level of the R Shannon. In summary, it was submitted that the level of the Shannon is c.30.86 OD Malin and that there is scope for this level to vary and to rise by up to 800mm. Such a raised level would mean that the level of the river would be above that of the retention pond outfall. It was stated by the applicants that it was understood that there was some form of control on the stream outfalling to the Shannon in this area however none was detailed and none was visible from the photographs submitted by Mr Sweetman. It was also clarified that the area / extent of the survey carried out by the applicant only extended to the confluence of the two streams that are located within the Fort Henry estate lands. The applicant subsequently submitted a copy of this survey information on 18 th October and this information is attached as Item C11 . The survey was stated by Mr Conroy to indicate a fall of c. 700mm from the road to the point of the confluence of the two streams in Fort Henry. Mr Sweetman submitted that the fall in the stream along the complete runs within Ft. Henry was of the order of 100mm.

A submission was made by Cathy Pollard (CPO No. 155) and set out concerns regarding the impact of the scheme on trees along the R494. Stated that no assessment of the impact of the scheme on the water table, or on septic tanks and that the visual impact of loss of trees not adequately covered in EIS. Many bird species as well as wild orchids in this area and not adequately addressed. Photographs of the area in question were submitted to the hearing and are attached, tabbed Item C12 .

Mr Roy Benson (CPO 136) made a submission to the hearing. A copy of the text of this submission is included as Item C.13 . A photograph of the rear garden of Mr Benson’s property submitted to the hearing is attached as Item C14 . The submission raised issues relating to traffic, volumes of traffic / queuing, traffic assessment and survey work and a requirement for further survey work to be undertaken. Both Mr Benson and his son outlined how they crossed the existing bridge at least 4 times a day and that the delays were not as set out by the applicant. Stated that the 6% HGV content recorded in the traffic surveys hard to believe. Traffic had reduced due to closure of Finsa plant, the downturn in the economy and opening of the Limerick tunnel. Don’t accept improved safety on R494 or the existing bridge and there would be diversions from national to regional roads that would reduce safety. Route selection process questionable and issue of discovery regarding councillors meeting raised by Mr O’Toole supported. An extract from the Route Selection Report indicating support for route option 6 over 7c was submitted and is attached, tabbed Item C15 . That cost appears to have been the over riding factor in the decision made and that route option 8, outside of the SAC was not costed. Alternative crossing points that did not impact on the SAC and trees should have been examined first. The land take proposed would increase noise and result in loss of privacy and the impact on the western side of the road is disproportionate relative to the eastern. The land take to the field adjoining the house is excessive and the impact on the rear garden from noise, dust and overlooking very significant. Funding not available and proceeding with CPO attempt to purchase at reduced values.

An Bord Pleanala Page 69 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Mr Morrissey made a submission on behalf of Mr Benson setting out the issues with his property. This report and accompanying photographs are attached as Item C16 . This submission included proposals for the omission of the cycle lane and the possible relocation of the roundabout slightly to the east that would significantly reduce the impact on Mr Benson and Mr Young’s properties.

Mr Sweetman made his main submission to the hearing on behalf of his clients. The submission was based around 12 documents submitted in support of the case presented and these documents as submitted are attached in a folder, tabbed Item C17 . The submission of Mr Sweetman has been transferred to text by stenography and is attached and is tabbed Item C.18 . The points raised in the submission include, inter alia, the limitations regarding compliance conditions, that when a priority site is identified that there is an onus to designate and that the get outs provided for in Art. 6(3) do not apply until such time as the area in question is incorporated into a SAC / fully designated.

Thursday 18th October – Day 9.

Mr Morrissey had a number of questions of the applicant relating to major accident provisions and costs relating to the scheme and the consultants involved.

Mr Beck ( Planning , Tipperary County Council) was the subject of questioning . In response to questions from Mr Sweetman Mr Beck stated that it was not possible to isolate any individual policy without looking at the entirety of the Plan and the context. This point was reinforced by Mr Flanagan. In response to a question from Mr Brown, it was stated that the project was not specifically referred to in Transport 21. Mr Flanagan stated that the Department of Transport had a priority list that indicated Edenderry – Enfield as the first regional project, a commitment of funding for the construction of the 1.7km Limerick Northern Distributor Road from Coonagh to Knockalisheen, Meelick as the second project and the subject scheme as the third on the list. Mr Flanagan stated that this list was not a public document. Mr Beck outlined how 650,000 had been spent on cycle facilities on the old N7 route and that the link to Ballina would be important. He stated in response to a question that it would be both a tourism and a community facility and refuted suggestions from Mr Brown that the cycle network proposed would bypass the town. With regard to statements that the cycle network was resulting in excessive land take, and that alternatives such as the disused railway line should have been examined, Mr Conroy stated that ownership of this route was disputed in some locations and that it was not a serious alternative.

Mr Brown made his verbal submission to the hearing on behalf of his clients and a transcript of his submission is attached tabbed Item C19 . The issues covered in the submission can be summarised as follows:

• The adequacy of the EIS and the absence of all underlying data. • Changes made to the EIS and public notification requirements and the restriction on the use of compliance conditions to supplement an inadequate EIS. Significant additional data has been submitted rather than merely supplemental information.

An Bord Pleanala Page 70 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• The inadequate consideration of alternatives in the EIS. Environmental impacts or effects of the alternatives has to be taken into account under Art.5(3)(d) of the codified EIA directive and should be included in the EIS. • The information relating to the alternative of the widening of the existing bridge not publically available and information out of date. • Lack of clarity regarding how the final route option was selected, (route 6 versus route 7). A multi criteria assessment resulted in the selection of 7c but no information provided regarding this assessment. • Should have been a recent consultation for the whole / integrated scheme. • Requirement for an EIA to be undertaken. • Use of compliance conditions to complete an inadequate EIS not permissible under circular letter PL/07 however a dust minimisation plan is proposed post consent. • That the ecological assessment of the wet woodland habitat was inadequate as access to all the lands in question was not undertaken and the consent of landowners was not obtained. • That the site in question on the western bank of the river has not been designated a SCI or adopted as a SAC however it is an Annex I priority habitat and is therefore entitled to general protection under Art.2 of the Habitats Directive. • That sufficient evidence has been presented to the hearing that there is reasonable scientific doubt that this site is an Annex I priority habitat. This site should be notified to the commission and if found to comply with the characteristics of priority habitat should be adopted as a SAC. • That case C-244/05 implies that there is an implicit obligation on member states to undertake ‘appropriate protective measures’ to maintain the ecological characteristics of the site prior to any adoption. • Inadequate assessment of interactions. Table 12.1 is inadequate. • That the noise assessment is deficient. Location S06 could not be found. The site of the two unattended locations is not clear. The use of the CRTN method of assessment is not appropriate as the Irish regulations (that state that either the CRTN or French method of assessment can be used) have not correctly transposed the Noise Directive that states at Annex II that the recommended interim computational method for member states that have no national standard is the French Computational method (NMPB96). • That additional 24 hour monitoring points should have been used along the route rather than just two locations and the requirements of the NRA Guidelines (2004) indicate that more points should have been used. • That the EIS has not been updated to take account of the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2011 which gives effect to Directive 2008/50/EC. • That the issue as to whether the 2011 regulations materially changed the requirements was not addressed by the applicant and there is not an onus on the objectors to identify the specific areas where the assessment contained in the EIS was not consistent with the 2011 Regulations. • The air quality assessment should have been updated since 2009. • That convincing evidence has been presented regarding what constitutes congestion at the existing bridge. • That the evidence presented indicates that the existing bridge is a protected structure and cannot be widened. It is assumed that this is a technical restriction as under the act, provision for the alteration of a structure could be made.

An Bord Pleanala Page 71 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• That the traffic assessment figures presented have been challenged by peoples evidence to the hearing and are not convincing. Evidence also provided that the level of HGV use of the bridge has significantly reduced since the Shannon tunnel opened. • That the Board should commission its own survey data. • That the traffic survey undertaken uses AADT figures from automatic number plate recognition. The NRA states that this method does not take account of fluctuations / variations in traffic flow and is not therefore very use for capacity design and a second parameter (30 th highest hour) is needed. This was not done. • That the traffic information is not broken down per mode of traffic surveyed in 2011. Roadside interviews should have been the chosen method of data collection and the would have given data re cycling and trip purpose that would have indicated demand for the cycle routes proposed. • That despite the contention of the applicants that the revised figures have not changed the assessment / EIS, the figure have clearly changed substantially. • The data indicates that there will be a significant increase in the volume of traffic attracted / induced to the local area however it is unclear from the analysis whether this will be diverted from the Shannon tunnel. • That no assessment of the monetary benefits of accidents has been provided despite a methodology for this being provided for in the 2009 Guidelines on a common appraisal Framework. • That the CBA has not taken account of indirect costs and the requirements of accommodation works. • No clear funding commitment. • That the cycle network is not an urban network but one appended to a busy regional road and which has poor design aspects to it. The alternative cycle routes were not examined and the scheme is not consistent with the National Cycle Manual.

Mr O’Connor made a submission to the hearing and the contents of this submission which relates primarily to the impact of the proposal on property rights, is set out at Item C20.

Mr Flanagan then made a submission to the hearing on behalf of the Clare VEC / St. Anne’s College. Mr Flanagan submitted a copy of an e mail to the Council that states that the college still consider that the proposed drop off / lay by area would generate a traffic hazard and that it should not be constructed. The letter also states that the VEC accept that the access to the school lands requested is not possible at this time. Mr Flanagan stated that it was still the intention of the applicant that the CPO line would be maintained in this area and that this would give a margin of appreciation in respect of the opposite side of the road (Clarisford Palace).

Mr Conroy made a submission in response to issues raised previously by Mr Benson clarifying HGV turning movements in each direction at the ends of the bridge. Travelling west from Ballina to Killaloe, 30 percent of HGVs head towards Scariff and 70 percent towards Limerick. The other way, travelling from the Killaloe side across the bridge to Ballina, Mr Conroy stated that 10 percent of HGV traffic went north and 90 percent went south towards Birdhill. Noted by Mr Benson that the 70 percent towards Limerick was in competition with the tunnel.

An Bord Pleanala Page 72 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Mr Crowley made a submission to the hearing on behalf of his clients. Support points made by Mr Brown and Sweetman. Noted that impasse reached regarding indemnification for those affected by CPO.

Mr Rea then made a submission. This included an amendment to the CPO schedule in relation to the lands of the Shanahan family to correct some errors re ownership. This submission and the text of Mr Rea’s submission is included as Item C22 . Mr Rea noted that boundaries of 3 properties at river crossing (Kikkers, Elliotts and O’Toole) were incorrectly shown and being corrected at present. Noted the fact that the council had not engaged with the objectors and the deficiencies in the EIS. Mr Rea requested that the period for the removal of objections to the CPO should be extended by four months and stated that many of the CPO objections would be removed / fall if the indemnification issue was agreed. Mr Elliotts property specifically referred to and stated that the permission for this property should have been cancelled rather than allowing him to build on the site.

Mr Morrissey made a submission to the Board reiterating concerns regarding the EIS, traffic, blasting , safety and the cost / financing of the scheme among other issues.

Mr Flanagan made a submission on behalf of the applicants. The submission addressed in some detail the issues that had arisen in the questioning and submissions from objectors. A total of 23 documents were submitted by Mr Flanagan with the submission and these are attached as Items D1 – D23 .

The following is a synopsis of the contents of this submission.

• That Art 6(5) of the EIA directive refers to either written submissions or public enquiry. That in the Irish situation there is a right for the public to make written submissions and also to make further submissions at the public enquiry. • That the Roads Act transposes the requirements of the Directive into law as it relates to this scheme type and to date no challenge to the transposition. S.50(2) sets out the information that an EIS shall contain. • That there is a measure of mitigation by avoidance during the design stage and mitigation by reduction. The information required to be contained relates to the main effects not every single piece of information that could possibly be relevant. • Noted that regarding alternatives s.50(2)(d) refers to ‘outline’ of alternatives and the ‘main reasons for its choice’ ‘taking into account the environmental effects.’ This is not just pure environmental factors but also human beings, social economics etc. • That what is required under s.50(3)(c) is a description of the forecasting methods used. This has been done. Also the last paragraph of s.50(3) states that information is relevant to the stage of the procedure and the characteristics of the road. There is therefore a degree of reasonableness in what should be assessed. • That s.51 of the act states that the person conducting the hearing will be entitled to hear evidence on the likely significant effects on the environment. That there is nothing in law that precludes further information, including further assessment being made at the oral hearing stage by any of the parties.

An Bord Pleanala Page 73 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• That the main effects were identified by the EIS and it is submitted that all parties are aware of the key issues in this case. • That it is open to persons to request amendments to the CPO in the form of less land take and this applies equally in the environmental area. Cites case of O’Connell v Minister for the Environment. • That the project is supported by local, regional and national level policy. It is also a duty of the Planning Authority to secure the objectives of the Plan and the plan should be interpreted in the round. • That the RPS study and the EIA report from 2000 came up with figures of c.5% HGV. • That in the event of the development there will be more trips because people / traffic will be able to move around more freely. • That the junction analysis shows junction capacities of c.1500 per hour and loadings of c.450 per hour. Mr Browns point regarding the appropriateness of using AADT methods is accepted however the analysis undertaken clearly shows that capacity at the peak hour is well within capacity at peak hours. • Accidents covered in s.5.4 of the EIS and this is not a situation of a national road so have been careful in the analysis undertaken. • That the dust minimisation plan referred to by objectors is at 7.4.1 of the EIS. The final plan will be developed in accordance with the standards set out at 7.4.1. The final plan is an implementation tool not a mitigation strategy. • That no protected structures are being demolished. Proposal does not do anything to protected structures, either internally or externally. • Reference to the Klohn judgement and reference in that to the decision makers being sufficiently informed of the relevant environmental factors. Specific reference to the fact that the EIS, while intended to be comprehensive, is the starting point in the investigation process (EIA). • Also noted that in terms of the consideration of alternatives, the Klohn judgement makes reference to the fact that the Act requires an outline of the main alternatives and reference is made to this being ‘loose and forgiving language’ and a ‘low threshold’. It is also stated that the consent procedure does not require the Board to carry out an EIA of alternatives. • Reference to the Kenny judgement regarding the adequacy of an EIS. • Reference to a case, Blewett v Derbyshire County Council which is referenced in the judgement of the Klohn case. Case shows that it is unrealistic to expect that an EIS will contain the full information and that the regulations recognise that and EIS may well be deficient and provide for this to be remedied. • That to go into the impact on every individual landowner would go beyond the minimum requirements of the directive. • Cited a case Malster v Ipswich Borough Council where the judgement stated that an EIS did not have to cover every environmental effect but only the main effects or likely significant effects. If this were not the case the public and the planning authority would be in danger of ‘losing the wood from the trees’. Submitted that looking at the receiving environment in the community sense of the word. • The case of Murphy v Wicklow County Council was cited and that there is no requirement that the EIS must be prepared to the level of final design drawings.

An Bord Pleanala Page 74 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• That the wet alluvial woodland area is outside of the SAC. The Habitats Directive does not therefore apply to it. Notwithstanding this, a NIS was produced. • That the mitigation measures regarding silt and other pollutants are methods that are established and not controversial. They are established technical solutions and the outcome is therefore predicted with confidence. • That Art. 177(v)(4) allows the Board to give consent where it has made modifications or attached conditions if it considers that the integrity of a European site. Specific attention is drawn to this. It is submitted that Mr Sweetmans contention that you must look at the potential effects without mitigation and that if they adversely affect a European site then you cant grant permission and you must go to Art 6(4) is not correct in a legal sense. • Reference is made to case C-177/11 (Syllogos v Ypourgos), the judgement of which at Pg.3 makes clear that as soon as a site is placed on the list……it shall be subject to article 6(2), 6(3) and 6(4). The wet woodland habitat in question is not subject to 6(2), 6(3) or 6(4) as it is not on any list. • That Waddenzee requires that there should be no reasonable scientific doubt. It does not require absolute certainty. By virtue of the mitigation measures and established techniques proposed it is submitted that there is a level of confidence such that there is no reasonable scientific doubt. • That the mitigation strategy submitted (with the submission from Mr Flanagan) is requested to be enshrined as a condition in any approval. Any contractors management plan or operational plan is about the successful implementation of these mitigation measures. The contractor has a choice of tool to comply with the standards / objectives set out but has to comply. • Regarding Air Quality, the assessment undertaken is consistent with the directive and the reference by Mr Brown to schedules 5 and 12 relate to activities / functions of the EPA. As the air quality monitoring agency and not to proposed road developments. • Regarding the CBA the absence of accident savings was acknowledged in the assessment. • Regarding stated preference surveys (as raised by Mr Brown) it is acknowledged that the applicant did their analysis under the Project Appraisal Guidelines of the NRA. Paragraph 3.4 mentions 4 methods that are acceptable, one of which is registration plate matching. There is also reference in that document to the fact that stated preference methods relate to the intention of trip makers when there are a number of options / choices and are most relevant in the planning of tolling schemes. • Regarding noise assessment, it is submitted that the Noise Directive does not mandate the manner that Mr Brown suggests that the French method be used. The directive states that pending the adoption of common assessments the methods set out in Part II of the Second Schedule and these identify CRTN or the French method. Noted that these refer to noise mapping and the only schemes they apply to are national ones. • Regarding the NRA and the issue of the Limerick tunnel, the comments of the NRA are on the file. The NRA does not state that it opposes the scheme but rather points out that there may be financial implications and that there are contract provisions. It is submitted that the financial implication is not a matter to inform the Board in its decision and there is no prevention on new schemes or replacements. It is in any event doubtful if the quotes from the contract apply as what is proposed is a replacement of an existing crossing.

An Bord Pleanala Page 75 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• Question for the Board. Is the current bridge and approach roads the way this area should remain for the next 30 or 40 years. • That there is a distinction between HGVs and HCV. HGVs identified in surveys at about 6 percent however HCVs at c.8 percent. • That there is no obligation under law to produce route selection reports / background reports however this has been done. • That it is the intention of the applicant to continue to liaise with the IFI post approval however that will be to ensure compliance with the mitigation proposals set out and enshrined in any approval that may be granted.

Closing submissions were made by the following: • Mr Morrissey, • Mr Rea, • Mr Sweetman • Mr O’Connor and • Mr Brown.

Written submissions provided in closing submissions are attached as Items tabbed E.

9.0 Assessment

The following are considered to be the main issues arising in consideration of the road scheme which is the subject of the application for approval:

• General Issues, • CPO Issues • Environmental Issues • EIA • Natura Impact Statement

9.1 General Issues

9.1.1 Procedural Issues

9.1.1.1 A number of procedural issues were raised by the parties during the course of the hearing. Some of these issues relate directly to specific items of evidence that were submitted to the hearing and to the evidence given by certain witnesses for the applicant. These issues will be addressed in the course of the assessment sections under the general headings of CPO, Environmental Issues, EIA and NIS that follow. The following comments relate to some of the general procedural issues and specifically those that arose at the early stages of the hearing.

9.1.1.2 During the course of the hearing, objectors made requests for a number of documents to be provided. A copy of the report on the existing bridge prepared by Michael Punch and Partners (1996) and an EIS of the Killaloe Bridge prepared for Michael Punch and Partners (2000) was requested from the applicants and was submitted during the course of the hearing. These items are attached with this report as Item F1 .

An Bord Pleanala Page 76 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.1.1.3 Requests were made for the compulsory attendance of expert witnesses from the NRA, CIE, ESB and the OPW. With regard to the NRA, it was contended that the NRA were clearly against the scheme as evidenced by the newspaper comments in the Irish Times of 10 th October, 2012, (attached as Item F2). When raised, the inspector informed the hearing that the concerns regarding the non attendance of the NRA were noted and would be brought to the attention of the Board. With regard to the NRA it was specifically noted by the inspector that a written submission had been made by the NRA and that this submission did not state that the authority were against the proposed scheme in principle. I am of the opinion that this remains the position notwithstanding the newspaper article of the 10 th October. The contents of the written submission of the NRA regarding the potential impact on existing PPP schemes and agreements that the authority has entered into are noted and will be addressed in more detail in the relevant sections below. With regard to the request that representatives of CIE attend the hearing, the hearing was informed that part of the lands proposed to be the subject of CPO from Iarnród Eireann was now to be omitted from the schedule and written agreement to this from Iarnród Eireann submitted (Item A12 ). Having regard to this, I do not consider that there is a requirement for the views of CIE to be sought. A specific request was made that the ESB would be requested to attend the hearing and that they would be in a position to clarify information relating to the level of the River Shannon and the consequent impact in terms of the periodic inundation of riverside areas and specifically the creation of wet woodland habitat. The issue of the river level will be addressed in detail in subsequent sections of the assessment however I note that there is publically available information regarding the river level and that it was not considered critical during the hearing that further clarity on this issue be sought.

9.1.1.4 At the outset of the hearing, I drew the attention of those present to the fact that revisions had been made to Figures 10.1 and 10.2 of the EIS (relating to changes in notation of locations of architectural and archaeological interest to match those contained in the EIS text) and also that copies of Figures 10.3 – 10.6 (inclusive) which had been omitted from the EIS document in error were now available for inspection. These figures relate to historical maps of the scheme environs connected with the archaeology and architectural heritage sections of the EIS. Questions were raised by objectors regarding the mechanism by which the revised figures were requested / provided to the Board and also the implications of the production of this information at this stage of the proceedings.

9.1.1.5 The omission of these figures (Fig 10.3 – 10.6) from the EIS was noticed in the weeks prior to the hearing and clarity as to whether this was an omission from the copies of the EIS submitted to the Board was sought from the applicant by way of e mail. Clarification was also sought with regard to whether the reference in Figs 10.1 and 10.2 (Archaeology, Architecture and Cultural Heritage) to reference points B should read H to be consistent with the EIS text. In response to this request for clarification, the applicant submitted revised copies of Figs 10.1 and 10.2 with the locations notated with the prefix ‘H’ and also submitted Figures 10.3 – 10.6 (inclusive) which show the 1787 Grand Jury Map of Killaloe, the 1840 Ordinance Survey map and the 1921 Ordinance Survey Map. From a review of the material submitted I decided that it was appropriate that reference be made at the start of the hearing that this information had been omitted in error and that it was available for inspection at the hearing and it was open to any party to comment upon the information provided. It was submitted that it was not appropriate for the hearing to proceed until such time

An Bord Pleanala Page 77 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

as the proper public notification procedures regarding the information presented had been completed and that it was inappropriate that the applicant be allowed to correct deficiencies in the application in the manner proposed. I did not, and still do not agree, that this is the case and consider that parties to the hearing had adequate opportunity to review the submitted material and make comments. As stated to the hearing, this matter is brought to the attention of the Board and parties were informed that the Board may decide that it is appropriate that a formal notification procedure regarding the submission of this information be undertaken.

9.1.1.6 The issue of the adequacy of the level of detail provided in the drawings has been questioned by parties including Mr Sweetman in questioning on 15 th October. Specifically, it was submitted that the level of detail provided may be acceptable for the purposes of EIA but not for appropriate assessment and the need for scientific certainty. A related issue was raised by Mr Richard Rea during the early stages of the hearing regarding cross section drawings and larger scale drawings which he had requested from the applicant prior to the commencement of the hearing and relating specifically to the area in the vicinity of the river crossing and adjacent properties. Mr Flanagan in his submission to the hearing and response to the objections, stated that case law shows that it is unrealistic to expect that an EIS will contain the full information or to go into the impact on every individual landowner would go beyond the minimum requirements of the directive. The case of Murphy v Wicklow County Council was cited which indicates that there is no requirement that the EIS must be prepared to the level of final design drawings. In general terms I would agree with the submissions made by Mr Flanagan with regard to the level of detail required to be submitted. In certain locations, notably the area of the river crossing and the embankments and wet woodland habitat in this general location that was discussed extensively at the time of the hearing, there is some merit in a larger scale of drawing to clarify boundaries / delineations between sites or areas and to assess potential impacts. This was done in the case of the wet woodland habitat area on the western bank of the Shannon in the form of the larger scale drawing submitted with the evidence of Mr Murphy the ecologist. Overall, I am satisfied that the scale of drawings and level of detail contained thereon is sufficient to comply with the requirements for the application and to determine and assess the likely significant effects arising.

9.1.1.7 The objectors have raised an issue with regard to the submission of revised traffic information during the course of the hearing, specifically the manner in which this was done and the implications for public notification. The scope of the information submitted was contended to constitute new information rather than clarification or elaboration of existing information in the EIS and that there were therefore issues regarding how the applicant was proposing the rectify what was contended to be a deficient EIS. Issues regarding traffic will be addressed in more detail in subsequent sections of this report, however this section seeks to clarify the approach and method by which the traffic information was presented and to address the issues raised by the objectors regarding the manner in which this was done and the implications for the process of assessment of the case.

9.1.1.8 At the initial presentations to the hearing there was considerable confusion regarding revised traffic figures. This issue was identified at the start of the hearing with the evidence presented by Mr Michael Conroy. Chapter 5 of the EIS states that traffic surveys were undertaken in 2008 and again in 2011. It is also stated in the text of Chapter 5 that the forecast traffic flows for 2017 and 2032 that are presented in

An Bord Pleanala Page 78 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Tables 5.2 and 5.3 of Chapter 5 are based on the survey information undertaken in 2011. Mr Conroy clarified in the course of his presentation that the forecast traffic flows contained in Chapter 5 of the EIS (Tables 5.2 and 5.3) were actually based on the 2008 survey data rather than the more up to date data from 2011. This issue was clarified by way of the submission of revised tables 5.2 and 5.3 showing the forecast traffic flows for the years 2017 and 2032 based on the more recent survey data from 2011 and copies of these amended Tables are attached with Item A1 which is Mr Conroy’s brief of evidence. In addition, Mr Conroy submitted a revised Figure 5.1 as the version of Fig. 5.1 in the EIS related to the 2008 survey data. The figures in the revised Fig. 5.1 (2011 AM / PM Peak Hour Flows) correspond with the 2011 survey figures contained in Table 5.1 of the EIS. At this stage, the objectors sought assurances from the applicant as to whether the revised figures contained in Tables 5.2 and 5.3 (Revised) required any amendment of the text of the EIS. It was stated by Mr Conroy that this was not the case. These revised Tables 5.2 and 5.3 were further amended on foot of information presented to the hearing on Day 2 (see item A11, Part 1 relating to Traffic Modelling and Survey Data). These further amendments primarily related to the 2032 design year on the existing Killaloe Bridge and the change in volumes were from 294 to 324 two way vehicles per hour in the AM peak and from 353 to 323 two way vehicles per hour in the PM peak. Question and considerable confusion arose as a result of the introduction of these revised figures. The figures given in Tables 5.2 and 5.3 (Revision A) were clarified and further revised in Tables 5.2 and 5.3 (Revision B) submitted to the hearing.

9.1.1.9 With regard to consistency of the revised figures presented in Items A1 and A11 with the text of Chapter 5 of the EIS, I note the comments made by the objectors, and particularly Mr Brown with regard to the compatibility of the two. Specifically, I note the fact that where paragraph 5.3.1 of the EIS states that the reduction of traffic on the existing bridge under the proposed scheme as against a ‘do minimum’ scenario will be c.40 percent in the design year (2032), the revised figures indicate that the level of reduction will actually be slightly in excess of 50 percent. I also note the fact that the text of Mr Conroy’s evidence (Item A1) makes reference to the fact that the reduction in traffic on the bridge with the scheme in 2032 as against the existing level of traffic would be c. 59.5 percent (4,044 as against 6,798) as against the two thirds cited in the brief of evidence. I accept that there is some degree of discrepancy between the figures presented and those provided in the Tables (as revised). The degree of variation is not insignificant however I would note the fact that the level of traffic reduction cited in the text of the EIS (5.3.1) actually understates the predicted impact on the existing bridge. I would also note the fact that the revised information was presented to the parties at the hearing, albeit in a rather uncoordinated manner. I am satisfied however from my observations of the proceedings and the submissions made by the objectors that the actual position with regard to the traffic survey data and likely relative changes in traffic levels are understood by the parties that were present. I would also note the fact that there was an opportunity for cross questioning of the applicants expert witness regarding the detailed traffic survey and modelling information, (questioning of Mr Bell). In view of the fact that the parties to the hearing had an opportunity to assimilate the traffic survey and modelling information provided and the fact that the EIS text understates the likely impact on the existing bridge I am satisfied that the public notification procedures followed were adequate to inform the public regarding the proposed scheme and that no parties were prejudiced. As with other parties to the case, it is open to the applicant to submit updated or revised information to the hearing and I do not agree with the

An Bord Pleanala Page 79 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

objectors that the approach taken has been done with the intention of correcting an inadequate EIS.

9.1.1.10 In view of the above, I do not therefore consider that it is necessary or appropriate that the applicant be required to undertake any additional public notification requirements regarding the form and manner of submission of traffic information relating to the proposed scheme. This is, however, an issue which I gave a commitment at the hearing to set out to the Board and the issue is presented to the Board for their consideration.

9.2 CPO Issues

The following sections set out the general issues relating to the proposed CPO under the headings of need, compliance with policy and severance. Before these sections I note the fact that a number of objectors raised issues at the hearing concerned with the time period over which the proposed scheme has hung over the properties affected and also concerns regarding the timing of the proposed acquisition and the potential impact that this would have on the valuations placed on properties at the notice to treat stage of the CPO process were the CPO approved by the Board at this time. Specific requests were made by a number of parties that the Board would direct that the valuation reached would be on the basis of a longer term average value. I note the concerns of the objectors with regard to these issues however it does not appear to me to be an issue which has a process that is clearly set out in law and with regard to which the Board in making a direction on this case is not in a position to alter. The issue is however highlighted for the notice of the Board.

9.2.1 Need

9.2.1.1 With regard to the need for the scheme, the applicant set out in evidence to the hearing the objectives for the scheme and the need for the proposed scheme. The submitted EIS also details at Chapter 2 the existing road network, the need for the scheme and the function of the proposed road development. The need is based on the narrow existing streets in the towns of Ballina and Killaloe that restricts access to the existing bridge particularly for HGVs and which results in traffic compromising the historic character of the towns, the restricted width and capacity of the existing bridge which limits traffic to a single lane and one way flow and results in significant delays at peak periods and the existing substandard nature of the R494 in both vertical and horizontal alignment.

9.2.1.2 With regard to the existing bridge and approaches, the brief of evidence (Item A1) of Mr Conroy and section 2.2 of the EIS outline the narrow nature of the streets in Killaloe and the restrictions which this places on the free flow of traffic, particularly HGV’s. From an inspection of the area I would agree with the concerns as set out I the EIS and evidence presented. In particular I would note the layout of the roads and traffic circulation at both ends of the bridge and the potential for congestion and delays to be generated. On the Ballina side of the bridge, the layout includes a signal controlled T junction that is at the junction of the main R463 road and a local road that accesses lands to the north east of the bridge including the Lakeside Hotel. Beyond this point, the road layout at the junction of the R494 with the R463 is characterised by a non signalised mini roundabout. The potential for congestion at

An Bord Pleanala Page 80 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

this point is exacerbated by the presence of schools on the R464 (Nenagh Road) to the north of and in close proximity to this roundabout. On the Killaloe side, access to the western side of the bridge is even more restricted and the road configuration at the western end of the bridge has to accommodate the existing R464 routes north towards Scariff and south towards O’Briensbridge. The sequencing of lights to accommodate these routes therefore results in further delays to traffic.

9.2.1.3 The existing bridge is laid out as a single carriageway with a width of c.4.95 metres and has a pedestrian footpath along the southern side. Traffic on the bridge is signally controlled and the sequencing of the signals leads to delays in traffic and the queuing of vehicles on both sides of the bridge.

9.2.1.4 With regard to need, considerable time was spend during the hearing relating to the issue of need for the provision of an additional bridge crossing and the objectors highlighting issues with regard to the extent of delays currently experienced, the route selection process undertaken and the examination of alternative options. Route selection and alternatives are discussed in more detail below and the following section sets out the issues relating to the existing demand and congestion at the Killaloe bridge.

9.2.1.5 The objectors have highlighted the fact that the results of the traffic surveys and the delays recorded at peak times do not accord with their stated experiences living in the town. Specifically, evidence was presented by Mr Benson to the hearing regarding the daily journeys that he undertakes from his residence on the R494 at the location of the proposed bridge crossing and his work premises on the Scariff Road. Congestion and delay at the existing bridge in Killaloe most of the time was stated to be minimal and that crossing was possible with one cycle of the traffic signals. Other evidence presented supported the contention of Mr Benson and strongly disputed the data provided by the applicants that the average journey time between the R494 at a point just south of the R496 (close to the Benson residence) to the R463 north of Killaloe is c. 13 minutes during the AM peak and 14 minutes during the PM peak. The figures of 10 minutes during the AM peak and 8 minutes during the PM peak to travel between the R494 north of Ballina to the R463 south of Killaloe was also disputed.

9.2.1.6 In response to the submissions of the objectors in this regard, I would highlight the fact that the applicant has undertaken a detailed traffic survey of the area in both 2008 and 2011. Details of the 2011 survey have been provided in Item A11 of the brief of evidence submitted by the applicant and the evidence includes details of the traffic survey information collected by Nationwide Data Collection in September 2011 relating to Automatic traffic counts (Appendix B), junction turning counts 9Appendix C) and registration Plate Observations (Appendix D). Later sections will address some of the issues of methodology used by the applicants as raised by Mr Brown at the hearing, notably the use of AADT figures and the lack of surveys as a data source. The fundamental point I would make in relation to the analysis undertaken in relation to demonstration of need for the scheme is that no recorded alternative survey data was presented to the hearing. The modelling approach used has not been questioned. In addition, the day after the hearing concluded (Friday 19 th October, 2012), I travelled to Killaloe to observe the traffic conditions during the peak AM hour. The conditions that I observed on that inspection did not indicate to me that the returned traffic figures and stated delays of up to 13 minutes for travel through the town were not realistic. Particular congestion was observed at the

An Bord Pleanala Page 81 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

roundabout on the Ballina side of the bridge. By way of illustration of the issues that were observed I would refer the Board to photographs attached with this report of the queue of traffic observed on the Ballina side of the bridge that morning. I also recorded the time that it took vehicles entering the queue on the Ballina side on the R494 to cross the bridge to the Killaloe side and my observations indicated that vehicles took c.9 - 10 minutes from entering the queue to clearing the end of the bridge on the Killaloe side in the period between c. 8.40 am and 9.00 am. When account is taken of the time to travel to the R463 to the north of Killaloe, this observation would be generally consistent with the times cited by the applicants for peak periods.

9.2.1.7 With regard to the proposed works to the R494, it was stated by Mr Conroy for the applicant that the R494 from the proposed river crossing south to the connection with the R445 (old N7) consists of a poor vertical and horizontal alignment that results in safety concerns. It was also stated that these issues are particularly significant in the vicinity of the railway bridge and bridge over the Kilmastulla River at the southern end of the route. Mr Conroy also noted issues with regard to poor pedestrian and cycling environment along the existing route and the potential for flooding of the road surface at certain locations. An inspection of the R494 does, in my opinion, support the information presented to the hearing by the applicants. In particular, the deficiencies have notable implications for non motorised traffic users, with the restricted width together with lack of verges along the majority of the route and the poor horizontal and vertical alignment making the route extremely dangerous. Inspection of the route by foot was extremely hazardous especially at the northern end of the route and as far south as the railway bridge and Kilmastulla bridge crossings. From an inspection of the road and environs, it is my opinion that the existing road is significantly sub standard and the principle of the proposed improvements is accepted.

9.2.1.8 With regard to the need for a bypass route, the construction of a new bridge crossing without the undertaking of a bypass would appear to be of limited feasibility and no clear information was presented as to how this could be achieved in practice with any of the river crossing options put forward in the route selection report.

9.2.1.9 On the basis of the traffic survey results obtained by the applicants, the restrictions on the capacity of the existing bridge and my observations of the existing road network and traffic conditions in the study area, it is my opinion that there is a need for the scheme as proposed.

9.2.2 Alternatives

9.2.2.1 The applicant set out the alternatives considered at chapter 4 of the EIS and the issue was also addressed at section 3 of Mr Conroy’s brief of evidence (Item A1) at the oral hearing. As part of the information provided by the applicant relating to alternatives, copies of the route selection reports referred to in Chapter 4 of the EIS were submitted to the Board by way of further information and were made available for public inspection and the submission of observations. In addition, during the course of the hearing the applicants submitted copies of the Michael Punch and Partners Report on the Feasibility of the widening of the Killaloe Bridge (1996) and a copy of a subsequent EIS prepared on behalf of Punch and Partners in 2000. These documents were circulated at the hearing and copies made available for inspection by parties present.

An Bord Pleanala Page 82 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.2.2.2 A number of issues relating to alternatives were raised in the objections and the submissions made at the oral hearing. Of particular note were issues raised regarding the possibility of alternative river crossing point that was further from the town and which would not impact on property to such an extent, the possibility of the redevelopment of the existing bridge and / or the provision of pedestrian facilities on this bridge and the rationale for the choice of route 7c for the bridge crossing rather than route 6. Related to this issue, concerns were expressed with regard to the manner in which the decision as to which route to bring forward to detailed design stage was made and a request was made that an order of discovery be sought in relation to particular meetings at which the decision of the preferred route was taken.

9.2.2.3 With regard to the alternative of the on line widening / reconfiguration of the existing Killaloe bridge, paragraph 4.2.1 of the EIS discusses this option. This discussion makes reference to the report undertaken by Michael Punch and Partners in 1996 on the feasibility of the widening of the existing bridge to alleviate traffic congestion. The existing bridge is described in the EIS as a 13 span stone bridge that has a total length of c.165 metres and a width that varies from c.5 metres, reducing to c. 4.8 metres in places. The bridge was previously used to accommodate two way traffic flow however this was converted to single direction flow with traffic signals. The current layout has a footpath marked out on the southern side of the carriageway and there are a number of additional pedestrian refuges along the bridge. It is noted in 4.2.1 of the EIS that the Punch and Partners Report which investigated the feasibility of accommodating two lanes of traffic and a pedestrian footpath concluded that from a cultural heritage perspective the proposed widening would have a serious impact on the archaeological, architectural and historical integrity of the bridge and that the character of the bridge would be diminished by the proposed widening. The bridge structure is included on the RPS although its integrity and character has been altered and compromised by works undertaken over time including the provision of a lifting section in one of the arches (which does not appear to still be functioning) and the addition of eel traps and a steel walkway structure on the downstream side of the bridge.

9.2.2.4 The point was made at the hearing that works to alter the structure without demolition could be undertaken and that there is no reason from a conservation perspective why such works are not an possible option. It was therefore concluded that the rationale for the applicant not pursuing this option related to issues of technical feasibility. My reading of the report of Punch and Partners from 1996 and the relevant sections in the EIS indicate that the online widening option was discounted by virtue of the significant impact that such works would have on the architectural, archaeological and historical integrity of the existing bridge and that the effect would be to have a significant negative effect on the character of the existing bridge. While I accept that the existing structure has been subject of major alteration and works, these are not such that, in my opinion, the fundamental character of the structure has been lost. While it is noted that the EIS does not identify what form of works to the existing bridge could be undertaken (or which of the possible options set out in the Punch Report could be considered) it is my opinion that all would have a potentially significant impact on the character of the protected structure. It is also my opinion that the alteration of the existing bridge structure to provide for two way traffic would not have any beneficial impact in terms of ameliorating the restrictive traffic circulation conditions that are currently experienced at both ends of the bridge. Similarly, the retention of the existing crossing point would result in traffic continuing

An Bord Pleanala Page 83 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

to access the centre of the villages of Ballina and Killaloe and the potential dis amenity, negative impact on quality of life for residents of the towns and negative impact on the character of the historic towns that would arise from the projected increase in traffic levels continuing to use the existing crossing point. These issues are not discussed in detail in the EIS and no detailed response was given by the applicant during the course of the hearing however I would note the fact that what is required in the Act (50(2)(d) of the Roads Act of 1993 (as amended) is an outline of the main alternatives studied by the road authority and an indication of the main reasons for its choice having regard to the environmental effects.

9.2.2.5 Mr Brown for the objectors contended that Chapter 4 of Volume 2 of the EIS fails to deal adequately with the option of on-line widening of the existing bridge but dismisses it on the basis of conclusions that were apparently drawn in the 1996 feasibility report prepared by Michael Punch and Partners and an EIS that was carried out by Dr. Colin Rynne in 2000. Mr Browne made reference to a case, Kildare County Council v. An Bord Pleanála [2006] IEHC 173, it was held that the EIS was inadequate in the sense that it relied on traffic reports from 1975. In particular, it was held that “ this consideration of alternatives, the specific requirement of an EIS, is limited to reference to an exercise that seems to have been carried out in 1975 which is long out of date and no longer relevant and in respect of which no detailed information is provided and attached to the EIS”. It was submitted by Mr Browne that a similar situation applies in this case and that the applicant has not adequately examined the option of the alternative of works to the existing bridge and has used the limited analysis contained in the Punch report of 1996 to justify discounting this option.

9.2.2.6 In my opinion, the applicants have indicated the on line widening of the existing bridge as an option and have given as justification for not pursuing this option reasons relating to the architectural, archaeological and historical integrity of the existing bridge and that the impact of this option would be to have a significant negative effect on the character of the existing bridge. The point raised by the objectors that it is not prohibited in law from modifying a protected structure is noted, however I would not draw the same inference as the objectors that this means that the reason for not pursuing this option is due to technical issues. Rather I would accept that it is considered by the applicants that the option of redevelopment of the existing bridge is not unviable from a technical or legal perspective but that it would likely generate very significant other adverse impacts such as to make it not a preferred option.

9.2.2.7 Mr Brown on behalf of objectors has made the case that Article 5(3)(d) of the codified Directive obliges the developer in this case the acquiring authority to explicitly take account of the environmental impacts or effects of the alternatives studied and to include this appraisal in the EIS. Mr Browne further submitted that Art. 5(3)(d) obliges the developer or acquiring authority to make a decision on alternatives, having regard to environmental impacts, rather than relying on functional or financial considerations, technical constraints, land availability or the particular preferences or exigencies of the developer. Article 5(3)(d) states ‘ an outline of the main alternatives studied by the developer and an indication of the main reasons for his choice, taking into account the environmental effects ’. The point made by Mr Browne in this regard is noted however my interpretation of the requirements of Article 5(3) are that environmental aspects of the alternatives have to be one of a number of considerations used in the assessment of alternatives and it is my opinion that this

An Bord Pleanala Page 84 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

has been done in the assessment undertaken for both the Shannon Bridge Crossing options and the bypass route options.

9.2.2.8 Reference was made by objectors to the option of putting a pedestrian walkway alongside or cantilevered from the existing bridge structure. This option is not specifically addressed as an alternative in the EIS although it is referenced in the Punch and partners Report as (option 1) and discounted on the basis that the existing carriageway width would not be improved and it ‘hence has no traffic advantages’, (Punch and Partners Report, 1996, section 1.2.1). Such an option would not therefore address the existing traffic congestion in the vicinity of the bridge, traffic safety and environment in the town centres which are the stated objectives of the scheme as set out in the evidence of Mr Conroy (Item A1, section 5.2).

9.2.2.9 Within the route options identified for consideration in Chapter 4 of the EIS and the submitted route option studies, objectors have criticised the alternative chosen and the method by which the choice was made. With regard to the choice of route that was made, Chapter 4 of the EIS sets out the route options for both the river crossing and the by pass of Killaloe. The choice of route options for both elements of the scheme were set out in detail in the Shannon Bridge Crossing Route Selection Report of January 2006 and summarised in section 4.2.1 of the EIS. This sets out how a total of 8 no. options were examined (10 no. when account is taken of 3 variations of the Route 7 option) and sets out the relative merits of each. The EIS sets out a summary of the public consultations undertaken and how the options were reduced down to three shortlisted options, Routes 1, 6 and 7. This was further reduced to two, between route 6 and 7. Objectors raised the issue that the choice of a route that was further from the town and would impact less significantly on properties. (Reference made to the point further downstream where the high voltage cables cross the river – clustering of infrastructure idea and this coincided with route 6.). It was contended that there is no clear basis to the decision to opt for route 7 over route 6 despite the fact that a clear majority of those attending a public meeting in September 2005 expressed a preference for route 6 over route 7. On this issue, I would note the fact that section 7 of the route selection report sets out the assessment methodology that was undertaken and Table 7.1 of this report sets out a Framework Assessment Matrix that shows how the various options were assessed under headings of traffic, engineering issues, cost, cost / benefit, aquatic hydrology, noise, cultural heritage, underwater archaeology, landscape and visual, human beings and agriculture.

9.2.2.10 The co ordination / integration between the route selection for the bridge crossing and that relating to the proposed by pass was highlighted by objectors to the scheme as an issue. Although it is not immediately clear from Chapter 4 of the EIS it is evident from the dates of the reports that the location of the bridge crossing point was assessed first and that the by pass route options followed from this. This is acknowledged in paragraph 2.0 of the Killaloe Bypass, Shannon Bridge Crossing and R494 Improvement Constraints Study Report (July 2008) where it states that ‘ the study area is limited by the predetermined position of the Shannon Bridge Crossing’ . The route selection process undertaken was set out in Chapter 8 of the Killaloe Bypass, Shannon Bridge Crossing and R.494 Route Selection Report (March 2009). The chapter also sets out how the final choice of preferred route was an amalgamation of route options A and B with the northern section of route B combined with the southern section of route A. With regard to whether one route choice predated the other or whether this would ideally have been undertaken in one stage,

An Bord Pleanala Page 85 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

this may be the case however what is presented is that the initial issue of the bridge capacity limitations and the resolution of this capacity issue was examined first and the options assessed in terms of the impact on traffic, engineering and economics / financial considerations.

9.2.2.11 Mr Flanagan for the applicants, in his submission to the hearing noted the fact that in relation to alternatives and the consideration of alternative route options that s.50(2)(d) of the Roads Act, 1993 (as amended) refers to ‘outline’ of alternatives and the ‘ main reasons for its choice’ ‘ taking into account the environmental effects .’ This is not just pure environmental factors but also human beings, social economics etc. It was also noted by Mr Flanagan that there is no requirement that the route selection studies would accompany the application. This may be the case in many schemes however in the case of Killaloe where the proposed scheme had been mooted for a considerable period of time and where there were a number of background documents I consider that it was of benefit to the hearing that these documents were available for the Board and for public inspection. On the basis of the contents of the EIS (Chapter 4) and the background reports submitted, I am of the opinion that the applicant has outlined in sufficient detail the consideration of alternative route options and the reasons for the choice of alignment proposed in the scheme. I would accept the fact that the sequencing under which the route of the various elements of the scheme were decided, namely the bridge crossing point first with the bypass route following, resulted in the route choice of the by pass being limited, however there is a logic to the approach used in that the choice of crossing point would determines the degree of traffic relief to the towns that would be achieved which is the main objective of the scheme. I am satisfied that the options of route 6 and the variations of route 7 are the viable options available.

9.2.2.12 With regard to the issue of discovery regarding the councillors meeting of April 2005 and the request of Mr O’Toole and others at the hearing that the notes from the meeting should be sought by way of an order of discovery to shed light on the decision to choose route 7 over route option 6 which had more public support, this is a consideration for the Board. I would note however that the justification for the choice of route 7 over route 6 has been clearly set out in the Shannon Bridge Crossing Route Selection Report (2006) and that it is not in my opinion of benefit to the assessment of the proposed scheme that the information relating to the meeting referred to by the objectors be sought.

9.2.2.13 Overall, it is my opinion that the level of detail set out in the EIS, together with the background documents submitted as part of the FI response, addresses the issue of alternatives in a manner that is comprehensive and which meets the requirements of s.50(2)(d) of the Roads Act, 1993 (as amended) and the EIA Directive.

9.2.3 Compliance with Development Plan and Other Relevant Policy

9.2.3.1 Mr Flanagan for the applicant made the case to the hearing that the project is supported by local, regional and national level policy, that it is a duty of the Planning Authority to secure the objectives of the Plan and the plan should be interpreted in the round. The hearing heard evidence from Mr Brian Beck of North Tipperary County Council and Mr Brian McCarthy of Clare County Council with regard to the planning policy context of the proposed scheme.

An Bord Pleanala Page 86 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.2.3.2 At a national level, the proposed scheme is not identified in Transport 21 and is not included as a specified project in the National Development Plan . The proposed scheme does not involve works to or the extension of the national road network and so the provisions of the NDP are therefore limited. Attention has however been drawn by the applicant to the fact that the objectives of the National Development Plan include the provision of a non national road network that will support economic and social development at regional and local levels and to assist local authorities in progressing major strategic non national road projects. The proposed scheme would, in my opinion, come within the definition of such projects.

9.2.3.3 With regard to the National Spatial Strategy , the Limerick / Shannon area is identified as a gateway and Ennis is a hub. As noted in the evidence of Mr Mc Carthy and Mr Beck to the hearing, the proximity of Killaloe / Ballina to the designated hub and gateway opens opportunities for the development of Killaloe / Ballina and Scariff and the proposed scheme would be beneficial to the development of good transport links in the area and improved connections to the hub and gateway locations identified in the NSS.

9.2.3.4 The document Smarter Travel, A Sustainable Transport Future (2009-2020) is cited in the EIS (1.3.3) and it is stated that the scheme will be supportive of the framework as it will lead to the provision of cycleways and footways that would help to reduce overall travel demand, maximise the efficiency of the transport network, reduce emissions and fossil fuels and improve accessibility to transport. It is contended by the applicant that the scheme will support cycling and walking and improve linkages, including connecting with the proposed Limerick to Nenagh cycle route on the R445 (old N7). The report identifies key actions to achieve sustainable development and groups the actions into four overarching ones, one of which is actions aimed at ensuring that alternatives to the car are more widely available, mainly through a significantly improved public transport network and through investment in cycling and walking infrastructure. Five key goals are identified which include the following:

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

By 2020 commuting by car seeks to be substantially reduced, with car drivers being accommodated on other modes such as walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing. Promotion of sustainable travel patterns, integration of cycling infrastructure and delivery of high quality transport infrastructure are seen as vital requirements. Cycling and walking are noted as having the lowest environmental impact of all travel modes and specific actions are detailed, with emphasis on delivering a coherent network, a safe network, on serving the main travel areas and on junction priority. The creation of a strong cycling culture to achieve particular aims and to enhance the tourism industry is acknowledged. By 2020, 10 percent of all trips are proposed to be by bike and the report states that a National Cycling Policy Framework will be published and implemented to give effect to this vision. There is also a commitment to the creation of a culture of walking.

An Bord Pleanala Page 87 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.2.3.5 Mr Browne for the objectors questioned the degree to which the scheme would be supportive of the principles of Smarter Travel. The basis for this contention is the fact that the scheme as proposed does not reduce private car usage, that no modal share analysis was undertaken and so it cannot be stated that there is a demand for the walking and cycle facilities and that the facilities proposed will not impact on the town centre areas, will not provide facilities for children cycling or walking to school and is inconsistent with the National Cycling Policy Framework (NCPF) as it does not prioritise urban networks. With regard to the traffic volumes, it is accepted that overall traffic volumes will increase due to increased demand over time and the fact that more vehicles will be capable of being accommodated through the system however I do not agree that this is a clear reason as to why the scheme as proposed is not consistent with Smarter Travel. The proposed scheme will result in a significant reduction in traffic on the existing Killaloe Bridge (-c. 42 percent in 2017 and –c.50 percent in 2032). It is accepted that the cycle network proposed relates to the area of the proposed scheme and that there is no retrofitting of cycle facilities proposed to the centre of the towns, outside of the scheme alignment. The scheme does however result in the provision of a cycle and pedestrian network within the urban limits of Ballina where none currently exists. The scheme will result in reduced levels of traffic within the centre of both Ballina and Killaloe over those that would occur with no development being undertaken and as such I would agree with the applicant that it has to result in an improvement in conditions for cyclists and pedestrians within the towns. The argument put forward by Mr Browne that the proposal does nothing for school children ignores the potential benefits accruing from the reduced traffic within the town centres and the contention that the scheme would increase traffic speeds and therefore reduce pedestrian safety on the existing bridge would appear to me to be unlikely to be a significant issue given the continued use of traffic signals and the resulting regulation of flows across the bridge. The scope of the scheme under assessment does not incorporate the town centre areas or provide for the retrofitting of cycling facilities however I do not see how this can be used as an argument against the scheme as proposed.

9.2.3.6 The scheme will also facilitate the connection of the towns of Ballina and Killaloe with the properties and businesses that are located along the R494 to the south and, as set out by Mr Beck in his evidence, will facilitate connection with the R 445 (old N7) to the south which has been developed as a cycle route than connects Nenagh and Limerick. The use of these facilities and the absence of an assessment of demand was continuously referred to by objectors during the course of the hearing and the issue of the traffic methodology will be addressed in more detail in subsequent sections of this report. The point being made by the objectors regarding cycle way provision is not clear to me. On one level it is argued that the demand for cycle facilities along the scheme has not been adequately demonstrated while it is also argued that the scheme does not accord with the principles of Smarter Travel and the National Cycling Policy Framework as it does not provide for cycle facilities within an urban area. In my opinion, the approach of the applicant is consistent with the provisions of Smarter Travel in that they have sought to ensure provision of cycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the entire length of the scheme and in doing so they have provided connections between the R445 (old N7) cycle route and Ballina / Killaloe, connections for the properties and businesses along the R445 to the urban centres and the potential for connections with locations along the by pass route including the rear of St Anne’s Community school.

An Bord Pleanala Page 88 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.2.3.7 The specific issue raised by the objectors regarding the layout of the cycle way facilities to the north of the roundabout at the eastern end of the proposed Shannon Bridge Crossing will be addressed in more detail in the sections of the report relating to specific CPO objections.

9.2.3.8 The objectors raised issues relating to whether the proposed route should have along the lacustrine boundary of Lough Derg or along the boundary of the River Shannon or whether it should have extended along the disused railway line, as was the intention of developing the National Cycle Network. This issue was briefly discussed during the hearing and the options of locating the cycle way removed from the proposed scheme would, in my opinion lead to very significant issues of impact on private lands, security, and privacy for land owners. Reference was also made by objectors to the fact that the National Cycle Manual was not referred to in the EIS and that it is not clear that the steps to planning of a network set out in Section 3.4 of the Manual were followed.

9.2.3.9 The Mid West Regional Planning Guidelines, 2010-2022 identify the need to improve linkages to Ballina / Killaloe and the guidelines specifically identify the need for ‘the link and new bridge between the Ballina / Killaloe Limerick route and Nenagh Limerick route to facilitate access from the north west of the region to the gateway. The development will also involve the provision of a bypass for Ballina / Killaloe’ . The principle of the proposed scheme is therefore supported in the Regional Planning Guidelines.

9.2.3.10 The planning related evidence of Mr Beck (North Tipperary County Council) and Mr McCarthy (Clare County Council) to the hearing included reference to the Mid West Area Strategic Plan (MWASP). There is specific reference to the proposed scheme at section 5.4.4.1 of the Plan which relates to national secondary and non national roads.

9.2.3.11 The North Tipperary County Development Plan, 2010-2016 . The Plan specifically notes the proposed scheme in the Transportation Section of the Plan and that the route (route option 7c) was decided upon and that the scheme includes for the upgrade of the R494 from Birdhill to the Roolagh junction and that the proposals allow for the widening, upgrading and possible local realignment over some sections. Objective INF9 of the Plan seeks to ‘ continue to pursue the provision of a new bridge over the Lower Shannon at Ballina and to seek to provide for the widening, local upgrading and possible local realignment over some sections of the R494 regional road from the Birdhill junction to the R496 Roolagh junction .’ Variation No.1 of the Plan (November 2011) brought the town of Ballina within the county development plan and includes as a key aim the support of the provision of improved transport infrastructure including a second Shannon crossing and inner relief roads as necessary. The proposed scheme is in my opinion consistent with the transportation provisions of the North Tipperary County Development Plan.

9.2.3.12 Within the administrative area of Clare County Council, the relevant policy documents relating to the proposed scheme are the Clare County Development Plan, 2011-2017 and the East Clare LAP, 2011-2017 . Objective CDP 11.1 states that it is an objective of the council to seek to implement the recommendations of the Mid West Area Strategic Plan (MWASP) see 9.2.4.9 above. The roads projects proposed for future development are set out at Table 11.1 of the Plan and include reference to a western bypass of Killaloe and a Shannon crossing south of Killaloe

An Bord Pleanala Page 89 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

with the alignment being indicated on Map H8. Section 11.3.1 of the County Plan sets out policy in relation to relief / distributor roads and states, inter alia, that ‘ The provision of such roads can also facilitate the organised expansion of towns and villages and have the capacity to cater for pedestrians and cyclists’ . The East Clare LAP has a stated objective of ‘to secure the provision of a Shannon Bridge crossing and the Killaloe Western relief Road. The Settlement / land Use Zoning Map of the town of Killaloe indicates the alignment of the bypass route and the river crossing in detail. In my opinion, the proposed scheme is consistent with the provisions of the Clare County Development Plan and the East Clare LAP.

9.2.3.13 Issues were raised by the objectors with regard to the consistency of the proposed scheme with Policy HERT 30 of the Tipperary North Plan as it relates to the impact on SAC and it was contended that the proposal would constitute a material contravention of policies including HERT 30 which seek the protection of areas of conservation and SACs in particular. In response, Mr Beck and Mr Flanagan for the applicants stressed the importance of reading the development plan as a whole and I would be in agreement with the applicants on this issue. The Plan contains a range of policies and objectives which have to be set against one another. The issue of the potential impact of the proposal on the SAC is considered in more detail in the sections below.

9.2.3.14 Overall, it is my opinion that the proposed scheme is consistent with the provisions of relevant statutory Plans, most specifically, the Regional Planning Guidelines for the Mid West Region, the North Tipperary County Development Plan, the Clare County Development Plan and the East Clare LAP. The principle of the proposed development is also, in my opinion consistent with the main principles set out in Smarter Travel documents, A Sustainable Transport Future and the National Cycling Policy Framework. With regard to the contention that the National Cycle Manual was not referred to in the EIS and that it is not clear that the steps to planning of a network set out in Section 3.4 of the Manual were followed, I note the content of section 3.4 of the manual and the fact that it relates to undertaking of an inventory of cycling facilities, demand assessment, trip forecasting and integration with other proposals and the prioritisation of improvements. The provision of cycle facilities along the route is, in my opinion, prudent especially having regard to the works undertaken on the R445 (old N7), although it is accepted that it is not clear how and if the network planning provisions of the National Cycling Manual have been followed.

9.2.4 Severance

9.2.4.1 The issue of severance was addressed in section 9.4 – 9.6 of the EIS (pg.9/8 onwards). The assessment in the plan identifies that there will be a major impact on one farm, a dairy farm that the EIS concludes will, without mitigation measures, not be able to be continued without considerable management or operational changes due to the combination of the type of enterprise, farm size, land take and the effects on farm buildings and facilities. A total of eight farms are identified as having a moderate impact on their operations and a further five farms that would experience a minor impact.

9.2.4.2 A variety of mitigation measures and access works are proposed to provide access to farms that are impacted. These range from the provision of new access gates in some instances to the provision of new access laneways to lands in others.

An Bord Pleanala Page 90 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.2.4.3 The most significantly affected property is that which is located in the Knockyclovaun area on the alignment of the proposed bypass. This property is indicated as Landowner No. 2 on Figure 9.1 (CPO Refs. 107, 109 and 115) and the area in question is the further west of the two areas indicated as Landowner No. 2 on this map. In the case of this farm, a dairy farm, the alignment of the proposed bypass is such that it severs a short link of access laneway that connects two parcels of land. This case is considered in more detail in the sections below relating to individual CPO objections.

9.2.4.4 In overall terms, the extent of severance along the entire scheme is not considered to be significantly negative and in a majority of cases the impact relates to a reduction in the area of the parcel rather than a loss of access to the severed area and issues arising are such as can be addressed at arbitration. With the exception of Landowner No. 2 that will be considered further below, the overall impact with regard to severance is considered to be slight to moderate negative and acceptable at the level of the overall scheme.

9.2.5 Site Specific CPO Issues

9.2.5.1 As highlighted in the summary of the proceedings of the oral hearing there were a number of issues on which the CPO objectors and the applicants were not able to agree, notably the issue of indemnification and as a result a significant number of the 79 no. objections to the CPO process remain and have not been withdrawn at the time of completion of this report. Appendix A sets out the position with regard to the status of the CPO objections received. It is proposed to address the outstanding CPO issues that relate to individual properties under heading related to submissions received from each of the main agents who represented parties at the hearing (Mr Nagle, Mr Crowley and Martin and Rea) and then proceed to the other submissions received.

9.2.5.2 Clients of Mr Nagle

Mr Nagle represented a total of 5 parties who objected to the CPO. Of these five, one had not been withdrawn as at the date of writing this report. The following address the issues raised in this objection in detail:

James and Miriam Ward; (c/o Nagle Agricultural Consultants) CPO Ref. 177

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That there is an inadequate schedule of accommodation works. • Entrances to properties not correctly indicated. • Not all lands proposed are required. • Security issues. • Drainage (existing and proposed).

Response :

An Bord Pleanala Page 91 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

This property is located at c. chainage 1+900 R on the R494 Improvement section. The plot comprises a roughly rectangular field with a dwelling located towards the north west corner. The reference to the entrances not being adequately indicated is noted however the entrance to the dwelling appears to me to be accurately shown on the drawings. The exact nature of the objectors concerns in this regard were not detailed at the oral hearing. In terms of land take, the take on both sides of the road is relatively even in this location and the land take proposed does not appear to me to be excessive having regard to the works proposed and the issue is one of compensation. No specific accommodation works have been identified as requested. Accommodation works are an issue to be agreed between the objector and the developer and in default of agreement the standard accommodation works set out in the contract will be applicable. Road drainage at construction and operation stage has been detailed in the application documentation, is assessed in section 9.3 (Environmental Impacts) below and is considered adequate. Security of the property will be ensured by fencing during the construction phase.

With regard to ownership, it is noted that the applicant submitted revisions to the CPO schedule relating to CPO Ref. 177a.105 to 107.

9.2.5.3 Clients of Mr Crowley

Mr Crowley represented a total of 27 parties who objected to the CPO. Of these 27, 22 no. had not been withdrawn as at the date of writing this report. The following address the issues raised in these objections in detail:

Mr Peter Egan (c/o John Crowley Consulting) CPO Ref. 107a.101,, 107b.101, 107c.101, 107b.102, 107c.103, 109a.101, 115a.101

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

Response:

The lands of Mr Peter Egan encompass the agricultural lands that are most significantly affected by the alignment of the proposed bypass. This property is indicated as Landowner No. 2 on Figure 9.1 and Mr Egan owns two areas of lands that are indicated on Figure 9.1 of the EIS. Access to Mr Egan’s lands to the east of the alignment will be significantly compromised by the proposed alignment. From the discussion at the hearing it appears that the issues relate to the severance of Mr Egan’s lands to the east of the alignment, the difficulties of connection across the Hill Road and the fact that the existing route of moving cattle between the areas of the farm at c.0+750 on the bypass route will be severed by the road. With regard to the severing of the area at the north west from the rest of the holding the hearing heard conflicting accounts from Mr Conroy for the applicant who stated that he understood that Mr Egan had proposed that the road would be relocated further east at this point to minimise the amount of land severed and the account of Mr Egan who stated that what he had been requesting was that the alignment would be moved west to facilitate the connection point to be retained in this location. From the information presented I do not see how the realignment of the road line west would have assisted in the connection between the areas of the holding. Similarly, it would appear to me that Figure 9.1 indicate that lands are available to provide a connection in the vicinity

An Bord Pleanala Page 92 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

of Chainage 0+750 in the event that the land ownership map as indicated in 9.1 is accurate. This was refuted by Mr Crowley and Mr Egan who insisted that the effect of the alignment as indicated was to make it impossible to connect the two areas. Mr Crowley suggested at one point that the CPO line be amended to extend into the area to the west of the alignment at Chainage c.0.750 however these lands are indicated on Figure 9.1 as being within the ownership of Mr Egan. The nature of the restriction in this area is not clear to me from the information available however it appears that Mr Egan is indicating that the extent of ownership shown in Figure 9.1 is not accurate.

If access is available to the Hill Road to the west of the alignment, the proposed layout indicates the provision of an underpass between the two southern sections of Mr Egan’s lands. Access to the severed section at the north east of the holding would only be available by means of a further crossing of the Hill Road and via a new accommodation track to be provided to the east of and parallel to the bypass alignment.

Whether access / connection is available at point chainage c 0+750 or not, the implications of the proposed scheme for the agricultural operations of Mr Egan are likely to be very significant. I would note that the request that the CPO alignment be revised or that it be extended to facilitate a connection at Chainage 0+750 are not options that are open to the Board at this stage of the process. Even in the event that connection at point chainage 0+750 is feasible, the layout of the holding is significantly impacted by the severance of the road of the southern part of the holding and the difficulty of access of the north east part of the lands. Even the provision of a second underpass on the northern part of the lands would not significantly improve the situation given the currently proposed alignment although it would facilitate a very roundabout access route to the southern parts of the holding.

In the circumstances as set out above, it would appear likely that the comments of the objector regarding the proposed alignment making the operation of his business unviable at this location are correct. It would also appear to me that the options for rectifying this situation within the indicated CPO line are not available. As to whether the severance and impact on this holding are such that the scheme should not be approved in its current form, I do not think that this is the case, however in the event that the scheme is to proceed therefore the issues of compensation related to property acquisition and severance will be relevant and these are issues for the consideration of the property arbitrator.

Nora Smith (c/o John Crowley Consulting) CPO Ref. 110

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme. • The schedule is incorrect in identifying buildings on the land as farm buildings.

Response This site is located at the north east corner of the Hill Road junction with the proposed bypass. The area proposed to be acquired comprises an area to the front of an existing dwelling at this location and an area to the north west that is proposed

An Bord Pleanala Page 93 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

to be used for the provision of a 4 metre wide access tract that would provide a connection between the Hill Road and agricultural lands in the ownership of Mr Peter Egan to the north. It would appear from the drawings that the area 110a.102 that forms part of the dwelling curtilage in this location is not essential for the construction of the agricultural access track or the tie in with the existing Hill Road in the vicinity of this property where part of the original road is proposed to be retained for local access. It is however necessary to facilitate the provision of screening hedgerow at this location. It is therefore recommended that this piece of land would be retained within the CPO. There may be potential for this area and the equilivant area to the front of the adjoining house to the east (CPO Ref. 111) to be omitted by agreement at arbitration stage.

The description of road acquisition relates to 110a.103 and from my observations I consider that this area has been accurately described as part of the public road. CPO ref. 110a.102 correctly relates to part of the curtilage of a dwelling and 110a.101 relates to agricultural lands. I consider that these descriptions are correct however in the event that there are discrepancies in the descriptions this is an issue where the schedule can be corrected at a later date.

Patrick Malone (c/o John Crowley Consulting) CPO Ref. 112

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

Response The description of the area covered by CPO Ref. 112 as part of the public road appears from my observations to be an accurate description of the area included within the CPO in this location as it is outside of the cartilage of the adjoining dwelling. In the event that there are discrepancies in the descriptions this is an issue where the schedule can be corrected at a later date. The acquisition of the area of land in question is in my opinion needed for construction in this location.

Anthony Foley (c/o John Crowley Consulting) CPO Ref. 113

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

Response The description of this area as part of the public road appears from my observations to be an accurate description of the area included within the CPO in this location. In the event that there are discrepancies in the descriptions this is an issue where the schedule can be corrected at a later date. The acquisition of the area of land in question is in my opinion needed for construction in this location.

An Bord Pleanala Page 94 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Timothy Sullivan and Noreen Sullivan (c/o John Crowley Consulting) CPO Ref. 114a.101, 102, 103 and 104

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

Response The description of this area as part of the public road appears from my observations to be an accurate description of the area included within the CPO in this location. In the event that there are discrepancies in the descriptions this is an issue where the schedule can be corrected at a later date. The acquisition of the area of land in question is in my opinion needed for construction in this location.

Anthony Quigley (c/o John Crowley Consulting) CPO Ref. 114a. 101, 102, 103 and 104

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the owner has not been served with a CPO even though his property is affected. • That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

Response The schedule shows the owners of these lands as Timothy and Noreen Sullivan. It is noted that the acquiring authority were circulated with a copy of this objection and that they have not proposed that the schedule would be altered. It is further noted that no evidence was presented to the hearing regarding legal interest of this party in the property identified as CPO Ref. 114. In the event that this issue is clarified alterations to the schedule can be made. In relation to the other points, see Timothy Sullivan and Noreen Sullivan above.

Patrick and Cindy Reddan (c/o John Crowley Consulting) CPO Ref. 117

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

Response This property is located to the south east of the Creeveroe Road junction. Acquisition of the public road in this location is considered appropriate and necessary for the construction of the scheme in this location where the alignment of the new road will start to veer to the north to create the new staggered junction with the proposed bypass.

An Bord Pleanala Page 95 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Norman and Marie Molloy (c/o John Crowley Consulting) CPO Ref. 118

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

Response The description of part of the public road appears from my observations to be an accurate description of the area included within the CPO (Ref. 118) in this location. In the event that there are discrepancies in the descriptions this is an issue where the schedule can be corrected at a later date. The area in question is outside of the current curtilage of the dwelling at this location and is part of an area proposed to be landscaped following partial removal of the road and acquisition of the area of land in question and is in my opinion necessary for construction in this location.

Gerard and Antoinette Ryan (c/o John Crowley Consulting) CPO Ref. 120a.102, 103, 120b.102, 121

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

Response The CPO schedule description of this area as part of the public road appears from my observations to be an accurate description of the area included within the CPO (Ref. 120a.101 and 120b.101 and 121) in this location. In the event that there are discrepancies in the descriptions this is an issue where the schedule can be corrected at a later date. The area of land 120a.101 and 120a.102 is directly on the alignment of the proposed bypass route and is, in my opinion required for the scheme. 120b.102 is also on and adjoining the alignment of the bypass route and is in my opinion needed for the scheme. 120a.103 comprises part of a stream that crosses the route is on the alignment of the bypass route and is in my opinion needed for the scheme. CPO Ref. 121 comprises lands that are partially to be the retained section of Creeveroe Road for access and also a section where the road is to be removed and the area landscaped. These areas are outside of the current curtilage of the dwelling at this location and is part of an area proposed to be landscaped following partial removal of the road and acquisition of the area of land in question is in my opinion appropriate for construction in this location.

Orla Kelly and Vincent Barrett (c/o John Crowley Consulting) CPO Ref. 125a.101, and 125a.102

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

Response

An Bord Pleanala Page 96 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

This is a residential property that is located on the northern side of the junction of the Limerick Road (R463) with the proposed bypass. The area covered by 125a.101 appears to me to be part of the existing road and the description of road acquisition appears from my observations to be an accurate description of the area included within the CPO in this location. In the event that there are discrepancies in the descriptions this is an issue where the schedule can be corrected at a later date. The area in question is part of an area proposed to be landscaped adjacent to the approach to the roundabout at the junction of the R463 and the bypass and acquisition of the area of land in question is in my opinion needed for the construction of the roundabout and safe operation of the roundabout in this location.

George and Raphaelia Hickey (c/o John Crowley Consulting) CPO Ref. 138a.101 and 102

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

Response

This is a residential property that is located immediately to the south of the river crossing on the Ballina side of the River. The area covered by 138a.101 appears to me to be part of the existing road, outside of the curtilage of the dwelling and the description of part of the public road appears from my observations to be an accurate description of the area included within the CPO in this location. Ref. 138a.102 is a very small (0.001 ha.) at the northern end of the road frontage and it is not clear to me whether this is currently within the curtilage of the dwelling. In the event that there are discrepancies in the descriptions this is an issue where the schedule can be corrected at a later date. The area in question is located at the approach to the roundabout at the junction of the R494, R496 and the river crossing and acquisition of the area of land in question is in my opinion needed for the construction of the roundabout, cycleway and safe operation of the roundabout in this location.

Peter and Louise Delaney (c/o John Crowley Consulting) CPO Ref. 152a.101 and 102

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

Response This land is located adjacent to a residential property that is located on the eastern side of the R494 approximately at chainage 0+275R. The area in question appears from my observations to form part of the road and therefore the description of the area included within the CPO (Ref. 118) in this location appears to me to be accurate. In the event that there are discrepancies in the descriptions this is an issue where the schedule can be corrected at a later date. The area is proposed to be part of a landscaped and planted strip on the eastern side of the road in this location on

An Bord Pleanala Page 97 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

the approaches to the bridge roundabout and the inclusion of this area within the scheme is in my opinion necessary and such that it would not impact on the amenity or curtilage of the dwelling which is located c.20 metres from the CPO line.

Niall Hogan (c/o John Crowley Consulting) CPO Ref. 154a.102, 103, 104, and 105

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

Response CPO Ref. 154a.102 and 103 do appear to be part of the curtilage of the house in this location and are identified as such in the schedule (part of the public road). Similarly 154a.105 where the new access arrangement to this sloping site is proposed is identified as within the curtilage of a dwelling. Ref. 154a.101 and 104 appear from my observations to form part of the road and therefore the description of the area included within the CPO (Ref. 118) in this location appears to me to be accurate. In the event that there are discrepancies in the descriptions this is an issue where the schedule can be corrected at a later date. The extent of land take proposed is, in my opinion necessary in order that a safe access be provided having regard to the sloping nature of the site and consequent requirement for cut and also the movement of the road alignment further to the east in this location.

Michael and Breda Hurley (c/o John Crowley Consulting) CPO Ref. 156a. 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, and 107

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

Response

The only element of this objectors land described in the schedule as part of public road is 156a.101 and this description appears to me to be accurate as this area lies outside of the cartilage of a dwelling. In the event that there are discrepancies in the descriptions this is an issue where the schedule can be corrected at a later date. The extent of land take proposed is, in my opinion necessary in order that a safe access be provided having regard to the sloping nature of the site and consequent requirement for cut and also the movement of the road alignment further to the east in this location. In the case of CPO Refs. 156a.106 and 107 there would appear to be scope that the depth of the land take into the site would be reduced slightly although these lands may be required for remediation works related to the replacement of drainage systems. This was not discussed or clarified at the hearing. It is therefore recommended that the extent of land take as it extends to the east into the site is required and would be retained however this may be the subject of discussion and agreement at arbitration stage.

An Bord Pleanala Page 98 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

John and Kathleen Sheehy (c/o John Crowley Consulting) CPO Ref. 156a.103, 104, 105, 106 and 107

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

Response None of the CPO Ref. 156a.103, 104, 105, 106 and 107 are identified in the schedule submitted as being part of the public road. It is not therefore apparent what the objectors are referring to in point one. The extent of land take proposed is, in my opinion necessary in order that a safe access be provided and having regard to the sloping nature of the site and consequent requirement for cut and also the movement of the road alignment further to the east in this location. In the case of CPO Refs. 156a.106 and 107 there would appear to be scope that the depth of the land take into the site would be reduced slightly although these lands may be required for remediation works related to the replacement of drainage systems. This was not discussed or clarified at the hearing. It is therefore recommended that the extent of land take as it extends to the east into the site is required and would be retained however this may be the subject of discussion and agreement at arbitration stage.

Gordon Atkinson (c/o John Crowley Consulting) CPO Ref. 159a.101, 102, and 103

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

Response CPO Refs. 159a.101 and 102 are both outside the existing curtilage of the dwelling at this location on the east side of the R.494 at chainage c. 0+520R. The description in the schedule of this area being part of the public road is therefore, in my opinion, correct. CPO ref. 159a.103 relates to the provision of a new access to this property and roadside planting arising from the relocation of the road further to the east. It is my opinion that the extent of lands indicated for this purpose in this located are required for the scheme as proposed.

Yvonne and Barry Bullman (c/o John Crowley Consulting) CPO Ref. 183a.101, 102 and 103

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

An Bord Pleanala Page 99 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Response CPO Refs. 183a.101 is outside the existing curtilage of the dwelling at this location on the east side of the R.494 at chainage c. 2+375R. The description in the schedule of this area being part of the public road is therefore, in my opinion, correct. CPO ref. 183a.102 and 103 relates to the provision of the cycleway and landscaping along the front boundary of the site. Ref. 183a.102 is such that it will not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the property and is considered necessary for the scheme. Ref. 183a. 103 is such that the new boundary would be relocated very close to the property in this location, (less than 1 metre). The omission of the landscaping strip along the property boundary to the south of the access in this location would have the effect of increasing the separation to the property to c.1.5 metres but would mean that there would be no room for screen planting. The layout in this location is such that there is limited scope to move the horizontal alignment of the road further to the east as there is cut required within the land take on the east side of the road. In these circumstances there appears to be limited options available to address the impact on this property and it is an issue that will have to be assessed and taken into account in terms of acquisition and injurious affection at compensation stage.

Richard Lewis (c/o John Crowley Consulting) CPO Ref. 188

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

Response CPO Refs. 188 is outside the existing curtilage of the dwelling at this location on the east side of the R.494 at chainage c. 2+800 R. The description in the schedule of this area being part of the public road is therefore, in my opinion, correct. The lands in question form part of the existing R494 alignment and following the R494 improvement would be retained for local access. The lands in question and covered by Ref. 188 are therefore in my opinion needed for the scheme.

Martin and Bridget O’Brien (c/o John Crowley Consulting) CPO Ref. 191a.101, 191b.101 and 102

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

Response CPO Refs. 191a.101 is outside the existing curtilage of the dwelling at this location on the east side of the R.494 at chainage c. 2+875 R. The description in the schedule of this area being part of the public road is therefore, in my opinion, correct. The lands under Ref. 191a.101 form part of the existing R494 alignment and following the R494 improvement would be retained for local access and are therefore in my opinion needed for the scheme.

An Bord Pleanala Page 100 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

CPO Ref. 191b.101 and 102 relates to lands to the immediate north west of the railway bridge. These lands are required for the continuation of the local road connection to the west in this location and additional land has been included to increase the radius of the bend in this location. The lands are in my opinion necessary for the implementation of the scheme in this location.

Gerard Floyd and Breeda C Darcy (c/o John Crowley Consulting) CPO Ref. 194a.101, 102 and 103

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

Response CPO Ref. 194a.101 covers lands that are currently outside of the curtilage of the dwelling at this location adjacent to the southern end of the scheme at c. 3+260 R. The lands in question Ref. 194a.101 form part of the road in this location and the lands are required for access to the property at this location and the area covered by the bottom of the embankment proposed at this location.

Timothy Floyd and Cora Coffey (c/o John Crowley Consulting) CPO Ref. 195a.101 and 102

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO that are not required to build the scheme.

Response CPO Ref. 195a.101 covers lands that are currently outside of the curtilage of the dwelling at this location adjacent to the southern end of the scheme at c. 3+270 R. The lands in question Ref. 195a.101 form part of the road in this location and the lands are required for access to the property at this location and the area covered by the construction of a new access road for this property and the adjoining one to the north at this location. The acquisition of the lands is therefore, in my opinion, required at this location to facilitate the scheme. CPO Ref. 195a.102 covers lands that are currently within the curtilage of the dwelling at this location and is needed to accommodate the provision of a new access road from the improved R494 and access to the dwelling covered by CPO Ref. 195 and access to the adjoining property to the north (CPO Ref. 194).

An Bord Pleanala Page 101 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.2.5.4 Clients of Martin and Rea

Martin and Rea represented a total of 35 parties who objected to the CPO. Of these 35, 16 no. had not been withdrawn as at the date of writing this report.

As noted in the summary of objections received at 5.1.50 of this report, the submissions received from Martin and Rea contained a significant number of general objections that were common to more than one submission. These objections and the response are given below:

• That the road levels are preliminary and may be revised. • That a small change in level would impact significantly on residential areas at bridge crossing and along the R494. • That the proposed school drop off will lead to unauthorised car parking and a traffic hazard. • That there are inadequate drainage details provided and more detail is required for the oral hearing. • That a commitment to a proper drainage system that will not make any problems worse is needed. • That the culvert sizes Table 3.2 of the EIS are not binding. • That the noise target is unclear and noise mitigation is required so that the road complies with WHO standards. • There is no additional mitigation proposed in locations close to dwellings where there will be significant additional noise. • That there will be a necessity for additional construction compounds. • It is requested that the local authority would discuss and agree accommodation works. • That the objector is willing to enter discussions with the local authority regarding the above.

Response • As noted in the sections of the report covering the compliance of the submitted EIS and application details with the requirements of the EIA Directive, the scheme is likely to be constructed under a design and build form of contract and some variation in the road level may be feasible. Any such variation would however have to be such that no significant environmental effects would arise from any such amendments and if a screening exercise indicated that any proposed amendments were likely to give rise to significant environmental effects then an EIS / revised EIS would be required along with a new consent. The impact of any changes in road level post approval on the residential properties that adjoin the scheme, and the river crossing section and the R494 in particular, would be subject to such a screening process and EIA if appropriate. • The proposed school drop off area has been requested by the VEC and St Anne’s Community College to be omitted from the scheme and it was stated to the hearing that the applicant does not intend to pursue this element of the scheme although it is proposed that the CPO of lands in this area would be sought so that there would be a margin of appreciation available in respect of the works and impact on the opposite side of the alignment in the Clarisford area. As commented in section 9.3.5 of this report, I consider it appropriate

An Bord Pleanala Page 102 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

that the proposed set down area to the rear of St. Anne’s school would be omitted from the permitted scheme. • Drainage details and the arrangements for the drainage of the road are considered in section 9.3 of this report. The level of detail submitted regarding drainage as part of the application and the response to FI is considered to be adequate to enable the Board to make a full assessment of the likely environmental impacts of the scheme during both the construction and operational phases. • Noise impact is considered under section 9.3 of the report and the EIS sets out clear noise limits relating to the construction and operational phase of the scheme. The analysis of noise undertaken indicates that specific noise mitigation measures over and above the use of a low noise road surface are not required to meet the standards set down in the EIS. • The comment regarding the requirement for additional construction compounds is noted and was the subject of discussion at the time of the oral hearing. The applicant has indicated that they do not consider that additional lands will be required for construction and the assessment has been undertaken on the basis of the lands within the CPO line as indicated on the deposit maps. In the event that additional lands outside the CPO line are acquired for the purpose of construction, relevant approvals for the use of such lands for that purpose would have to be obtained. • Discussions between the applicant and objectors / property owners along the route relating to accommodation works is an issue that is between the parties and is not something for detailed consideration by the Board.

The following sections relate to the specific objections raised by Martin and Rea Ltd in relation to the clients who they are representing. A number of the issues raised under these specific objections are considered to relate more to general environmental objections than objections relevant to the CPO and instances where this is the case are highlighted.

Ungrund GmbH (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting) CPO Ref. 101

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That the roundabout design does not minimise the impact on the architectural heritage of the property. • That the roundabout and road will have a profound effect. • The new access will generate illegal parking. • Plot 101a.102 not required. Plot 101a.101 should not be acquired permanently.

Response The design of the area in the vicinity of the roundabout at the northern end of the scheme in Ballyvally is considered under the headings of architectural heritage and Landscape and Visual impact at 9.3 of this report. Given the location in relation to surrounding uses, it is not considered that the new access arrangements will generate illegal parking.

An Bord Pleanala Page 103 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Plot 101a.101 relates to the existing road in the vicinity of the Ballyvally Estate and Gate House. The bulk of this area will be retained as an access route to Ballyvally House, the gate house and the property immediately to the south west of the roundabout. There will also however be sections where the road will be removed and the area landscaped and also a section where this plot crosses the alignment of the bypass to the south west of the roundabout. Given these factors, it is my opinion that the plot is required to be acquired on a permanent basis for the construction of the scheme.

Plot Ref. 101a.102 relates to an open section of a culvert within the curtilage of the Ballyvally gate house. This section of drain was referred to at the hearing and it is proposed to be acquired to facilitate any upgrading works that may be required on this stream culvert when it is being extended to cross under the proposed roundabout at Chainage 0+00. I would accept that there is a need for the applicants to acquire this area and get access to this drain during construction works. It is considered that it would be appropriate that the area covered by the CPO in this location could be acquired on a temporary basis and handed back to the landowner when the works are completed. This is considered preferable to permanent acquisition of lands within the curtilage of a private dwelling / property.

William Daly (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting) CPO Ref. 122

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That a right of way has been cut off and no alternative access provided. • That the land take proposed is excessive.

Response Plot Ref. 122a.101 relates to a plot of land that is to be acquired at chainage c. 1+800 K and which is proposed to be bisected by the bypass route with an area for an attenuation pond to the west of the road alignment and an undeveloped landscaped area to the east. The lands for the road and attenuation pond are needed for the scheme. The area to the east of the road alignment was not the subject of discussion at the oral hearing and the specific purpose and resulting need for this plot of land is not certain. It is likely to be required for the purposes of construction.

Regarding severance, the laneway where the right of way is proposed to be extinguished runs south from the Creeveroe Road and onwards from the proposed road alignment in the direction of the Limerick Road (R.463). The landowner in question is landowner No.9 on Figure 9.1 and this map indicates that the area to the east of the alignment regarding which the need is not clear, will be severed from a significant area of agricultural lands to the west of the road. Given the severance of this small area of land (c0.6 ha.) that is currently in forestry from the balance of the lands the permanent acquisition of the lands is considered an appropriate action although the Board may wish to give consideration to its acquisition on a temporary rather than permanent basis.

No alternative access from the north to the lands is proposed to be provided to replace the severed right of way by the intersection of the laneway by the bypass however access will remain to the balance of the CPO No.122 plot of lands.

An Bord Pleanala Page 104 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Liegenschaftsverwaltung Geselschaft GmbH (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting) CPO Ref. 131

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That the route is inappropriate having regard to impacts on many residents and road constructed on lands that are part of a protected structure.

That the road will be elevated and impact significantly on the existing residence. • The attenuation pond will have a significant negative impact on the approach to the property. • The junction opposite the school set down area will result in a traffic hazard. • Not adequate account of existing and future business activity in this area.

Response The impact of the proposed scheme on protected structures and the curtilage of protected structures is considered under Environmental Impacts at 9.3 of this report. It is not considered that the proposed scheme would have a significant adverse impact on the character or setting of the protected structure of Clarisford House or that the impact arising in this regard would be contrary to the provisions of the Clare County Development Plan.

The attenuation pond proposed to the north west of Clarisford House will be at a separation of c. 150 metres. There will be no inter visibility between the house and the attenuation pond and the pond will be landscaped in accordance with the proposals set out in the EIS.

The junction with the bypass will be altered with the omission of the set down area opposite from the scheme. In addition, it is suggested that the design of the junction with the bypass be amended to facilitate the provision of a ghost island junction at the entrance to Clarisford Park / Clarisford Estate and that the omission of the school drop off area would facilitate the additional width of road required to cater for a ghost island junction in this location. There may also be some scope for the road alignment in this area to be relocated further north to increase the impact on the lands of Clarisford House.

Dorothy Benson (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting) CPO Ref. 135

General objection to CPO as summarised above.

Barry Ryan (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting) CPO Ref. 137

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the location of a roundabout within 30 metres of the access to this property is highly dangerous. The junction could be redesigned and traffic lights installed.

An Bord Pleanala Page 105 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Response The installation of traffic lights on the roundabout at this junction is not considered necessary given the traffic volumes projected at this location.

Roisin Healy (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting) CPO Ref. 147

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That the land take is excessive. • The septic tank will be impacted and dwelling should be connected to mains.

Response This plot relates to a dwelling site at c. chainage 0+080 R on the eastern side of the R494 on the immediate approach to the junction with the proposed bridge crossing. The proposed land take in this location is significant and extends into the site to within c. 2 metres of the front façade of the dwelling. The land take is to facilitate the provision of a new access to the property however this revised access terminates c.5 metres from the CPO line as indicated. This specific site was not the subject of detailed discussion at the hearing however it is possible that the lands are required to facilitate the installation of a new septic tank. For this reason, it is considered that the land take proposed is necessary, however it may not be required to be acquired on a permanent basis.

During the course of the hearing, the applicant stated that proposals for the connection of properties to the mains drainage system were being examined. In the interim the applicants have committed to installing all replacement septic tank / treatment systems in accordance with current standards, (EIS, section 9.8).

Patrick O’Dowd (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting) CPO Ref. 149

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • Unclear how far the land take extends into property. • Impact on lawn and trees unclear.

Response This submission was the subject of some discussion at the oral hearing and Mr Morrissey made a presentation to the hearing on Mr O’Dowd’s behalf. Photographs of the front boundary of this property were submitted and are enclosed as Item C10 with this report. Mr O’Dowd outlined to the hearing how he is involved in the training of guide dogs and how this necessitates a secure boundary treatment. The existing boundary comprises a high hedgerow boundary as seen in the submitted photographs. It is requested that a 2.5 – 2.7 metre high stone wall to match that of the adjoining property (see photographs) would be erected and that this boundary would be back planted with a hedgerow.

The comments of the objector regarding the extent of proposed land take being uncertain are noted, however I consider that it is apparent from the submitted drawings the extent of take proposed. It is also apparent from the deposit maps that the extent of land take will extend further into this site than the line of the boundary wall of the adjoining property to the south and any such similar boundary treatment on Plot Ref. 149 would not therefore align with this boundary. I do not consider that a

An Bord Pleanala Page 106 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

stone wall treatment is required in this location from an amenity or security perspective, however I accept that the acquiring authority will be required to provide a replacement boundary in this location on a like for like basis and that such a boundary treatment will have to be equally secure for the purpose of the dog training activity undertaken on the site as is the case with the existing boundary.

Eve Moloney (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting) CPO Ref. 158

General objection to CPO as summarised above.

Brian and Patricia Byrne (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting) CPO Ref. 161

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the location of the existing entrance is incorrectly shown. • Design drawings do not show that the Fort Henry gate is being relocated. • That the scale is such that cant accurately assess impact on residence on south side of road.

Response From an inspection on the ground it is not clear to me in what way that the access to this property is incorrectly indicated on the submitted drawings. The property was not the subject of detailed discussion at the oral hearing and the issue regarding the access was not detailed by the objectors agent at the hearing.

The drawings are not clear with regard to the implications of the CPO alignment for the Fort Henry gate access however Plate 10.8 of the EIS illustrates the entrance in question. Table 10.2 of the EIS states that there will be removal of a portion of the boundary wall although the exact extent is not detailed. The EIS indicates that the gate will not be altered as a result of the proposal.

Joseph Doolan (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting) CPO Ref. 162

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That Plot 162a.101 is incorrectly described as part of the public road. • Plot 162a.104 is part of house curtilage and not the public road.

Response Plot CPO Ref. 162a.101 is outside of the curtilage of any residential property and comprises lands that are part of the alignment of the existing R494 and are on the alignment of the proposed improved R494 in this location. Plot CPO Ref. 162a.104 is also outside of the curtilage of any residential property and comprises lands that are the recessed entrance to the dwelling on the eastern side of the road at chainage c. 0+575 R. It is therefore my opinion that the description of these plots as part of the public road is correct in this instance.

An Bord Pleanala Page 107 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Eamon and Maura Gilmore (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting) CPO Ref. 163

General objection to CPO as summarised above.

Michael and Siobhan Larkin (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting) CPO Ref. 166a.101

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That the land take is excessive. • The land take is incorrectly described as a public road. • Part of the road is incorrectly described as a house curtilage.

Response The area covered by plot 166a.101 is located at chainage c. 0+875 on the east side of the R494 and the plot takes in lands that will in part be used for the cycleway and landscaping strip along the east side of the improved R494. The plot is currently outside of the curtilage of the dwelling in this location and, on this basis, the description contained in the schedule of the lands as public road is in my opinion accurate. The only part of the plot recorded in the schedule as comprising house curtilage is 166a.103 and it appears to me that the bulk if not all of this plot which is enclosed by the existing roadside boundary of the dwelling and the access driveway within the property is part of the curtilage of the dwelling and therefore is accurately described in the schedule.

No specific discussion was undertaken at the hearing with regard to this site. There is part of the plot at the northern end that does not appear to be directly required for the scheme however the set back does facilitate sight lines from the entrances to the north and on this basis I consider that it is required for the undertaking of the scheme.

AMR Limited (C/o Martin and Rea Consulting) CPO Ref. 169

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: • That the land take is excessive. • It is unclear what is proposed at the entrance to Fort Henry at chainage c.0+625 R.

Response Discussion regarding the land take in this location is contained in section 9.3 of the report relating to drainage and during the course of the hearing the agents for the objector at this location questioned the requirement for the permanent and temporary CPO within the curtilage of the Fort Henry lands and also the information provided by the applicants with regard to road drainage, stream levels and discharge to the R. Shannon.

The permanent CPO 169a.105, 106 and 107 are required to facilitate the provision of a new access arrangement at this location which is, in my opinion necessary to provide a safe access with a right angle junction with the bypass. The existing arrangement has an angled junction and given the location of the cycletrack on this side of the road it is my opinion that the junction works are required and that the proposed permanent land take in this location is needed to facilitate a safe access arrangement to the improved R494.

An Bord Pleanala Page 108 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

The balance of the area within the estate which is proposed to be acquired on a temporary basis, is likely not required (see 9.3.3.8 below) however I accept the point made by the applicants regarding the proposed acquisition being a precautionary measure and also note the issues that arose at the hearing regarding levels in this area and the conflicting information in this regard. Having regard to these factors I consider that there is a need for the inclusion of this area, Ref. 169a.202 to accommodate the scheme and it is therefore considered appropriate that this temporary CPO being included. The inclusion of area 169a.201 is also considered appropriate on a temporary basis to facilitate the connection of the attenuation pond in plot 169a.102, to the stream. These lands may be omitted by agreement between the parties when further investigations regarding levels in this area clarify their need for their inclusion.

The proposed treatment of the entrance to the estate at c.0+625 R is indicated on the Landscape Mitigation Plan (sheet 6 of 9, Fig. 8.6 of the EIS) and this indicates wet woodland planting mix being inserted in this location. Any replacement entrance proposal would be on a like for like basis, the details of which would be the subject of agreement between the acquiring authority and the property owner.

9.2.5.5 Individual CPO Objectors

The following parties made objections to the CPO aspect of the proposal. A number of these parties also had submissions made by agents on their behalf.

Frank Conlan CPO Ref. 104a. 101

Mr Conlon is the owner of the residential property that fronts onto the R.463 to the south of the proposed Ballyvally roundabout. The objection may be summarised as follows:

• Construction access provision. • Details of screening during construction. • Relocation of water stopcock to a more convenient location. • Impact on existing pedestrian gate / level unclear. • Impact on front boundary treatment unclear. • Rainwater currently discharges to the road and the method of collection and disposal via the new road is unclear. • Details of works to entrance to garden unclear. • That the trees along the northern boundary of the property with the Ballyvally Estate are in poor condition and hazardous. These trees are protected in the development plan but who will do this ? Suggested that the trees adjoining the bypass would be acquired by and maintained by the LA. • That the gap in trees arising from the proposed road will exacerbate a current c.30 metre wide gap in this area and the overall impact needs to be assessed. This potential impact is not adequately addressed in the EIS. • Presumed that street lighting will be restored / provided. • That the levels at the NW corner (Ref. 104a.103) were raised at the time of construction of dwelling to the west and should be restored to original.

An Bord Pleanala Page 109 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• That there would be no objection to landscape planting of the boundary extending beyond Ref. 104a.103.

Response From the schedule only a small area of land at the northern end of this property that is within the curtilage of the dwelling is proposed to be acquired. It is therefore assumed that the front boundary will not be impacted by the proposed works. Any works at the northern end of the site will require the replacement of existing boundary / entrance treatment on a like for like basis. Road drainage is provided for in the proposed scheme and will be catered for during construction as per commitments in the EIS. The trees adjoining this property are outside of the CPO land take proposed and are the responsibility of the relevant private property owner. The area covered by Ref. 104a.103 is indicated on the landscape plan as sloping down to the road level at this point.

Heidrun Poppe and Klaus Sinnhoffer c/o Ivor Fitzpatrick and Co. Solicitors (Represented by Mr Michael O’Donnell SC) CPO Ref. 106

That the proposed scheme will adversely affect their property and affect their constitutional right to property. An oral hearing is requested.

Response Mr O’Donnell SC on behalf of this objector raised a number of issues at the oral hearing which related to environmental issues and the adequacy of the EIS. These issues are addressed in section 9.3 of this report.

Kathleen Hawes CPO Ref. 111a.101, 102

The objection submitted can be summarised as follows:

• Increase in traffic volumes, noise and proximity of road. • Volume and noise of construction traffic. Access during construction. • Construction will demolish the wall to the front and impacts in terms of dust, dirt and air quality. • Hazard for walking once scheme complete. • Existing view lost. • Change in feeling of security and safety. • Severance from neighbours and friends. • Negative emotional impact.

Further objection C/o John Crowley Consulting summarised as follows:

• That the schedule is incorrect in identifying the curtilage of the dwelling as road acquisition. • That lands are included in the CPO additional to that required for to build the scheme.

An Bord Pleanala Page 110 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Response Plot Ref. 111a.102 is identified in the schedule as part of the public road and this area is outside of the curtilage of the dwelling and so is, in my opinion accurately described in the CPO Schedule. In the event that the detailed description contained in the schedule requires further amendment this can be done at a later stage.

The area 111a.101 that forms part of the dwelling curtilage in this location is not essential for the construction of the agricultural access track or the tie in with the existing Hill Road in the vicinity of this property where part of the original road is proposed to be retained for local access however it is required to provide screening hedgerow planting in this location and is necessary for this reason. Similar to the adjacent plot to the west (CPO Ref. 110), the omission of this plot (Ref. 111a.101) from the CPO may be agreed between the parties if the property owner is willing to accept the omission of screen planting in this location.

Issues of traffic, noise, dust and air quality as raised by the objector are considered under environmental impacts arising. Any issues arising relating to severance or loss of view would be taken into account at arbitration stage under severance and potential injurious affection.

HSE West (c/o DTZ Sherry Fitzgerald) CPO Ref. 115a. 101 and 102

The objection may be summarised as follows:

That the proposed alignment is not optimal, will severely devalue the remaining land holding and does not appear to provide for adequate accommodation works for the remainder of the lands.

Response The area in question is located at the junction of the Creeveroe Road and the bypass route and are indicated in the EIS as being part of an agricultural holding. The lands in question are required for the provision of a new staggered junction at this location. The land take proposed is in my opinion necessary for the construction of the junction in this location. It is also noted that while the alignment will sever this holding the amount of land remaining on the southern side of the road is limited. Realignment of the road in a east – west direction to reduce the impact on this holding would have significant impacts on other land holdings and properties in the vicinity. It is considered that the issue raised is one of compensation and that regard will be had to land acquisition and severance in the assessment of compensation payable. Mitigation regarding severance and access and drainage are set out at 9.7.1 of the EIS and are considered satisfactory.

Tom Hayes Limited in receivership (c/o Holmes O’Malley Sexton Solicitors) CPO Ref. 123a.101

The solicitors act for the developer of a residential estate located at the southern end of the bypass route at the junction of the bypass with the R463 Limerick Road and who also owns other lands adjoining this junction. The following is a summary of the main points raised in this submission:

An Bord Pleanala Page 111 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• That the proposed land take would make lands A to the north west of the junction completely inaccessible. • That there is only one other entrance to the company lands and this is via a narrow access between third party lands. • That the number and location of access points to the company’s lands would be reduced. The agriculturally zoned part of the lands would become landlocked by the residential and recreational areas. • That were the CPO confirmed then access to the stream would be lost and implications for agricultural land and surface water drainage outfall. • That permission was refused for a number of reasons including prematurity pending a decision on the relief route.

Response This objector was not represented at the oral hearing and no detailed discussion regarding the issues raised in the written submission were undertaken. The area of land referred to the south west of the roundabout at the junction of the bypass and the R463 will become land locked as a result of the proposed alignment. This issue will have to be assessed at compensation stage under the heading of severance. The relocation of the road alignment further to the south west in the vicinity of this junction would alleviate the severance issue for this property owner but would introduce new and increased severance issues for other holdings, notably CPO Refs. 122 and 127. Landholding B retains road frontage onto the Creeveroe Road at two locations either side of the playing pitches although only the further north of these two access options would appear currently to be free of development. Access to the land holding and the potential implications on development potential and value are issues that would be addressed at arbitration. With regard to access to the agricultural lands it is noted that access to these lands is indicated in the East Clare LAP as being from the R463 via lands that are also in the ownership of the objector. Any implications for access to these lands would be an issue for arbitration as would the potential loss of a direct outfall for surface water.

ESB, Gerard Crowley CPO Ref. 130a. 101, 130b.101, 102, 130c.101 and 199a.103

The following points are raised in the submission received:

• That the ESB is supportive of the proposed scheme. • That the ESB owns lands and has infrastructure in close proximity to the route • That Parteen Weir which is the entrance to the headrace to Ardnacrusha is located c.5km from the proposed new river crossing / bridge. Water level and flow is critical to the operation of the power plant and the importance of continued consultation as the bypass project advances is critical. • That the new bridge should not reduce the conveyance capacity of the river channel in any way. • That the ESB have an involvement in fisheries in the Shannon catchment and that the Board should ensure that the fishery resource aspect of the river is protected. • That there are a significant number of potential conflict points between the proposed development and the low voltage network. Where conflicts arise provision for relocation will have to be made.

An Bord Pleanala Page 112 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• That more detailed analysis is required in order to determine the impact of the proposed scheme on the Moneypoint to Dunstown 400kv line. Detailed profile data and perhaps a survey will be required at this location.

Response: The ESB was not represented at the hearing. The comments of the ESB were noted and addressed at the hearing by Mr Conroy for the applicant (Brief of evidence Item A1). Commitments were given that continued consultations would be undertaken with the ESB as the project progressed.

Mr Brennan and Mr Cawley for the applicant addressed the issue raised regarding the potential alteration of the conveyance capacity of the river arising from the proposed scheme (Brief of Evidence Item A3), and stated that the proposed piers in the river channel will only have a localised impact on velocities in the river and will not affect the hydraulic capacity of the channel such that it would impact on the generation activities of the Ardnacrusha plant in any way. In this regard, it was noted that the capacity of Ardnacrusha is 400 cumec which is c. 50 percent of the total 100 year flood flow in the river.

Richard and Marella O’Toole CPO Ref. 133a.101 and 102

These objectors are the owners of the residential property and adjoining lands that are located on the western side of the River Shannon at the point of the proposed crossing and which is proposed to be acquired in its entirety to accommodate the road.

The contents of this objection may be summarised as follows:

• That the route passes through a quiet residential area of high amenity and adequate consideration of alternative less costly and disruptive and intrusive alternatives has not been made. • That the proposed development would interfere with the setting of Clarisford palace which is of significant architectural interest. • That the route is adjacent to the playing fields of St Anne’s Community School and will generate noise, dust and other environmental impacts on users of the school facilities and adjoining residents. • That the proposed route crosses a SAC and would negatively impact on the habitat of this SAC and be contrary to European law. • That the route selection process undertaken that arrived at the proposed route was flawed and the data contained in the assessments undertaken of the options technically incorrect. • That there are not resources available to undertaken the proposed scheme and the approval of the scheme at this time would enable the market value to be set at a time when values are very depressed. The CPO should be refused on this basis or, if approved, that compensation should be on long term normalised property values and that restriction on the time period for payment and works be included.

An Bord Pleanala Page 113 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Further CPO objection C/o Martin and Rea Consulting summarised as follows:

• That having regard to the sensitive environmental setting and proximity to schools the route is totally inappropriate.

Response Issues raised in these objections relating to consideration of alternatives, impact on protected structures, ecology, Natura 2000 sites, noise, dust and route selection process are environmental considerations rather than objections to the CPO and are addressed under the heading of environmental impacts at section 9.3 of this report.

Mr Roy Benson CPO Refs. 136a.101, 136b.101

The objection received can be summarised as follows:

• That the need for the bridge is questionable and the findings of the 2011 traffic survey are questionable. Traffic has reduced due to the economy, the Limerick Tunnel, the Dublin to Ennis motorway, the closure of Finsa Limited in Scariff. The figure of 6% HGV from the 2011 traffic survey is hard to believe. • That the planned northern bypass of Limerick will further reduce traffic volumes. • That the choice of route 7c did not coincide with the majority preference for route 6. • That cost was a significant factor in the decision and has the river crossing been in a different location then the cost could have been less (e.g. if the need for the bypass was omitted). • That the river crossing decision preceded the bypass being determined necessary and the whole process is flawed. • That the proposed crossing is in an area of especially high amenity. It is a SAC and the alternative routes within or outside the SAC that would have lower environmental impact have not been examined sufficiently. • That the description of the lands covered by 136b.101 and 136a.104 is described as agricultural and should properly be called residential. • That the project has gone on so long that lands have been frozen for an unacceptably long time. • That the CPO of additional lands that are part of the garden of Mr Benson’s dwelling is not necessary and impacts excessively on his property relative to those on the opposite side of the road. • That funding is not in place and that property owners are being exploited by this CPO proceeding at this time. Should the project be approved then CPO should be on the basis of long term values.

Further CPO objection C/o Martin and Rea Consulting summarised as follows:

• That the level of land take is excessive. • That the location of the bridge in a residential area is inappropriate given the alternatives at route selection stage. • That the location of a major roundabout at this location close to entrances is inappropriate.

An Bord Pleanala Page 114 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Response

Issues raised relating to need of the scheme and traffic impacts are addressed at 9.2.1 and 9.2.2 of this report above. The potential impact on the SAC is an issue that is considered under environmental impacts at 9.3 below.

The lands in plot 136a.101 is described in the schedule as part of the public road, is located outside of the curtilage of the dwelling at this location and is, in my opinion correctly described in the schedule. Plot 136a.104 comprises an undeveloped area to the south side of Mr Benson’s dwelling and was referred to as the field by Mr Benson at the hearing. This area of land is connected to the garden area of Mr Bensons dwelling by a gap in the hedge / tree line along the northern boundary of this plot but is not laid out or maintained as a garden. The lands were not used for agricultural purposes at the time of inspection however there is a separate access to this plot of land. The classification of this area of land will be a subject for determination at arbitration stage however on the basis that the area is connected to the rear garden of Mr Bensons dwelling and is not and shows no evidence of recently being used for agricultural purposes, it is my opinion that this area would more appropriately be described as residential land rather than as agricultural land.

With regard to the level of land take, the area to the front of Mr Bensons property will be impacted by the proposed scheme and the construction of a cycleway and footpath in this location. The impact of the land take required to accommodate these works was outlined to the hearing by Mr Billy Morrissey on behalf of Mr Benson. The effect would be significant, with the existing boundary wall removed and the area of the front boundary set back by c.3.25 metres such that it would be located c.2.0 metre from the front boundary of the dwelling. As highlighted to the hearing, this relocation of the boundary would have significant implications for the circulation at the front of the dwelling and access to the existing garages located to the side of the dwelling. The issue regarding the need for the provision / extension of the cycleway extending north from the roundabout at this side of the road was discussed at the hearing and is referred to under traffic in the consideration of environmental issues at section 9.3 of this report. It is my opinion that the extension of the cycleway in this location is not justified given the impact on Mr Bensons’s property and the fact that it terminates immediately to the north of this property. Notwithstanding the fact that the footpath proposed to the front of this property would also terminate, I consider that it is necessary that the footpath continue north in this location. The need for the extension of the cyclepath is not apparent and it is therefore recommended that Plot 136a.103 be omitted from the CPO and that the cycleway in this location be omitted as a result. The inclusion of plot 136a.102 is required to accommodate the footpath in this location. The boundary treatment along this section would need to be replaced by the applicant in a form consistent with the existing boundary of this 1930’s dwelling.

Reference was made by Mr Morrissey during the course of the hearing to the possibility that the roundabout at the eastern end of the river crossing section could be relocated very slightly to the east, and that such a relocation would have the potential to reduce the overall impact of the proposed scheme on Mr Benson’s property. Having reviewed the proposed layout of this area, I consider that while it may be possible to move the roundabout slightly to the east, the scope for the realignment of the approach from Ballina to the roundabout such as would make any material change to the land take required from Mr Benson’s property is negligible.

An Bord Pleanala Page 115 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Richard O’Donnell CPO Ref. 151a.101 and 102

The objection may be summarised as follows: • That the area of the entrance contains lighting and cabelling that should not be interfered with. • That an alternative route via the picnic park in council ownership would be cheaper and was discussed with the council. • That confirmation is sought that the entrance way land can be taken back at the completion of works.

Response The impact on private services within the CPO lands would have to be the subject of detailed agreement between the applicant and the acquiring authority at arbitration stage. There would be a requirement on the acquiring authority that all such services would be protected during the works and replaced / relocated if necessary.

The area covered by 151a. 101 and 102 is outside of the existing curtilage of the dwelling and I do not see that there is a compelling argument that these lands should be returned to the objector following completion of the works. It is also noted that the plots referred to include lands that would be part of the landscaped area on the eastern side of the road and the road carriageway itself. This is an issue for discussion and possible agreement between the parties at arbitration stage and the acquiring authority may be agreeable to returning some of these lands

Mark D. Pollard CPO Ref. 155a.101

The objection may be summarised as follows: • That the design is proposed and the acquiring authority are free to amend the design without further consultation or application. This is contrary the decisions of the ECJ. • That the impact on the SAC is such that the scheme is contrary to the proper Planning and Sustainable Development of the area. The case of Sweetman v ABP is relevant. • That there is a requirement for the Board to undertake an appropriate assessment. • There is no vermin mitigation in the EIS. • Funding is not available. The scheme is not listed in the NDP and the effect of the application is to have a long term negative impact on property values. • That the contention that the improvement of the existing bridge is not a realistic option is not clearly established. • That the traffic analysis and surveys are flawed.

Further CPO objection C/o Martin and Rea Consulting summarised as follows:

• That design of R494 appears to be done with aim of maximising the impact on properties on the western side of the road. • Not clear what width the cycle track is between Birdhill and Roolagh. • That the level of land take is excessive and unclear due to the small scale. A small design amendment could significantly reduce the impact.

An Bord Pleanala Page 116 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Response Issues relating to the scope for amendments of the design, and impacts on the SAC, alternatives and traffic are addressed in other sections of this report. The width of the cycleway along the section referred to is stated at 3.3 of the EIS and is apparent from the submitted plans.

The issue of balance between the east and west side of the R494 is noted and in the immediate vicinity of the objectors lands the requirement arises from the proposed raising of the level of the road and the need for an embankment. The balance between the land take on the two sides of the road is also influenced by the raising ground levels on the eastern side and the difficulties of providing new vehicular accesses to these properties were the land take and change of levels on the east side any greater than proposed. Overall, it is my opinion that the approach to land take in this area of the R494 is balanced and that the land take will involve the acquisition of necessary lands to pursue the scheme in this location.

K. Noel Broderick CPO Ref. 189a.101

Mr Broderick is the owner of an industrial unit on the R494 located within the Shannonside Business Park. The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the new boundary will mean that there will be no vehicular access to the premises and will render the use of the building unusable as a machinery distribution unit. • How will access be available to the yard area that remains to the south and west of the building and access to an existing loading bay to the building ? • That the above problem was brought to the attention of the council who indicated that the boundary line could be altered to resolve the issue however this has not been done.

Response The unit in question is located at the north west corner of the business park lands and has a delivery / service yard that is accessed from the sought and which is located to the west of the unit. This yard has loading bays to the unit accessed from this yard. No discussion of the detailed proposals for this location were undertaken at the time of the oral hearing and this objector was not represented at the hearing. The layout as proposed will result in the yard area not being accessible and the bulk of the yard, up to a point within c.2.5 metres of the unit on the site is proposed to be included within the CPO line. The CPO is not indicated on the schedule as being temporary however it is noted that the layout proposed indicates the construction of a retaining wall in the area of the service yard which means that the embankments proposed to the north and south are not required in this location. The layout as indicated means that the yard could continue to serve the industrial unit in this location however some temporary disruption during the construction of the retaining wall is likely. While it is likely given the layout that the bulk of the area of the service yard would be returned to the objector it is considered appropriate that this would be required in any decision as were it not to occur the unit would not be operable. It is therefore recommended that the following plots would be specified as being acquired on a temporary basis and returned on completion of the proposed works, Refs. 189a. 102, 104 and 105 and 190a.103 and 104.

An Bord Pleanala Page 117 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Sylvester Addley, (c/o PJ Brett and Associates Limited) CPO Ref. 190

Mr Addley is the owner and operator of Shannonside Business Park and does not have an objection in principle to the proposed development. Notes that permission has been granted for the extension of the park and that there are additional lands available for further development. The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the level of detail and drawings provided to date regarding the proposal is not adequate to enable a detailed assessment to be made. • That the CPO line is clearly incorrect as the area between the red line and the retaining wall adjacent to the unit in the NW corner of the park does not need to be acquired and would not be sold. There is no objection to a temporary lease of this area to facilitate construction. • Clarification regarding the impact of the new railway bridge on the activities / operation of the business park and specifically the amount of land required for bridge abutments. • Specific requirements for the new boundary wall and entrance are specified. • That ground to the SE of the entrance road shall be kept level by the inclusion of a retaining wall. • Pedestrian footpath along the length of the new frontage. • Replacement of existing car parking spaces lost. • Lighting and signage to the new entrance. Full drainage to the new entrance road. • Requirement for a full traffic management plan for the site to show how access will be provided for during construction.

Response The issue relating to the service yard to the unit on site is addressed above. In common with the above, the specific issues raised in this objection were not discussed at the oral hearing and the objector was not represented or present at the hearing.

The extent of the proposed CPO is indicated on the drawings and the bridge abutments and construction works would have to be contained within the CPO line as indicated. Details of the proposed boundary treatment are not detailed in the scheme and the request of the property owner in this regard is noted. Details of the boundary treatment and signage is one for the arbitration stage and agreement between the parties and there is an onus on the applicant to replace boundary treatments on a like for like basis as a minimum requirement. Lighting is detailed in the application documentation as are the commitments regarding construction and construction access. The loss of car parking spaces that may arise is an issue for assessment and determination by the arbitrator at compensation stage.

The provision of a footpath in this location is not proposed and is not, in my opinion required or appropriate over an isolated short section. A footpath is proposed on the opposite, (west) side of the R494. The request regarding the provision of a retaining wall to the south east of the new elevated access road is noted however the lands required for the construction of the embankment and located within the CPO line will be the subject of compensation at arbitration stage.

An Bord Pleanala Page 118 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

William Bird and Sons CPO Ref. 192a.101, 102 and 103

The objection may be summarised as follows:

• Own lands located to the south of the railway bridge on the R.494 and which have been used for the storage of large vehicles. • No objection in principle to the CPO however want to ensure that the is safe access and egress to their lands and facilitates the access of large vehicles including along the access track to the lands which is proposed to run parallel to the R494.

Response The exact nature and frequency of the lands in question are not clear and this objector was not represented at the oral hearing. The access road proposed would be sufficient to enable the passage of normal HGV traffic however the radius of the junction at the southern end would appear to be such that access for large HGVs may be problematic and there is limited scope for the access arrangements to be improved within the CPO line as indicated. In the absence of further details regarding the usage of these lands it is not possible to be definitive regarding the likely impact on the use of these lands and issues regarding the limitation on the future use of the land is an issue for assessment at compensation stage.

Clare VEC and St. Anne’s Community College CPO Ref. 129a.101 and 200a.201

The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

• That the school is facing pressure to accommodate significant additional numbers of students over the next few years and pressures on its available land. The lands at the rear of the school the subject of the CPO are part of the redevelopment for amenity / recreational use. • That the proposed drop off and collection point on the new road would create problems of safety, security and management. Instead of the proposed drop off a new vehicular access point from the new road to the rear of the college lands should be provided. Such an access would facilitate the future development of the college lands.

Response : This objection has been clarified by an e mail from the college submitted to the hearing in which it was stated that the college accepted that the provision of alternative access to the rear of the college lands was not feasible at this time. The e mail correspondence submitted also indicated that the objection to the set down area remained and it is noted that the applicant indicated to the hearing that they were willing to have this element of the scheme omitted. It is recommended that this be done but that the lands covered by the proposed set down area be retained within the CPO schedule.

An Bord Pleanala Page 119 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.3 Environmental Issues

9.3.1 General Issues Relating to the EIS

9.3.1.1 The issue of the consideration of alternatives in the EIS was referenced at 9.2.2 above. In addition, the level of detail contained in the EIS and the adequacy to which it describes the nature of the proposed development and facilitates an accurate assessment of the likely significant impacts was a central issue raised by objectors to the proposed development during the course of the hearing. Within this, the following issues are considered to be of particular concern to the objectors:

• Level of detail submitted, specifically with regard to levels, • The lack of detail regarding the haulage along the route and the storage, processing and disposal of materials. • Details regarding the methodology proposed to be used for the extraction of material in the locations where cut is required and most specifically in the large cutting proposed in the vicinity of Ballyvally.

An assessment of EIA and the adequacy of the EIS is addressed in the following section 9.4 however the following discussion addresses some of the issues raised by the objectors with regard to the approach taken in the EIS and should be read in conjunction with section 9.4 that follows.

9.3.1.2 The issues raised by the objectors regarding the adequacy of the EIS relate primarily to the fact that there are aspects of the design and sequencing / phasing of the scheme that are not definite. Specifically, while the application has been prepared for the entire scheme, and the EIS relates to the three elements of the scheme, namely the bypass, bridge crossing and the R494 Improvement, it is apparent from the discussion in the EIS regarding earth balances and from the discussion which took place at the hearing that the applicant cannot be definitive with regard to the phasing of the scheme. It remains uncertain whether, when funding becomes available for the scheme, that it will be constructed in one single contract or in a number of contracts. It is also noted that it was apparent during the course of the hearing that the nature of the contract for the construction of the proposed scheme had not been determined, although it was stated that it was likely that this would be in the form of a design and build contract.

9.3.1.3 The treatment of mitigation, with specific regard to noise and dust was raised by the objectors and there was significant criticism of the approach taken whereby a standard was set relating to noise, air quality and vibration to which the developer / contractor would be bound and which would not be exceeded. The details regarding the assessment of noise, air quality and vibration is covered at 9.3.6 of this report however with regard to the principle of the approach used and its compliance with the requirements of the EIA Directive and national legislation I would note the provisions of 5.3 of the NRA Guide on EIA (November, 2008) which specifically addresses the issue of mitigation in public private partnership and design and build schemes. This clearly sets out the option of the use of a performance standard for mitigation rather than the specification of the exact methods to be employed to meet the standard. Noise is specifically identified as one impact area where the use of a performance standard would be appropriate. The NRA Guide states that ‘ The environmental impact should be described in the EIS in terms of setting the maximum (or ’not to exceed’) acceptable level of environmental impact. In these circumstances, the actual

An Bord Pleanala Page 120 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

detailed design of the bridge need not be specified, leaving the D&B contractor to develop the detailed bridge design after approval has been obtained while taking into account the acceptable level of environmental impact set out in the approved EIS. This provides An Bord Pleanála, and the public, with the necessary assurance that the decision has been based on a knowledge of the maximum impacts that could arise’. The approach pursued in the case of the subject application and submitted EIS is consistent with this guidance.

9.3.1.4 Many questions were raised over the curse of the hearing with regard to the detail of the process to be undertaken and the adequacy of the EIS in describing the nature of the process and hence the adequacy of the assessment of the impacts arising. Specific questions were raised regarding the exact amount of rock to be excavated, where will it be deposited along the route, where it would be crushed and screened. The submitted EIS contains significant detail with regard to the earth balances in the scheme and this is broken down for each of the three individual sections of the scheme. The applicant also set out at the hearing how it was proposed that the material extracted would be used as far as possible for fill sections along the route. The exact quantities of material extracted could not be given definitively as this would only be known on more detailed ground analysis however in my opinion the detail provided in the EIS regarding earth balances is comprehensive and such as to enable an accurate assessment of the likely significant effect s on the environment to be made.

9.3.1.5 The concerns of the objectors regarding the lack of detail relating to the time period for the extraction of rock material, the precise nature of the extraction process and the storage and crushing / screening process that will occur along the route are noted. For example, it is noted that during the hearing reference was made by the applicant to the crushing and screening of material in the site compound at the southern end of the bypass route. It is also stated that in response to questions from Mr O’Donnell, it was agreed by the applicant that this was not specifically referred to in the EIS. Again, however I note the fact that the nature of the proposed construction contract and the uncertainty with regard to the exact phasing of the scheme are such that it is not possible for the applicant to be definitive with regard to the precise method of extraction of material, the exact locations where material will be stored along the route and crushing and screening activities. The impacts of these activities relate primarily to impact areas where the use of performance standards and maximum design effects are appropriate, such as noise and vibration. It is accepted that the detailed design methodology may have effects on other environmental impact areas, notably visual impact during construction however I note the discussion which took place at the hearing with Mr Boyle (Murray and Associates Landscape Architects) regarding the methodology employed in the assessment and specifically the fact that Mr Boyle stated that the storage of materials in the compounds along the route was accounted for in the visual analysis undertaken of the scheme.

9.3.1.6 Page 54 of the NRA Guide on EIA contains an example of the assessment of impacts arising from the management of surplus material on a large road scheme and highlights how the limited detail provided initially in the relevant EIS required elaboration prior to permission being granted. In the case of the subject proposal, it is my opinion that the information provided with regard to the earthworks balances for the individual elements of the scheme, the identification of the main and satellite site compounds and the description of the proposed construction methodology contained

An Bord Pleanala Page 121 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

in the EIS and elaborated on at the hearing by the applicant is acceptable and that it gives sufficient information that the ‘l ikely significant effects on the environment’ can be ascertained and assessed. This description together with the use of specific mitigation measures and mitigation by compliance with performance standards in certain impact areas is in my opinion an acceptable approach to the preparation of the EIS for the proposed scheme and one which is consistent with the requirements of the EIA Directive and national legislation, specifically section 50 of the Roads Act, 1993 (as amended). I would therefore not accept the contention of Mr O’Donnell for the objectors that as the processes involved in the construction such as the precise method of extraction, and exact details regarding the movement and storage of materials along the alignment of the scheme have not been described in detail that there has not therefore been consideration of the likely significant effects that would arise.

9.3.1.7 Reference was made during the course of the hearing to the degree of variation that may be permitted in any approved scheme at construction stage and the implications of such changes in detailed alignment post approval in terms of the environmental impacts and impacts on specific properties was highlighted as a concern. In this regard, Mr Morrissey for the objectors specifically proposed to the hearing that in the event that the scheme was to be approved that a maximum degree of tolerance / variation from the submitted plans would be specified. It was suggested that this variation limit would be 200 horizontally and 300mm vertically. Section 7.6 of the NRA Guide on the EIA of National Road Schemes gives guidance regarding the issue of design changes post approval and, correctly in my opinion, sets out the situation that the scheme is obviously limited by the CPO corridor set out and cannot go outside this corridor. The scheme post consent is also limited by the fact that it required an EIS and EIA and therefore any modifications to the scheme as approved would have to be under the provisions of Class 13, Annex II, or alternatively that such changes could only be undertaken if it was shown that the amendments would not lead to significant environmental effects. In the circumstances of the subject case, any changes to the final design would have to satisfy the requirement that they would not result in a significant environmental effect and this determination would supported by a screening process where appropriate. For this reason, I do not consider that there is a need to impose specific restrictions on the deviation of the alignment from that indicated in the application. On a related issue, the comments of objectors to the hearing regarding the incorporation of lands outside of the CPO line for uses related to the scheme, particularly during the construction phase, are noted. Such proposals are not part of the scheme as submitted and it was clarified by the applicant at the hearing that the use of lands outside of the identified CPO line is not proposed and is not part of the application. Were this situation to change then the onus would be on the applicant / developer to ensure that the appropriate consents were obtained for such use of the lands and that there were no significant environmental effects arising.

9.3.1.8 It was submitted by Mr Browne for the objectors that there is a requirement that all underlying data that was used to support the assessments should have been incorporated in the EIS and, in particular, the primary data that was collected for the traffic assessments. It was also contended by Mr Browne that there is an obligation on the developer or applicant is to supply information describing the likely significant effects of its project on the environment, and that while the courts will normally defer to the judgement of administrative authorities on the adequacy of an EIS, they have a residual power to intervene. Reference made to the case of Kenny v. An Bord Pleanála (No. 2) [2001] 1 I.R. 704, McKechnie J. at 713 held that the “ statutory

An Bord Pleanala Page 122 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

requirements of an EIS had to be satisfied, otherwise it would undoubtedly be open to challenge, at least on ultra vires grounds” . Reference also to Klohn v. An Bord Pleanála [2008] IEHC 111, McMahon J. held, inter alia, that the crucial question was whether the EIS was so deficient as to prevent a proper assessment by the decision maker or to deprive the parties to the process of a real opportunity to participate. It was further held in Klohn v. An Bord Pleanála [2009] 1 I.R. 59 at 64 that “ Failure to supply the minimum contents as mandated by the Regulations may threaten the process, for example, where clear mandatory provisions are ignored” .

9.3.1.9 In response to the points made by Mr Browne as set out above, I would note that the information required to be contained in an EIS relates to the main effects of the development or scheme (s.50(2)(c) of the Roads Act, 1993) and that this does not, in my opinion, infer a requirement that every piece of information that could possibly be relevant or every piece of background documentation or survey information must be submitted. In terms of legal judgements on this issue I note the cases cited by Mr Flanagan for the applicant, specifically that of Blewett v Derbyshire County Council which is referenced in the judgement of the Klohn case and which indicates that it is unrealistic to expect that an EIS will contain the full information. I also note the case Malster v Ipswich Borough Council where the judgement stated that an EIS did not have to cover every environmental effect but only the main effects or likely significant effects. Mr Flanagan also made reference to the case of Murphy v Wicklow County Council which indicates that there is no requirement that the EIS must be prepared to the level of final design drawings. Overall, on the basis of the information available, I am satisfied that the level of information provided in the EIS is such as to enable an assessment of the likely significant effects on the environment arising from the proposed scheme and that the information presented is such that it is in compliance with the requirements of the EIA Directive and Irish legislation, notably the Roads Act, 1993 (as amended) regarding the information to be contained in an EIS.

An Bord Pleanala Page 123 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.3.2 Ecology (Flora and Fauna)

9.3.2.1 Ecology is a central consideration to the assessment of the proposed scheme and issues relating to ecology and the impact of the road on water quality was one which was covered in extensive detail during the course of the oral hearing. It is also noted that the Board requested further information on a number of issues relating to ecology, water quality and drainage of the proposed scheme and that the applicant responded to this request by way of a response dated 25 th May, 2012. In this section, I propose to specifically examine ecology and the impact of the proposal on habitats.

• The River crossing section of the route • Wet alluvial woodland area (priority habitat) outside of the cSAC • Kilmastulla River area • Bats, otter and other species • Other issues

Detailed consideration of the impact of the proposed scheme on Natura 2000 sites and Appropriate Assessment of the scheme is covered in section 9.5 below and there is some degree of overlap between the appropriate assessment and the section below.

9.3.2.2 Shannon River Crossing Section

9.3.2.2.1 The proposed road crosses the River Shannon in an area that is part of the Lower River Shannon SAC which extends from the existing Killaloe Bridge in a southerly direction. The river at the point of the proposed crossing is c.146 metres in width and the depth ranges between 3 and 7 metres. The extent of the cSAC designation extends from the eastern bank of the canal, across the ‘island’ and for the full width of the river in this location.

9.3.2.2.2 The Lower River Shannon SAC in this location is identified for a large number of habitats and species that are identified in Annexes I and II of the Habitats Directive. Of particular note in relation to the proposed scheme are wet alluvial woodland and species Sea Lamprey, Brook Lamprey, River lamprey, Freshwater Pearl Mussel, salmon and otter.

9.3.2.2.3 The Protected Flora Order, 1999 is also of relevance in this area of the scheme as the Order lists opposite leaved pond weed and there is potential for this species to be present in the canal in the vicinity of the proposed crossing point. As part of the investigations for the EIS, a snorkel survey was undertaken of the canal over a section of c. 150 metres centred on the proposed alignment. No evidence of the pond weed was found and it is noted in the EIS that the area of the canal in question is quite shaded and that conditions are not right for the plant. There was no strong evidence to the contrary presented at the oral hearing.

9.3.2.2.4 With regard to Lamprey and salmon species, the EIS states that the area in the vicinity of the bridge alignment has suitable substrate for spawning however the conditions are not suitable from the perspective of the water depth and flow in the areas with potentially suitable substrate. Surveys of the area have not indicated any presence of lamprey and again at the hearing there was no strong evidence

An Bord Pleanala Page 124 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

presented that would contradict this conclusion. Under Item No.6 of the FI request, the applicant was requested to indicate whether there was any spawning habitat for salmon or lamprey within the predicted zone of vibration. The response re iterated the statement regarding the suitability of the area in the vicinity of the bridge for salmon and lamprey spawning habitat and presented an analysis of the estimated potential impact arising from vibration due to piling activity. This analysis estimated that the zone of influence is a maximum of 80 metres and likely significantly less than this distance and also that the overall of potential loss is considered to be minor. This information was noted and accepted by the representative of the Development Applications Unit at the hearing. The EIS also notes that lamprey ammocetes may be present in the soft sediment along the eastern shore of the River although the habitat in the vicinity of the bridge point is not suitable for spawning by lamprey. Item No.6 of the FI request related to further details regarding the potential impact of piling and construction work on the benthos of the river and the potential for significantly increased mortality in lamprey ammocoetes. The assessment undertaken concluded that the while some mortality cannot be ruled out, the significance of the loss is considered to be minor on the basis that comparable areas of potentially suitable habitat extend over several hundred metres along the eastern bank of the river. The submission from the Development Applications Unit to the oral hearing (Item B1) states that no effect on the lamprey are expected given the data provided.

9.3.2.2.5 The EIS does note the fact that a rare species of fish, the Pollan which is listed in Annex V of the Habitats Directive and in the Irish Red Data book and that gravel beds on the western side of the river in the vicinity of the proposed bridge may support this species. With regard to pollan, the EIS notes that considerable numbers of the fish have been caught in the eel fishery at the Killaloe Bridge and that this would suggest that there is spawning in the general area although it is not clear to what extent pollan actually spawn in the vicinity of the proposed bridge crossing.

9.3.2.2.6 On the basis of the information presented it is my opinion that the vicinity of the bridge crossing has some potential for lamprey and salmon as well as pollan however the depth of the water flow and the fact that the hard substrates of the river bed are covered with invasive zebra mussel significantly reduces the potential for spawning. Scuba surveys undertaken in the area in 2008 found no evidence of suitable spawning habitat for Salmon or Lamprey in the vicinity of the bridge crossing point. Consideration of the impact of the proposed scheme on the Natura 2000 site is addressed in section 9.5 (Appropriate Assessment).

9.3.2.3 Wet Alluvial Woodland Habitat (Western Bank of River Crossing Section)

9.3.2.3.1 Significant time was taken at the hearing discussing the status of and impact of the proposed scheme on an area of wet woodland habitat that is located on the western side of the river Shannon. The area in question is located on private property that adjoins the canal on the western side of the river and forms part of the rear gardens of properties that back onto the canal. At the outset it should be stated that the area in question is located outside of the boundary line of the Lower River Shannon SAC.

9.3.2.3.2 Dr Jarvis Good for the Development Applications Unit made a submission to the hearing with regard to the response to FI that was submitted by the applicant (Item B1 ). This response raises an issue with regard to the likely affects of the

An Bord Pleanala Page 125 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

proposed scheme on alluvial forests that it was stated that it is the opinion of the Department that there is insufficient information on the area and location of this habitat ‘ and on the extent of the likely direct and indirect effects on this habitat arising from the road scheme. The area of concern is west of the Shannon. It is also unclear how and where the mitigation will be implemented to protect this habitat within and adjacent to the landtake, and whether the protective and avoidance measures can be achieved .’

9.3.2.3.3 At the hearing, in response to the concerns of the DAU, the applicants submitted a drawing which set out the extent of the wet woodland that would be affected by the proposed scheme and also set out a list of measures that are designed to ensure the protection and reinstatement of the area of wet woodland habitat that will be impacted during construction works. This map and reinstatement plan is included as Item B3 . It should be noted that in response to comments from the DAU on this document, further revisions to the text of the proposed reinstatement plan for this area were submitted ( Items B5 and B7 ).

9.3.2.3.4 In summary, the map submitted by the applicants indicates an area of 0.25 ha. along the line of the road that will be permanently lost, an area of 0.15 ha. to the south of the alignment that will be temporally impacted during construction and reinstated afterwards in line with the schedule submitted and a further area of 0.076 ha located to the south of the bridge that will be created as new habitat. There is an area of 0.22 ha. located to the south of the proposed CPO line that will not be impacted upon.

9.3.2.3.5 With regard to the 0.25 ha. that is located along the alignment of the proposed bridge, including the embankment, this area is contended to be an area that does not conform to the priority habitat on the basis that it has been significantly inundated with laurel and other species in the lower canopy. Considerable dispute arose at the time of the hearing with regard to the undertaking of the assessment relating to this area and specifically the methodology that had been employed by Mr Murphy the ecologist for the applicants in the assessment of this area. Mr Murphy submitted details to the hearing (Item A13) regarding the survey undertaken in this area and Mr Murphy highlighted two specific dates (7/10/2009 and 26/8/2009) where he assessed the extent and species composition of the area that would be taken up by the road and embankment. The area in question is the property of Mr Richard O’Toole and Mr Murphy gave evidence to the hearing as to how he met Mr O’Toole to obtain access to the lands on 26/8/2009 and undertook and inspection and survey on that date. This work was augmented by a snorkel survey and inspection accessed by canoe of the area from the canal undertaken on 7/10/2009.

9.3.2.3.6 The issue of the completeness of the survey undertaken by Mr Murphy in this area was the subject of much discussion at the hearing and Mr Browne for the objectors highlighted the fact that the EIS states that “a block of wet woodland (WN6) comprised of alder with some willow occurs on the western side of the River Shannon (chainage 0+520 S to 0+620 S). This is not within the SAC and does not conform to the Annex I habitat type Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior.” Mr Browne contended that Mr Murphy apparently made this assessment without having visited Mr Kikkers’ and made a judgement based on his perception of a wooded area from observations noted on Mr. O’Toole’s land however Mr. O’Toole has no record of Mr. Murphy visiting his property. It was submitted by Mr Browne that the assessment carried out by Mr Murphy, which is not based on primary

An Bord Pleanala Page 126 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

evaluation and which infers from the characteristics of adjacent woodland that this particular site did not ‘conform’ with a priority natural habitat, is not authoritative. Support for the fact that the area was not adequately surveyed and that lands not correctly identified was provided by Mr Sweetman. Mr Brown stated that it is incumbent on the Board to satisfy itself without any doubt as to whether this proposed scheme would result in an adverse impact on priority natural habitat alluvial wet woodland adjacent to the Lower River Shannon SAC. I would like to highlight a number of issues in response to the issues raised by Mr Brown and Mr Sweetman at the hearing.

9.3.2.3.7 The area that is subject of discussion regarding not corresponding with priority habitat being degraded is located on the property of Mr Richard O’Toole (CPO Ref. 133). I note that Mr O’Toole submitted documentation to the hearing (Item B9) to the effect that Ms Faith Wilson attended his property in late August 2009 and that she stated to him that there might be an environmental consultant accompanying her at the time however Mr O’Toole has no recollection of meeting any such person. The comments of Mr Browne and Mr Sweetman regarding the status of the habitat in the line of the road and embankment are noted however it would appear to me that these lands are located on the property of Mr O’Toole rather than Mr Kikkers. I am also of the opinion having heard the evidence of Mr Murphy at the hearing and having regard to the written statement of Mr O’Toole as referred to above ( Item B9 ) that there is no clear basis to contradict the evidence of Mr Murphy to the hearing that he undertook an assessment of the lands in question such as would enable verification of the assessment made that the area does not conform with that of a priority habitat.

9.3.2.3.8 I note that the lands at the southern part of the property of Mr O’Tooles (identified as the 0.15 ha. and the 0.076 ha. on the map submitted by the applicant – Item B3) are also located on the lands of Mr O’Toole. Mr Murphy has identified the 0.15 ha. block at the southern end of the O’Tooles property as conforming to priority habitat and has put forward principles that will be followed to ensure that this area, together with the 0.076 ha. area to the north west of this strip, are reinstated in a satisfactory manner on completion of the construction works. On the basis of the evidence presented I am satisfied that Mr Murphy obtained access to these lands sufficient to make an assessment of the habitat in question. With regard to the lands to the south of the proposed alignment, these lands are located on the property of Mr Kikkers (CPO Ref. 134). The lands in question are not proposed to be acquired under the CPO and the wet woodland habitat in this area would not be impacted by the proposed scheme.

9.3.2.3.9 It is noted that the iterations of the proposed principles to ensure the protection and reinstatement of the wet woodland habitat at the southern end of Mr O’Tooles property and the adjoining area proposed for compensatory habitat (0.076 ha) were the subject of agreement with the DAU at the hearing. Discussion took place with regard to the hydrological connectivity of the area in question with the river and with the lands to the north of the proposed road embankment and it was accepted that hydrological connectivity will be retained through the embankment. It is further noted that the measures agreed have been set out in section 4 of the applicants Schedule of Mitigation (Item D22) submitted at the hearing. The measures proposed are detailed and I would have some concerns with regard to the feasibility of the implementation of the measures and the restoration of the habitat and the length of time that it will take for the area to

An Bord Pleanala Page 127 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

regenerate. In order to be acceptable it is considered essential that the works be the subject of monitoring and supervision by a suitably qualified ecologist. The agreement of the Development Applications Unit to the works proposed is however noted and subject to the works being done under supervision of an ecologist and annual monitoring and maintenance undertaken in accordance with Point 11 of the mitigation I consider that the proposals are acceptable.

9.3.2.3.10 Further to the above discussion, submissions were made to the hearing regarding the status of the wet woodland area in question given its location outside the cSAC. The arguments made in relation to this issue can be summarised as follows:

• Mr Browne and Mr Sweetman for the objectors set out how in their opinion the area in question (wet woodland habitat) is an Annex I priority natural habitat and such as is entitled to general protection under Article 2 of the Habitats Directive. Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive requires that any plan or project not directly connected with the SAC but likely to have a significant effect thereon shall be subject to appropriate assessment and permission shall only be given for the plan or project after it is determined that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public. Mr Browne also stated that in Case C-127/02, Waddenvereniging v. Vogelsbeschermingvereniging (Mechanical Cockle Fishing) [2004] ECR I-7405 (hereinafter referred to as the “Waddenzee case”), the ECJ stated at para.43 that: “the first sentence of Article 6(3)… subordinates the requirement for an appropriate assessment of the implications of a plan or project to the condition that there be a probability or a risk that the latter will have significant effects on the site concerned’ and that the Court also found at paras.44-45 that such a risk exists if it cannot be excluded on the basis of objective information that the plan or project will have significant effects on the site concerned. Mr Browne referenced the EU guidance document “Managing Natura 2000 sites: the provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive” notes at p.34 that a likelihood of a “significant effect” may arise not only from plans or projects that occur within a protected area but also from plans or projects that are located outside a protected area, which result, for example, in downstream impacts. It was submitted by Mr Browne that the proposed scheme will have an adverse impact on the integrity of an Annex I priority natural habitat which is outside the contours of a designated SAC. Where there is a reasonable scientific doubt that the proposed project or plan may result in adverse effects on the integrity of the site concerned, the competent authority must refuse authorisation, as held at paragraphs 56 and 57 of the Waddenzee judgement.

• Mr Brown went on to state that although the site has not been notified to the Commission on the draft national list, the anomaly should now be assessed and, if found to satisfy the characteristics of a priority habitat, should be adopted accordingly. He stated that there is sufficient reasonable scientific doubt that an Annex I priority natural habitat will be obliterated if the scheme proceeds and it is incumbent on the competent authority on the basis of the precautionary principle that it must examine this site and satisfy itself as to whether it is a priority natural habitat. Accordingly, it should be identified as a site of Community importance (SCI) under Part 3 of the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011.

An Bord Pleanala Page 128 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• Mr Sweetman for the objectors set out how the Board has to find with reasonable scientific certainty that there is no adverse effect arising on the SAC. Mr Sweetman also specifically highlighted the fact that the mitigation measures referred to in the EIS and relied upon by the applicants were only relevant when consideration of the proposal moved to Article 6(4) and that Article 6(3) relates only to a proposal that will not have a significant effect. It was contended that once mitigation measures are required the proposal has a significant effect. Mr Sweetman also made specific reference to the wording of Article 6(4) relating to the circumstances of human health, public safety and IROPI where mitigation measures can be put forward. Reference was made to the fact that Article 6(4) in the first sentence makes reference to ‘in the absence of alternative solutions’ and that there is an alternative solution in this case which is the redevelopment of the existing bridge. Mr Sweetman also stressed to the hearing the obligation that he saw on the relevant authorities to inform the commission of the presence of this wet woodland site and that procedures for it being designated as a cSAC were initiated as soon as possible. Pending this process being undertaken and now that the authorities were aware of the presence of the site, it was submitted by Mr Sweetman that the site had de facto protection.

• Mr Flanagan for the applicant set out how the wet alluvial woodland area is outside of the SAC and that the Habitats Directive does not therefore apply to it. Notwithstanding this, a NIS was produced. Mr Flanagan argued that Art. 177(v)(4) of the Planning and Development Act, 2010 allows the Board to give consent where it has made modifications or attached conditions if it considers that the integrity of a European site is not adversely affected if it is carried out in accordance with the consent and the modifications or conditions attached. It was submitted that Mr Sweetmans contention that you must look at the potential effects without mitigation and that if they adversely affect a European site then you can’t grant permission and you must go to Art 6(4) is not correct in a legal sense. Mr Flanagan noted reference to case C-177/11 (Syllogos v Ypourgos), the judgement of which at Pg.3 makes clear that as soon as a site is placed on the list……it shall be subject to article 6(2), 6(3) and 6(4). The wet woodland habitat in question is not subject to 6(2), 6(3) or 6(4) as it is not on any list. Mr Flanagan also contended that the Waddenzee judgement requires that there should be no reasonable scientific doubt and that it does not require absolute certainty. By virtue of the mitigation measures and established techniques proposed it is submitted that there is a level of confidence such that there is no reasonable scientific doubt.

9.3.2.3.11 My opinion with regard to the issues raised is that the most significant feature is that the fact that the site in question is located outside of any identified or designated cSAC / SAC. It is also, in my opinion, notable that the area of the wet woodland that is referred to by the objectors and which is proposed to be lost as a result of the scheme is degraded by the presence of species that mean that it does not conform with the requirements of a priority habitat. (The sections above (9.3.2.3.5 – 9.3.2.3.7) address the issues that arose at the hearing with regard to the assessment of the area that was undertaken by Mr Murphy the ecologist that resulted in this conclusion being arrived at).

An Bord Pleanala Page 129 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.3.2.3.12 Mr Browne for the objectors set out how in his opinion the area in question (wet woodland habitat) is an Annex I priority natural habitat and such as is entitled to general protection under Article 2 of the Habitats Directive. He went on to set out how Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive requires that any plan or project not directly connected with the SAC but likely to have a significant effect thereon shall be subject to appropriate assessment and permission shall only be given for the plan or project after it is determined that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public. In the case of the wet woodland habitat on the western bank of the river I do not see how the proposed scheme will have any impact on the area identified as a SAC, the closest part of which is located on the western bank of the island that separates the canal from the main river channel in this location. Mr Browne made specific reference, inter alia, to the Waddenzee case and also referenced the EC guidelines on managing Natura 2000 sites and stressed the fact that where there is reasonable scientific doubt that the proposed project or plan may result in adverse effects on the integrity of the site concerned, the competent authority must refuse authorisation, as held at paragraphs 56 and 57 of the Waddenzee judgement. In the case of the subject proposal and having regard to the information presented by the parties to the case and the information presented at the hearing, I do not see how there is any doubt regarding the likely impact on the identified Lower River Shannon SAC and it is my opinion that there is no clear basis for indicating how the scheme could have a significant negative impact on the integrity of this site and this is set out in section 9.5.

9.3.2.3.13 With regard to the status of the wet woodland habitat on the western bank of the river, the area of land in this location that complies with priority habitat is limited to that to the immediate south of the proposed alignment. Again, this area is not included within a SAC or candidate SAC and while I note the case made by the objectors, and Mr Sweetman in particular that this area is not known and identified as a priority habitat and that there is an onus on the relevant authorities to commence the process of designation I do not agree with the premise that this means that such a site has de facto the same protections under the Directive as a site which has been designated as a SAC or included on a list for such designation. Even if it were to be determined that the area in question on the western side of the river did have some protected status under the directive, the issue as to whether the proposed development would adversely affect the integrity of the site is not evident on the basis that the lands that are directly affected by the scheme do not conform with priority habitat.

9.3.2.3.14 With regard to the proposals by the applicant to undertake mitigation measures and provide compensatory habitat in this area, the objectors have made the case that the proposal of mitigation measures indicates that there must be a significant effect and therefore be contrary to Article 6(3) and also that the proposal must therefore be considered under Article 6(4) which sets clear limits on the circumstances under which permission can be granted. Mr Flanagan for the applicant has made the case that Art. 177(v)(4) allows the Board to give consent where it has made modifications or attached conditions if it considers that the integrity of a European site is not adversely affected if it is carried out in accordance with the consent and the modifications or conditions attached. This reference is noted, however it is my interpretation of this section that it provides for circumstances whereby the competent authority can amend a scheme by way of condition subject to being satisfied that there would be no negative impact on a Natura 2000 site rather

An Bord Pleanala Page 130 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

than facilitating the imposition of conditions to mitigate an identified potential impact on a Natura 2000 site. It was submitted that Mr Sweetmans contention that you must look at the potential effects without mitigation and that if they adversely affect a European site then you can’t grant permission and you must go to Art 6(4) is not correct in a legal sense. I am of the opinion that this interpretation is correct, but only where the area in question is located within, or will impact upon, a Natura 2000 site. In the circumstances of the subject case, the area to be permanently removed to accommodate the scheme does not appear to conform with priority habitat and the area to the south which is located within the CPO boundary and which will be impacted during construction works is consistent with priority habitat. Fundamentally however the area in question is not located within a cSAC or SAC. Measures were put forward at the hearing and were agreed with the Development Applications Unity of the department and incorporated into the schedule of mitigation measures to ensure the restoration of this area and that it would be reinstated when works were completed. In addition, it is proposed that an additional area of land would be developed as a priority habitat. The measures proposed, although contested as regards their appropriateness and potential to be successfully implemented by the objectors, were accepted as appropriate by the Development Applications Unit. In my opinion therefore, having regard to the measures proposed and incorporated into the Schedule of Mitigation the mitigation measures proposed are acceptable and would result in the area of wet woodland in this location that conforms with priority habitat to be retained post construction of the scheme.

9.3.2.3.15 Reference needs to be made at this point to the case of Sweetman and others v An Bord Pleanala in the matter of the Galway Bypass scheme and the recently delivered opinion of the advocate general on this issue (Case C-258/11). The opinion arrears to take a strict interpretation of what would constitute an adverse effect on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site and I specifically note the references at Paragraph 83 of the opinion where it states that determination of whether there is an adverse effect requires ‘…determination whether that plan or project will have an adverse effect on the constitutive elements of the site concerned, having regard to the reasons for which the site was designated and their associated conservation objectives. An effect which is permanent or long lasting must be regarded as an adverse one. In reaching such a determination, the precautionary principle will apply .’ In the context of the circumstances of the subject case, I would highlight the following:

• The wet alluvial woodland area in question is not located within a Natura 2000 site. • Notwithstanding the above, the area subject to direct impact and permanent loss does not conform with priority habitat. • That the area that adjoins the road alignment and which would be impacted on a temporary basis during construction does conform with priority habitat but the effect on this area will not be permanent and or long lasting as it relates to the reasons why the area would constitute priority habitat.

For the reasons set out above, it is my opinion that the circumstances of the current case are materially different from that addressed in the opinion given on case C258/11 and such that the conclusions reached in the opinion on that case are not of direct relevance to the current assessment and decision.

An Bord Pleanala Page 131 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.3.2.3.16 In conclusion, it is my opinion that the area in question is outside of and separated from any identified cSAC or SAC. The question for the Board is one as to whether the area of wet woodland habitat on the western side of the river is afforded protection under the Habitats Directive and in this I would agree with the interpretation of the applicant that this is not the case. In the event that the Board does not agree with this interpretation, and considers that the area on the western side of the river is covered by the directive, I would note the fact that the area directly impacted does not conform to priority habitat and that the area of priority habitat potentially impacted will be done so on a temporary basis. In terms of the impact of the proposed development on the area of woodland on the western side of the river, the mitigation measures proposed for this area have been discussed and agreed as appropriate by the Development Applications Unit of the Department. Subject to monitoring of the works by an ecologist I am satisfied that the proposals are acceptable.

9.3.2.4 Kilmastulla River Area

9.3.2.4.1 The Kilmastulla River in the vicinity of the scheme also forms part of the Lower River Shannon cSAC. The River is stated in the EIS to be a habitat for salmon and that salmon spawning conditions exist from approximately 100 metres downstream of the existing R494 bridge (Cool Bridge). The EIS also notes that the Kilmastulla may support lamprey species. As part of the further information request, the applicant was asked to provide further information regarding the salmon and lamprey habitats in the this location. The assessment undertaken sets out how suitable habitat for the spawning of salmon and lamprey are present intermittently downstream of Cool Bridge for a distance of c. 200 metres and that there are riffle – glide sequences with extensive areas of suitable gravels. It is stated that spawning of either species has not been confirmed but having regard to the suitable habitat detailed mitigation measures have been incorporated into the drainage design of the scheme. The design of the bridge has been undertaken to ensure that there will be no in stream works and the construction methodology seeks to ensure that the potential for silt laden run off during construction would be minimised. The submission of the Development Applications Unit to the hearing stated that the description of the habitat in this area was welcomed. In view of the nature of the river conditions in this area, the design of the proposed bridge structure and the mitigation measures proposed relating to road drainage and measures to ensure that pollution and siltation issues are minimised (and which are discussed in more detail under the heading of Water and Hydrology, s.9.3.7), I am satisfied that the ecological impact in this location will not be significantly negative. Consideration of the impact of the proposed scheme on the qualifying objectives of the Lower River Shannon cSAC Natura 2000 site is addressed in section 9.5 (Appropriate Assessment).

9.3.2.5 Bats, Otter and Other Species

9.3.2.5.1 A four season bat survey of the area was undertaken and Table 7.2.1 of the EIS identifies the potential and confirmed bat roosts that are located within 1km of the route. As part of the preparation of the EIS other areas were also surveyed including all the crossing points of the proposed route with the existing network of roads and watercourses. A total of seven species of bat were observed during the survey work undertaken. Bats observed in the vicinity of the scheme will be impacted by the

An Bord Pleanala Page 132 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

demolition of four buildings that are confirmed roosts, the removal of some trees along the route that may supports roosts the interruption of hedgerows, treelines and woodlands that form flight paths. The impact is stated in the EIS to be major to moderate negative, however given the extent of hedgerow and scrub land in the general area the impact is considered to be capable of reduction to minor negative with mitigation. Extensive mitigation with regard to bats is set out at section 7.2.5 of the EIS and these include that all trees for removal will be subject to assessment for potential bat roosts prior to felling, compliance with the Guidelines issued by the NRA regarding the treatment of bats during national road schemes and the erection of bat boxes. The felling of trees and the buildings will be scheduled to minimise the impact on bats and the stone culvert north of Cool Bridge on the Kilmastulla River which was identified as a potential hibernating roost will not be impacted by the scheme. Overall, I am satisfied that the survey work undertaken has identified the main areas of potential impact on bats and that subject to the mitigation measures proposed the overall impact on bat species would be slight negative as stated in the EIS.

9.3.2.5.2 A number of other species are referred to in the EIS and / or were the subject of some discussion during the course of the oral hearing. Otter is a qualifying interest for the Lower River Shannon. There is a potential holt located at the point of the River crossing that will be lost as a result of the proposed development. The EIS also notes that a couch on the Kilmastulla River will be impacted by the proposed new crossing and will require exclusion under a derogation licence from NPWS. The EIS sets out how suitable mammal passages will be provided along all watercourses and otter proof fencing provided to prevent access to the road. It is also stated that artificial holts will be provided in the vicinity of both the Shannon and Kilmastulla River crossings to be agreed with the NPWS. It is noted that in response to Item No.4 of the FI request issued, the applicant submitted details with regard to the location and type of mammal passages to be provided. These relate to 13 specific locations comprising the Shannon River crossing, Kilmastulla River and culverts on the bypass and R494. The DAU in their response to the further information noted the proposals for otter passage and that the proposals were considered acceptable. It is noted that DAU submitted the wording of a recommended condition relating to mammal fencing and provision and monitoring of under road passes to the hearing (Item of evidence B1) and the requirements of this condition are considered to be reasonable and appropriate. It is noted that this condition does not appear to have been incorporated into the suite of mitigation measures that were submitted by the applicant at the hearing and so it is recommended that the requirements set out in this recommended condition would be attached to any grant of permission issued.

9.3.2.5.3 There was some further discussion at the hearing with regard to otter and Kingfisher and whether there was potential for other habitat to be impacted. Mr Murphy stated that otter could withstand a high degree of activity and that it was unlikely that animals would rest up close to the works. The example of the works undertaken at the University of Limerick was cited with regard to the likely impact on otter and other species. Mr Murphy set out to the hearing how from his observations there was no evidence of Kingfisher in the vicinity of the proposed crossing (50 metres up and down stream) and set out the conditions that are required for Kingfisher, namely an overhanging area clear of the water. While it is apparent from Mr Murphy’s evidence and that of other parties who made submissions that there are Kingfisher present in the general area, I am satisfied from the description provided and the evidence of Mr Murphy that the potential impact on Kingfisher in this area is limited. Mr Murphy also presented information to the hearing regarding pine martin .

An Bord Pleanala Page 133 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Mr Murphy set out how no pine martin were observed in the line of the crossing although the species is common in the area. There was some reference during the course of the hearing to the potential of the area for Freshwater Pearl Mussel . Dr Goode for the Development Applications Unit, stated that in his opinion the potential for the mussel to be present was limited by the water quality and that it would be very difficult in the catchments impacted by the proposed scheme to get the water quality required to support this species.

An Bord Pleanala Page 134 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.3.3 Archaeology, Architectural and Cultural Heritage

The assessment of archaeology, architecture and cultural heritage was undertaken by Ms Kate Taylor of TVAS Ireland. Considerable time was spent by the objectors trying to undermine the credibility of Ms Taylor as a witness with regard to her knowledge of the Irish system for protection of buildings in particular. Questions were also asked of Ms Taylor with regard to the methodology undertaken and the identification or lack of identification of certain structures that were outside of the study area and consistency between the assessments undertaken relating to archaeology, architecture and cultural heritage.

9.3.3.1 With regard to archaeology , the issues relate to underwater archaeology in the vicinity of the river crossing and archaeological impacts on the rest of the route. The River crossing section was the subject of analysis as set out at 10.1.2 of the EIS. It is notable that there are no recorded monuments within 50 metres of the proposed alignment however the route passes close to the location of the flooded Friars Island which was inundated when the level of the Shannon was raised on construction of the Ardnacrusha Scheme. The surveys undertaken along the route in this area included an underwater survey undertaken at the time of the Route Selection Stage of the scheme and this indicated that there were no potential archaeological features along the route however the construction might impact on an area of riverbed that is located close to a stone culvert (Ref. H37) a dry stone wall (H38) and an unidentified underwater anomaly. The EIS sets out how the areas in question are located in an area of high archaeological potential and that once the precise nature of the methodology is determined then any dredging works required will be monitored. A further assessment of the impact on the three identified sites will be undertaken prior to construction commencing and the EIS sets out how it may be necessary to excavate these three sites archaeologically prior to construction in the event that there is potential for them to be negatively impacted upon. The brief of evidence submitted by Ms Taylor to the hearing ( Item A6 ) notes the fact that the Development Application Unit in their submission to the Board (Dated 29 th March, 2012) set out how the bulk of the mitigation measures proposed relating to underwater archaeology were acceptable, however there were a number of areas where recommendations for further analysis were made. These areas were addressed in Ms Taylors submission to the hearing under the heading of Response to Third Party Submissions and included commitments to an underwater diver survey of Friars Island post construction, an update of the 2005 river bed survey and a full scale architectural and archaeological record of the Gortybrigane Bridge on the Kilmastulla River to be undertaken. It is my opinion that the proposed mitigation measures set out in the EIS together with the additional measures set out in the evidence of Ms Taylor to the hearing are such that the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of its impact on underwater archaeology.

9.3.3.2 In terms of terrestrial archaeology, the methodology employed in the assessment is set out at 10.1.2 of the EIS. In her evidence to the hearing, Ms Taylor noted that submission received from the Development Applications Unit (DAU) did not make any specific mention of archaeology other than underwater archaeology and that clarification had been sought from the unit which stated that it considered that the mitigation measures proposed in the EIS were appropriate given the nature of the proposed development. This documentation is not available to the Board. I would note however that the DAU did not raise any specific issues with regard to archaeology either in writing or in their submission to the oral hearing. I would also

An Bord Pleanala Page 135 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

note the fact that the archaeological impacts likely as set out at table 10.2 of the EIS and that the only location where there would be a direct negative and potentially significant impact on archaeology was at H43 where a mound was observed during walkover of route options in 2005. This mound had disappeared in 2009 at time of further walkover however an archaeological test excavation would be undertaken by way of mitigation.

9.3.3.3 With regard to architectural heritage, the EIS identifies a total of three protected structures along the route where there may be an impact. These are Ballyvally House Estate (H2-H4 on Fig. 10.1 and 10.2), Clarisford Palace Estate (H23-25 and H30) and the Killaloe – Ballina Bridge. In addition to the above structures, the evidence presented to the hearing by Ms Taylor identified the fact that there have been a number of additions to the RPS since the preparation of the EIS. These additions are the Limerick – Killaloe canal, Gortna House (H70 which is off the R494 at c. 0.700 R chainage) and Fort Henry and gate lodge which is located on the R494. The objectors to the hearing made reference to the fact that the submitted EIS did not make reference to the three additional sites on the RPS even though the dates on which they were added to the RPS for Clare and Tipperary North were before the submission of the EIS. In evidence, Ms Taylor stated that the analysis undertaken was done in 2009 and that she had not updated the information contained in the EIS since that date. I would agree with the objectors that this is a rather unsatisfactory explanation as to why sites that were included on the RPS were not identified as such in the EIS and it would have been prudent for a final review of the relevant chapter to have been undertaken prior to submission. The situation as it stands is that the three additional locations now included as protected structures were identified by Ms Taylor in her evidence and were the subject of some assessment in her brief of evidence. The locations were also the subject of discussion during the course of the hearing. On the basis of this discussion, my observations of the locations in question and the discussion at the hearing the following are my considerations with regard to the impact of the proposed scheme on the protected structures within the area.

9.3.3.4 Ballyvally House is listed on the RPS for the gate lodge however the main house is not included on the RPS as a structure in its own right. There was considerable discussion at the oral hearing regarding the impact of the proposed road scheme on the Ballyvally estate and on the protected structure in particular with objections centering around the impact on the setting of the gate lodge arising from the road layout and level in the vicinity of the roundabout, the impact of the alignment and cutting and the impact on the trees on the southern side of the estate. With regard to the impact on the setting of the gate lodge structure, this will be limited by the fact that the gate will remain as will the boundary in this location immediately adjacent to the gate lodge. The roundabout to the south east will be elevated above the level of the existing road at this point, however it should be noted that the road currently accessing the gate lodge will remain and the alignment of the new road moved east. The difference in level from the existing roundabout in proximity to the gate lodge to the level of the proposed road is c. 2 metres and this elevated height relative to the existing ground level continues to approximately chainage 0.60 to the south of the gate lodge structure. I would therefore note and accept to some extent the comments of the objectors regarding how the road could be seen to wrap around the gate lodge in this location. The options for the alignment in this area are however limited as a tie in point further to the north would involve the access avenue to the main house being cut by the road and also would have a significantly greater impact

An Bord Pleanala Page 136 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

on the overall integrity of the estate. To the south, the road has to traverse the elevated ground to the south of the estate and an alternative alignment would likely have resulted in greater level of cut and impact on additional dwellings to the south. The area in question is proposed to be planted with a hedgerow to screen the roundabout and specific landscape measures are proposed in the area between the gate lodge and the roundabout (SLM 2), which are proposed to be appropriate screen planting comprising hazel and holly to a maximum mature height of c.4 metres. Overall, it is my opinion that the impact on the setting of the gate lodge is moderate negative as stated in the EIS and that mitigation and design should ensure that the gatehouse and gateway are not damaged during construction.

9.3.3.5 The impact on Ballyvally House itself is more indirect. The road will run in an open field at the southern end of the estate such that it will be both visually separate from the house at this point and also in a cutting such that the road would not be visible and the impact on the house will not, in my opinion be significant or direct. The impact on parts of the estate where the road passes through, and specifically on the area of trees at the southern end of the estate is more significant and as noted in the EIS there will be a direct significant negative impact in this area. Concern was expressed at the hearing by the resident of the adjoining house to the south and by Dr Ashley Poynton with regard to the impact of the road in this area on trees and that the extent of tree loss in this area had not been accurately assessed and would result in the loss of the last remaining intact estate woodland habitat in the town. It was also clarified at the hearing with Mr Boyle (landscape and visual expert for the applicant) that the area in question had not been the subject of a tree survey. Overall therefore I would agree that the impact in this location at the southern end of the Ballyvally Estate is significant and negative.

9.3.3.6 Clarisford House at the southern end of the Bypass alignment is a detached five bay three storey over basement dwelling that dates from the late 1770’s. The alignment is proposed to pass through the northern edge of the field that is located to the front of the house. The area in question is visually separate from the house and the impact on the protected structure itself in the form of the house will be indirect. The area in question is shown in photographs included in the book of evidence submitted at the hearing and also in my photographs which accompany this report. The alignment of the road in this location roughly follows the route of an existing access track that runs to the south of the community school and from which access is currently available to playing pitches further to the west and an area that is proposed to be developed as a sports facility known as Clarisford Park. These lands are in the ownership of the ESB and have been leased to the council. Access to these lands was stated at the hearing to be an issue. Having regard to the separation distance between the house and the proposed road of c.135 metres and the visual separation and limited extent to which the road would impact on the estate lands located to the north of the house I do not consider that the proposed scheme would have a significant adverse impact on the integrity of the protected structure and its curtilage. Reference was made at the oral hearing to the fact that planning permission was previously refused for a residential development in the field that is located to the front of the Palace and through part of which the road is proposed to pass however the scale of what was proposed in that application and the extent of the curtilage of the protected structure that would be directly impacted would appear to me to be significantly greater than is the case with the subject proposal. Reference was also made by Mr Sweetman at the hearing to the presence of mature trees in the location fronting the house and photographs of the relevant area was submitted. Table 10.2

An Bord Pleanala Page 137 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

of the EIS makes reference to the fact that the loss of trees in this area will be minimised by design, and Mr Boyle for the applicants stated to the hearing that he considered that the trees identified in the photographs can be retained. On inspection of the area in question I would tend to agree with Mr Sweetman that it is difficult to see how this can be the case given the apparent proximity of the alignment to these trees. As set out in 9.2.5.5 above, there may be some scope for the separation distance between the road and these trees to be increased slightly with the omission of the school set down area indicated on the opposite side of the road.

9.3.3.7 The canal on the western side of the river Shannon has been added to the RPS since the time that the assessment contained in the EIS was undertaken. There was considerable issue taken by the objectors at the hearing to the fact that the EIS had not been updated to reflect the fact that the canal had been included in the record of protected structures. As noted previously, while not ideal, the impact of the development on the canal was the subject of considerable discussion at the hearing and was addressed in the brief of evidence presented at the hearing by Ms Taylor. In response to questions, Mr Conroy and Mr Brennan for the applicants outlined to the hearing how the canal would be culverted in this location and that the dimensions of the proposed culvert had been the subject of agreement with Waterways Ireland. The impact on the canal will be limited to the section of the proposed road and the alignment will not be altered by the proposed works. Part of the towpath of the canal in the location of the culvert will be removed and the evidence presented by Ms Taylor indicated that this area would be surveyed and examined by archaeological test trenching. This has been included in the schedule of mitigation measures submitted with the application. Given the nature of the intervention proposed and the extent relative to the overall scale of the protected feature (c. 2km), I am satisfied that the impact is not such as compromise the overall integrity of the feature and to warrant refusal of permission.

9.3.3.8 There are two further sites on the R494 that have been added to the RPS since the preparation of the EIS. These are Gortna House and Fort Henry. Both are discussed in Chapter 10 of the EIS and included in Table 10.2 however they are not specifically identified as protected structures. In the case of Fort Henry , there will be an impact on the northern of the tow entrances (shown in plate 10.8 of the EIS) and the EIS notes that the proposed removal of a section of the boundary wall and that the wall will be preserved by record and the boundary wall reconstructed. The conclusion of the EIS that the impact arising will be direct, negative and significant is accepted in this location. At the other entrance to Fort Henry estate there was discussion during the course of the hearing with regard to the proposed inclusion of an area of river channel that runs through the estate. The applicant set out how the area in question which extends approximately 200 metres into the estate had been included in the CPO area as a precautionary approach to ensure that any issues arising could be addressed. During ongoing discussions at the hearing information was provided by the applicant relating to the need for the works and the proposed road drainage in this area and it was stated by Mr Sweetman for the land owner that the landowner was willing to have their lands omitted from the scheme and that he appreciated that the water level in the area was such that the lower part of the lawn in the vicinity of the river was inundated at periods of heavy rainfall. Discussion also took place with regard to the area at the entrance to Fort Henry (southern entrance) where the information presented to the hearing indicated that existing problems regarding the flooding of the road was due to the inadequate capacity of the culvert under the road in this location. It was agreed by the applicant in response to

An Bord Pleanala Page 138 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

questions, that the level of the road as proposed in this location is such that the culvert in this location can be increased in size to prevent this issue from re occurring. Mr Sweetman for the applicant requested that the CPO be amended to allow a minimum area for the undertaking of the works to the culvert in this location without impacting on the lands within Fort Henry. While the extent of land take could be reduced to facilitate the road construction and the new culvert proposed in this location, the additional lands as indicated on the scheme drawings to accommodate the revised entrance junction are required for this revised entrance layout to be constructed. The existing entrance is at an angle to the main carriageway and the proposed layout facilitates a right angle junction which would improve safety, particularly having regard to the cycleway that will be located on this side of the road. The impact of this entrance change on the character of the protected structure is not, in my opinion significant having regard to the nature of the existing entrance however the level of detail submitted with regard to this entrance is limited.

9.3.3.10 Gortna House has been included on the RPS for North Tipperary County Council. The entrance to the house is located on a section of the R494 where the new alignment will be relocated to the west further away from the house. The mitigation measures and EIS commits to the protection of the entrance and I do not see why this will not be achievable. There will be no negative impact on the setting of the house arising from the proposed scheme.

9.3.3.10 With regard to Cultural heritage , the objectors raised a number of issues with regard to the assessment undertaken, including the methodology whereby the architectural and archaeological assessments made reference to certain structures / locations that were outside the identified study area but that this was not done in the case of cultural heritage. Specifically, questions were raised regarding why the towns of Ballina and Killaloe themselves were not given further assessment and also in relation to Brian Boru fort. I can appreciate the issue regarding consistency that is raised by the objectors however it is my opinion that the analysis undertaken is robust in methodology and addresses the issue of cultural heritage in an appropriate manner. The importance of the towns of Killaloe and Ballina in terms of cultural heritage was accepted and stated by Ms Taylor at the hearing.

An Bord Pleanala Page 139 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.3.4 Landscape and Visual Impact

9.3.4.1 The landscape and visual impact of the scheme was assessed in Chapter 8 of the EIS and the details submitted in Volume 3 of the EIS (Figures) includes a landscape mitigation plan along the route (Fig 8.1 – 8.9). Specific Landscape Measures (SLM’s) are also identified and shown on the drawings together with corresponding details at pages 8/34 – 8/38 of the EIS. A number of detailed issues with regard to landscape and visual impact have been discussed under the heading of individual CPO objections.

9.3.4.2 The brief of evidence presented by Mr Boyle to the hearing ( Item A5 ) outlines the landscape and visual context of the scheme and the main visual elements within the area are identified as the towns of Killaloe and Ballina, the Shannon and Lough Derg, the agricultural landscape existing settlement pattern including notably the historic estates, existing woodland and hedgerows and the road pattern. The R463 from O’Briensbridge through Killaloe and on to Ogonnelloe is designated as a scenic route in the Clare County Development Plan. The trees within the Ballyvally and Clarisford estates are identified as being protected in the development plan however there are no tree preservation orders in place. Within Tipperary North County Council area there are no protected views that will be impacted by the proposed development. There are also a number of clusters of trees identified for protection however these are not impacted by the proposed scheme.

9.3.4.3 At the Ballyvally Estate end of the proposed scheme there will be a significant negative impact during construction and a moderate negative impact once the scheme is complete. The areas of cut in this location are proposed to be replanted with a general woodland mix and when mature these will result in the contrast between existing and new development being minimised. Visual impact in this area prior to the planning maturing will be significant. In acknowledging the potential for significant short to moderate terms visual impact in this area, regard has to be had to the alternatives and the potential visual impact of such alternatives. Relocation of the alignment further to the north would have a very much greater visual impact on the Ballyvally Estate. Options for the relocation of the alignment further to the south to reduce the impact on the existing trees in the Ballyvally Estate have significant implications for the design of the road and for the residential properties that are located to the south. During the course of the hearing, Mr Poynton and Mr Conlon (CPO 104) both made reference to the importance of the trees in this area and the uncertainty regarding the potential impact of the proposed scheme on these trees. The fact that a tree survey had not been undertaken was noted at the hearing, however the detailed assessment of impact at this level would, in my opinion be more appropriate at detailed design stage. The applicants have given a commitment that the impact of the scheme in terms of loss of trees will be minimised in this location. It is also noted that Mr Boyle in his evidence to the hearing stated that the issue regarding maintenance of trees is the responsibility of the relevant landowner and I would agree with the comments of Mr Boyle that it would appear that the trees in question which were stated to be in an unsafe condition and located on lands that are to the north of Mr Conlon’s property are outside of the CPO boundary of the scheme. I would also note and accept the comments made by Mr Boyle with regard to the mitigation measures including that a suitably qualified arborist will review all mature trees that may be impacted by the proposed works.

An Bord Pleanala Page 140 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.3.4.4 Along the route there are a number of properties and clusters of properties that have been specifically identified as being potentially impacted and these are illustrated on the Landscape Mitigation Plan as blue numbers inside a circle. These areas have each been the subject of specific landscape proposals and identification of areas where planting of hedgerows and screen planting is proposed. At a number of locations, for example Area 8 and 15 (Hill Road and Creeveroe Road junctions respectively), the road is proposed to pass close to a number of properties and to be at a higher level. The potential impact of the scheme on these locations has been addressed by landscape measures and I would agree with the assessment undertaken that subject to the landscape measures proposed the impact in terms of visual and residential amenity that would arise would not be significantly negative. In the case of cluster 15, the comments contained in 8.7.3 of the EIS with regard to the impact of the proposed slip road on the view from these dwellings are noted and I would agree with the overall assessment that when the mitigation measures are established the overall impact would be moderate negative.

9.3.4.5 The potential impact of the scheme on properties that are located at the junction with the Limerick Road (R463) is noted and specifically the impact on the recently constructed residential development that is located to the north east of the proposed roundabout. Having regard to the relative levels of the road in this location, the separation distances and the provision of appropriate screen planting as indicated under SLM7, I do not consider that the visual impact arising in this location would be excessively negative.

9.3.4.6 The impact of the proposed scheme on the dwellings in the immediate proximity of the Shannon crossing point was considered at section 8.6.1 of the EIS and the two adjoining properties are identified as locations 24 and 25 and are addressed in Table 8.6 of the EIS (pg. 8/53). In the case of property 24 to the south of the proposed crossing point (that of Mr and Mrs Kikkers – CPO 134), the impact is stated to be moderate at construction, slight in year one and imperceptible thereafter. Given the separation of c.50 metres from the dwelling to the road and the existing screen planting that is in this area I would accept that the impacts stated are plausible. In the case of property 25 (that of Mr and Mrs Elliott – CPO Ref. 132), the stated separation distance from the road Table 8.6 is 40 metres however it would appear to be significantly less than that. Specifically from the CPO map it would appear that the separation between Mr and Mrs Elliotts dwelling and the CPO line is less than 3 metres and that the separation to the road alignment is c. 10 metres. The extent of screening along this boundary remaining post construction will be limited and the predicted significant impact at construction stage is accepted. At operational stage I would question whether even with planting of the embankment that the impact in year 20 will have reduced from moderate to slight as predicted in the EIS. Views from the garden of this property which it would appear that Table 8.6 does not take account of would, in my opinion be very significantly impacted even with mitigation. (It is noted that the CPO objection submitted by this property owner has now bee withdrawn.)

9.3.4.7 On the eastern side of the river, property 30 is that of Mr Roy Benson (CPO Ref. 136). Table 8.6 states that the impact on this property will be significant during construction reducing to moderate on opening and slight on 20 years. By virtue of visual intrusion, visual prominence and potential overlooking from the bridge, the extent of the impact on the dwelling, and on the garden area in particular, would appear to me more likely to be moderate over the longer term than slight.

An Bord Pleanala Page 141 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.3.4.8 The EIS identifies two other properties in the vicinity of the bridge crossing (CPO Refs. 142 and 143) as having a significant negative view during construction and a moderate negative impact thereafter. These properties are located facing the river crossing section on the opposite side of the roundabout. On balance, I would agree with this assessment on the basis that the dwellings in question are already located at a roundabout location at the Roolagh junction. The bridge directly located to the front of the dwelling will however have a significant additional impact on views from these properties. The impact will also be affected by light from vehicles and street lighting in this location. (It is noted that the objections to the CPO by both of these parties have now been withdrawn). The property to the south of the Roolagh roundabout (CPO Ref. 146, John and Elizabeth Young; SLM Ref. No.38) will also be negatively impacted as a result of the proposed development, particularly during construction. I would agree with the assessment in the EIS that this property will experience a significant impact during construction moderate on completion and slight thereafter. (Again, it is noted that the objection to the CPO by this property owner has now been withdrawn).

9.3.4.9 Property 65 is identified in the EIS as also having a significant negative impact post construction. This dwelling is located on the east side of the R494 immediately south of the Kilmastulla River crossing and I would agree with the EIS assessment that the significant impact will reduce to moderate / slight over time. The properties to the west on the opposite side of the road were the subject of some discussion during the course of the hearing (Nos. 66-68) and the environs of these dwellings will be significantly altered by the realignment of the new road further to the east away from these properties but at a raised level (c.2.8 metres higher to the front of property 28). The impact during construction and immediately post construction will be an issue however I would agree with the analysis in the EIS regarding the impact reducing to slight to imperceptible over time on the basis of the mitigation measures / planting and the increased separation distances in this area.

9.3.4.10 With regard to the overall impact of the scheme, there are a number of factors of note. The first is that the bridge location is such that there are not views of it from the centre of Killaloe at the existing bridge. There will not therefore be intervisibility between the existing and proposed bridge structures. In terms of the general impact of the proposed bridge on the environs, the scale of the bridge is such that it will not be set against the wider background or setting of the towns or the mountains that are located beyond. The bridge will, however undoubtedly have a very significant local impact on views and character of the riverside area which is currently characterised by uninterrupted views of green vegetation along the river banks. The assessment contained in the brief of evidence of Mr Boyle (Item A5, pg.7) that the bridge would have a profound landscape impact during construction and a permanent significant negative impact in the long term are agreed with. The statement that no existing views of the river are blocked in the long term is accepted in most cases however I would question the applicability of this statement to the property of Mr Benson (CPO Ref. 136) in particular.

An Bord Pleanala Page 142 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.3.4.11 Overall, it is my opinion that the assessment of landscape and visual impacts given in Chapter 8 of the EIS and in the evidence presented by Mr Boyle to the hearing is an accurate assessment of the likely visual impacts that will arise from the proposed scheme. Impacts will be particularly significant during construction and at a number of specific locations along the route, notably the Ballyvally estate and adjoining cutting and also the bridge crossing section. Mitigation measures proposed are comprehensive and detailed however it is accepted that implementation of these mitigation proposals will take a significant period of time to establish. I would question the assessment of impacts contained in the EIS in a number of locations, most significantly in the case of Mr and Mrs Elliott’s property on the western side of the river and that of Mr Benson on the eastern side. Overall however it is my opinion that the assessment of impacts as set out are accurate and reflective of the design proposed and circumstances on the ground and that the scheme has been designed to reduce negative visual and landscape impacts as far as practicable.

An Bord Pleanala Page 143 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.3.5 Traffic and Transport

9.3.5.1 The issue of the presentation and revision of the traffic survey information and the traffic figures in the context of need have been addressed in sections 9.1 and 9.2 of this report. In 9.2 I made reference to the comparison of my observations undertaken at the bridge crossing in the AM peak period as against those referenced by the applicants and the results contained in the traffic assessment undertaken. In summary, my observations of the area in the morning peak hour was of significant congestion and delays at the bridge crossing and the delays observed were broadly consistent with the delay times cited by the applicants and as deduced from the traffic survey undertaken. The circumstances at the bridge as described by a number of objectors during the course of the oral hearing are noted and I would not dispute that what was stated is the situation at certain times. Notably, in this regard it was my observation at the times that I inspected the bridge that the level of congestion reduced very rapidly and markedly once the peak period had passed and was not as significant during the early part of the AM peak. It is therefore entirely possible that the less congested conditions recalled by the objectors were evident during the periods before and after the main AM peak.

9.3.5.2 There are a number of issues that were raised at the hearing with regard to the methodology used in the traffic assessment undertaken and, arising from the revisions to the traffic survey figures that were submitted at an initial stage of the hearing, the applicant was requested to submit additional details regarding the traffic survey results obtained and the traffic model that was used for the forecasting. Mr Brown in particular for the objectors raised a number of concerns regarding the methodology used in the traffic assessment. The main issues raised by Mr Brown can be summarised as follows:

• That the use of AADT traffic figures extracted from automatic number plate recognition as used by the applicants is stated by the NRA to not account properly for variations in flow, is therefore not very useful for capacity design and a second parameter, the 30th Highest Hour, is needed. This was not done. • That no modal split analysis was done for pedestrians and cyclists. Section 5.2.1 does indicate a breakdown per mode of traffic surveyed in 2011 but does not disaggregate this split along different lengths of the route nor does it project the modal split in future scenarios. • That the NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines states that the purpose of origin destination (OD) surveys is to obtain a sample of the population in the study who are travelling along relevant routes/corridors and obtain detailed information about the nature of their trip. This should include trip origin; trip destination; trip purpose; number of people in the vehicle; and vehicle type. The AECOM/Roughan O’Donovan National Traffic Model Validation Report, also suggests that origin destination (OD) surveys should be obtained through roadside interviews. This was not done.

9.3.5.3 With regard to the points made by Mr Browne, the hearing heard evidence from Mr Bell for the applicants who undertook the traffic assessment. Mr Bell outlined to the hearing how, in his opinion, the use of roadside surveys was not necessary in the circumstances of the proposed scheme given the limited size of the study area. The reference to such techniques in the NRA Project Appraisal Guidelines is noted and I would also note the fact that these Guidelines set out Guidance on Traffic Modelling

An Bord Pleanala Page 144 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

in Appendix 3 and also an Origin Destination Survey Form that can be used which is set out at Appendix 4. Origin destination surveys is discussed at sections 5.11 – 5.13 of the Guidelines and the sections quoted by Mr Brown come from these paragraphs. In terms of the applicability of these sections, I would firstly note the fact that the Guidelines in question relate to National Road schemes and this is clear in the introduction to the document and in the circular letter that is on the NRA website and which accompanied the issuance of the Guidelines. Secondly, while there is reference to origin destination surveys in section 5 of the Guidelines, and the Guidelines do clearly indicate that this form of information is the best albeit the most costly for input into modelling work, it is not clear from my reading of the document that the use of such a data collection technique is required in any set circumstance for a national road project never mind a non national project such as that which is the subject of this proposal. I would also note the fact that while 4.31 of the main document of the NRA Guidelines makes reference to the most common type of surveys and includes roadside interview surveys it goes on to state that all of these methods may be required. On the basis of the above, and the information presented at the hearing I accept the fact that the use of origin destination survey data is ideal from a modelling perspective however I do not see any clear reference to a requirement that such a methodology be used in the case of a scheme such as that proposed in this application, impacting on the regional road network, having a relatively restricted area of analysis and having a relatively limited traffic volume. I do not see a clear basis on which the statements of Mr Bell to the hearing with regard to the appropriateness of the modelling approach, and specifically data collection method, used can be dismissed.

9.3.5.4 With regard to the use of AADT traffic figures rather than the use of other techniques such as the 30th Highest Hour referred to by Mr Brown, I would again note the fact that the references cited from the NRA documentation regarding the limitations of use of AADT figures relate to national roads. The point made is accepted however I would also note the fact that Mr Bell stated that seasonal factors were applied to the AADT figures in the modelling process undertaken and also to the point raised by Mr Flanagan in his submission relating to the level of traffic flows on the scheme and the level of predicted traffic flows relative to capacity which is low. I would agree that the analysis undertaken shows that the capacity at the peak hour is well within the predicted loadings. Specifically, Mr Flanagan cited junction capacities of c.1500 per hour and loadings of c.450 per hour and this ratio is in my opinion reflective of the situation as presented by the applicant following their modelling analysis.

9.3.5.5 Mr Browne raised the issue as to why other techniques were not used in the analysis, specifically stated preference techniques and also the use of card data. Regarding stated preference surveys the applicants contend that their analysis is consistent with the Project Appraisal Guidelines of the NRA. Paragraph 3.4 of these Guidelines references four methods that are acceptable, one of which is registration plate matching. There is also reference in that document to the fact that stated preference methods relate to the intention of trip makers when there are a number of options / choices and are most relevant in the planning of tolling schemes and on this basis appear to me to be of limited applicability to the proposed scheme where no tolling is proposed and the route options are limited. Mr Brown also raised the fact that the use of card data was cited in the Roughan O’Donovan ACOMS National Traffic Model Validation report however Mr Bell for the applicant set out how this was national level card data and not considered necessary at the local level and would not, in his opinion be appropriate to the scale of the study area. Fundamentally, with

An Bord Pleanala Page 145 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

regard to the modelling approach used and the forecasting method, I would note and agree with the comments of Mr Flanagan for the applicants as regards the requirements of the Roads Act in the preparation of applications and EIS where he stated that what what is required under s.50(3)(c)of the Roads Act is a description of the forecasting methods used and that information provided should be relevant to the stage of the procedure and the characteristics of the road.

9.3.5.6 The issue of the number of HGV traffic movements that were currently on the Killaloe Bridge, the degree to which these HGV movements had decreased over the last number of years and the potential that the proposed scheme would result in HGV traffic that now uses the Limerick tunnel being diverted back through Killaloe on completion of the proposed scheme were raised during the course of the hearing. With regard to the HGV volumes, objectors stated that the level of HGV usage had reduced significantly since the initial survey work was undertaken in 2008 and that this reduction which was apparent to them did not appear to be reflected in the 2011 survey results presented. It was contended by parties to the hearing that the reduction in HGV volume was attributable to the economic downturn, the closure of the Finsa chipboard factory in Scariff and the opening of the Limerick tunnel. It was further contended that the fact that the 2011 survey figures do not reflect the reduced HGV volumes calls into question the robustness of the data collection and evaluation and it was suggested that the Board commission its own independent traffic assessment.

9.3.5.7 Mr Bell for the applicant highlighted to the hearing the contents of 5.2.1 of the EIS where it details that the level of HGV traffic in 2011 survey was c.6 percent and that with 1% tractor and 1 % bus traffic included the heavy commercial vehicle (HCV) figure was c.8 percent. The figures cited were stated by the applicant to be relatively consistent with those obtained from previous surveys for the EIS of the existing bridge in 2000 which had an AADT of 5,500 and a c. 5 percent HGV component, a survey in 2005 as part of the route option assessment which returned a AADT figure of 7,100 and a HGV component of 6.8 percent and the 2011 survey data recorded which had an AADT of 6,400 and a HGV component of 6 percent (8 percent HCV). Similar to the statements of the objectors regarding the overall level of traffic and delays encountered, the figures presented by the applicant with regard to HGV and HCV traffic are disputed by reference to experience and I note that there is no definitive data available to contradict the figures presented. The figures cited by the applicant with regard to the volume of traffic on the Killaloe Bridge and the percentage of HGV traffic therein are noted and would, in my opinion appear to be consistent with the experiences in Killaloe where traffic volumes rose significantly since 2000 to a peak before the economic downturn and have not fallen back. Mr Brown in his submission to the hearing made reference to the fact that section 5.2.1 of Volume 2 of the EIS indicates that HGVs only account for 6% of traffic while section 4.3 of Mr Conroy’s brief states that 6,800 vehicles per day were recorded crossing Killaloe Bridge and of this there were over 500 heavy commercial vehicles and that this is in excess of 7.3%. I would note that the excess of 500 referred to relates to commercial vehicles and that the level is therefore generally consistent with the modal split percentages set out in 5.2.1 of the EIS.

An Bord Pleanala Page 146 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.3.5.8 The objectors to the scheme raised a number of issues with regard to the level of displacement from the old bridge to the new and also to the overall level of traffic that would be within the network on completion of the proposed scheme. In this regard, it is noted that the revised Table 5.3 (as per Item A11) indicates that the AADT on Killaloe Bridge would fall by 4,119 in 2032, however, the AADT on the proposed Shannon Bridge crossing is stated to be 6,407 in 2032 giving an increase on the proposed Shannon Bridge of 2,288 AADT. The point was made by objectors at the hearing that this is a significant increase in the general volume of traffic that will be attracted or induced into the Ballina and Killaloe environs from the surrounding road traffic network and that this increased traffic will bypass the town centres and would bring no additional economic benefit. Mr Bell stated to the hearing that the increase in traffic levels overall was due to the scheme resulting in a more efficient network and that the modelling exercise undertaken was a local area model and did not try to assess induced traffic. Increases in overall traffic were stated to be due to improved efficiency of the network and the additional traffic volumes forecast in the modelling exercise are based on local traffic. The issue of induced traffic arising from the diversion of traffic from the Limerick tunnel was raised by the objectors as a possible explanation of the increase in traffic volumes on the network in 2032. From the information presented by Mr Bell and his explanation of the modelling exercise undertaken I would accept that the results generated for 2032, and as presented in Table 5.3 of the brief of evidence (Item A11), are not influenced by traffic from outside the local area as such traffic was not modelled by the applicant and that the explanation provided regarding improved efficiency of the network is the only logical reason for the increase in traffic volumes. The issue of the potential for the scheme to divert traffic from the Limerick tunnel is however a consideration and is one that was not addressed in any direct way by the applicant either in the EIS or during the course of the hearing.

9.3.5.9 While, for the reasons outlined above, I would be satisfied that the additional traffic forecast for the local network in the design year 2032 is not due to the impact of traffic diverting from the Limerick tunnel, it is not clear what if any impact the proposed scheme would have on the traffic volumes using the tunnel in the future. In these circumstances all that is available to the Board is to note the official comments regarding the scheme that were submitted by the NRA, dated 26 th March, 2012. This submission highlights the content of a letter submitted to Clare County Council regarding existing PPP road schemes, competing routes and existing routes and sets out the particular relevant contract provisions that relate to the Limerick Tunnel PPP contract which could trigger financial penalty clauses. These specific provisions include most notably the construction of a new crossing point within 3km upstream (in Killaloe direction) of the original N18 Shannon crossing at Limerick, any widening of the Shannon Bridge (N18) or the imposition of tolls on any road within a radius of 30 km of the original N18 Shannon Bridge. The letter states that ‘it should be emphasised that the aforementioned contract provisions do not prevent the development of new road schemes, the upgrade of existing routes nor future tolling opportunities, but it is important, however, that these provisions be considered carefully and taken full cognisance of by local authorities when preparing proposals, and in the decision making process for any relevant road related development matters, including any financial implications that may arise. ’ I would also note the fact that the NRA specifically stated to the board that they would not make any further comment on the application and would not be attending the oral hearing. Comment was made by objectors to the scheme regarding the newspaper article that appeared in the Irish Times dated October 10 th , 2012 which was the second day of the oral

An Bord Pleanala Page 147 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

hearing. In this article (attached as Item F2 ) an NRA spokesman was quoted as stating that ‘ any additional crossing of the River Shannon would be detrimental to traffic numbers in the Limerick tunnel, with additional costs to taxpayers ’. Objectors at the hearing contended that the appearance of this statement in a paper of record such as the Irish Times was something that should be taken into account by the Board in its assessment.

9.3.5.10 My opinion on the submissions of the NRA regarding this scheme is that what can be taken into account by the Board are the points that have been made by the NRA in its formal submission. It is apparent to me from a review of the contract provisions relating to the Limerick PPP tunnel as set out in the letter received from the NRA that the proposed Killaloe scheme including new river crossing of the Shannon does not clearly fall within the scope of the circumstances set out whereby a material adverse change could be shown to arise. Mr Flanagan for the applicants stated to the hearing that he considers that the contract provisions are not applicable on the basis that the proposed bridge is a replacement of an existing structure, however the basis of this contention is not apparent to me having regard to the fact that the new bridge is not a replacement on a substantially like for like basis as stated in the contract provisions. In any event, it remains my opinion that I do not see how the three contract provisions set out in the NRA letter are applicable in the circumstances of the proposed scheme at Killaloe. I would also note the comments in the letter from the NRA relating to the fact that the contract provisions should not prevent the development of new road schemes. In these circumstances, it is my opinion that the question for the Board is whether a potential impact on an existing tolled route arising from a scheme, that would not appear to be in conflict with the contract provisions applicable to the PPP scheme should offset the potential benefits to the local area of Killaloe and Ballina that would arise as a result of the proposed scheme. In this, it is my opinion that the benefits that would accrue to Killaloe – Ballina in the future are such as would outweigh any potential negative impact on the existing Limerick tunnel scheme.

9.3.5.11 The issue of accidents and accident data was raised by Mr Brown and Mr Poynton in their objections set out at the oral hearing. The issue of accidents is set out at section 5.4 of the EIS and makes reference to accident data collected between 1996 and 2002 as part of the Constraints Study Report of 2005 and the Ballina / Killaloe Traffic Management Study of 2003. Mr Poynton took issue with the lack of up to date data presented and set out figures obtained from the RSA for the period of 2005-2009 inclusive which showed no fatal collisions within the study area and 3 no. serious collisions. It was also noted that there were more serious collisions on the R463 and beyond, outside the study area, and that this road which would see an additional 500 HGV traffic would have additional accidents. This would not however appear to tally with the traffic figures as with the scheme in 2032, and assuming the HGV component stays at the 7.4 percent stated to be recorded in the 2011 survey, the number of HCVs crossing the Shannon on the two bridges would increase to 773, an increase of 273 dispersed over all of the routes into and out of the study area. The points made regarding traffic statistics are noted however the proposed scheme does not involve a national road and so the quantification of accident statistics is not the same as would be the case for such a national road scheme.

An Bord Pleanala Page 148 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.3.5.12 Issues were also raised at the hearing with regard to the undertaking of a CBA and the taking into account of accident statistics in the CBA. Specific reference was made by Mr Brown with regard to the CBA methodology used. A CBA report was not submitted as part of the application however a copy of the document was made available to one of the objectors (Mr Sweetman) and stated to be in response to a request made under the Freedom of Information legislation. This document was made available to me during the hearing and is attached as Item C26 . Mr Brown went into significant detail regarding the methodology that underpinned the CBA undertaken and specifically that the Department of Transport’s 2007 ‘Guidelines on a Common Appraisal Framework for Transport Projects and Programmes’ have been updated in 2009. The fact that the methodology followed did not use the exact format set out I the project appraisal guidelines was recognised by the applicants and stated in the report. Most specifically, the methodology varies in that accidents were not included in the assessment and this leads to an understatement of the ration of benefit to cost. The absence of a multi criteria analysis is also referred to by Mr Browne and acknowledged by the applicant. Both of these issues are noted however, in terms of the undertaking of an assessment by the Board into the merits of the scheme I do not consider that the issues raised are such as to be a fatal flaw in the application or would be a material factor in the determination of the application by the Board.

9.3.5.13 The issue of the set down area that is indicated I the scheme for the area to the rear of St Anne’s Community College arose during the course of the hearing. St Anne’s College and a number of local residents have objected to the inclusion of this proposed vehicular set down area to the rear of the school for reasons relating to security and traffic safety as well as concerns regarding parking and anti social activity in this area during out of school hours. During the course of the hearing, the applicant submitted a copy of an e mail from representatives of St Anne’s college which states that the College recognised that their request for a vehicular access was not feasible and reiterating their objection to the construction of the set down area for the reasons set out in their objection, (attached Item C21 ). Mr Flanagan for the applicants stated to the hearing that it was intended that the set down area would not be constructed however it remained the intention of the council that the area covered by the set down area would be part of the CPO and that the lands in question could be used as ‘a margin of appreciation’ for any amendments that might be taken on the Clarisford side of the alignment in this location.

9.3.5.14 With regard to the principle of the set down area, the area in question is significantly removed from existing development and would be located in a location that would be poorly supervised visually on completion of the development. The potential for the area to become the focus for undesirable activity outside of school hours is therefore, in my opinion, a valid concern. I would also note and share with the objectors some of the concerns expressed with regard to the traffic safety aspects of the proposed lay by / set down area proposed. For these reasons I would agree with the proposal that this aspect of the scheme would be omitted.

An Bord Pleanala Page 149 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.3.5.15 With regard to the retention of the area in question as part of the CPO line, I would note the comments of Mr Flanagan for the applicant with regard to the area providing for a margin of appreciation on the other side of the road in the Clarisford area. I would in particular note the close proximity of the alignment on the Clarisford side to a number of mature trees within the Clarisford lands (as highlighted to the hearing by Mr Sweetman) and consider that there may be some scope for the alignment to give a greater clearance to these trees if the lands indicated for the layby were included within the CPO. I would also note concerns expressed during the hearing with regard to the access arrangements to Clarisford estate and the proposed Clarisford Park sports fields located adjacent to Clarisford Palace. The retention of the lands covered by the set down area within the CPO would facilitate the provision of a ghost island junction at this location if considered appropriate. For the above reasons, I would agree with the request of the applicants that the set down area to the rear of St Anne’s College should be omitted from the scheme.

An Bord Pleanala Page 150 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.3.6 Noise, Air Quality and Vibration

9.3.6.1 Considerable discussion took place during the hearing with regard to noise emissions arising from the construction and operation phases of the proposed development and the impact of the proposed development on air quality, again during both construction and operational phases. The issues raised relate to the methodology employed in both assessments and to the impacts on properties along the route. Evidence was also presented by Mr Karl Searson on behalf of objectors to the scheme relating to the impact of the proposed scheme on a number of specific properties along the route of the proposed scheme. This section will focus on the methodology employed in the assessment of noise and air quality although reference may be made to certain specific locations.

9.3.6.2 The approach used by the applicant in the assessment of noise impact is one that is relatively standard with regard to road schemes. It involves the undertaking of a baseline noise survey along the route which comprised a total of 12 no. attended and 2 no. unattended 24 hour locations. Noise levels were recorded in Lden and varied between 47 and 69 dB Lden. Noise levels were primarily influenced by existing road traffic noise and the highest recorded levels were at locations along the R494. The methodology used for prediction of noise levels was with an acoustic noise monitoring package called ‘ predictor’ by Bruel and Kjaer. This prediction method is based on the Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) Laeq method. Information relating to traffic volumes, traffic profile, speed and road surface was inputted into the model as well as information relating to distance, ground attenuation and level was also inputted. Modelling of results was undertaken for a do nothing and do something scenario. The EIS notes that the years modelled were 2012 and 2027 on the basis that the traffic levels at the base year 2008 survey data and the growth levels were higher than using the design year of 2032 thereby giving a more conservative assessment.

9.3.6.3 The outputs of the modelling exercise were assessed against a day evening night standard of 60dB Lden (free field façade criterion) which is that specified in the NRA document ‘ Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes ’. Under the guidelines above, noise mitigation measures are necessary when three conditions are met. These three conditions are as follows:

• The combined expected noise level is greater than the design goal (60dB Lden), • The relevant noise level is at least 1 dB more than the expected noise level without the scheme in place and , • The contribution to the increase in the relevant noise level from the proposed road scheme is at least 1dB.

The analysis undertaken indicated that with allowance made for a low noise road surface, none of the receiver locations (60 no.) that were the subject of analysis met the three criteria set out and therefore no specific noise mitigation measures additional to the use of a low noise road surface are proposed.

An Bord Pleanala Page 151 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.3.6.4 The assessment undertaken with regard to construction noise related to the standard set out in the 2004 NRA Guidance which is a figure of 70dB LAeq for daytime noise, 60dB LAeq for evening noise and a weekend (Saturday) limit of 65 dB LAeq. At the hearing, Ms Harmon (AWN Consulting) for the applicant summarised the approach taken in the assessment of construction noise impact and this is attached as Item A10 . The brief of evidence and the EIS (7.3.6) set out how the construction noise assessment was undertaken and how the noise output of various types of plant and equipment was assessed. The evidence of Ms Harmon to the hearing stated that the assessment undertaken indicated that the noise level of plant and machinery at distances of 20 metres and greater from the equipment will be within the range of accepted construction limit values. In the case of multiple equipment use and the situation of compounds and construction techniques which have not been finalised such as excavation methods and storage locations, it was stated by the applicant that under any works scenario the contractor will be required to operate within the noise limit criteria set down in the EIS and the submitted Schedule of Mitigation Measures.

9.3.6.5 The adequacy of the approach put forward by the applicant where there are significant aspects of the methodology of construction and sequencing / phasing of the proposed scheme that are uncertain and which could give rise to significant issues in relation to noise impacts was the subject of much discussion at various times during the course of the oral hearing and section 9.3.1 of this report has addressed the issue regarding the acceptability of the EIS in terms of the content and level of detail provided with the application. As set out in 9.3.1, there are uncertainties with regard to the phasing of the proposed scheme and the contract process that mean that it is impossible for the applicant to be definitive at this stage with regard to the phasing of the scheme and the resulting earth balances along the project and hence the likely locations of materials storage, screening and crushing as well as issues relating to excavation and construction, specifically in the areas of the Ballyvally cutting and the Shannon Bridge crossing. As set out in 9.3.1 of this report, it is appreciated that the lack of certainty with regard to the exact nature of the process is of concern to property owners along the route, however it is also my opinion as set out in 9.3.1 above, that the approach undertaken is the only one that is feasible in the circumstances of the proposed scheme and that it is in compliance with the requirements of the EIA Directive and Irish Regulations. Repeatedly at the hearing, issues were raised regarding the level of noise that would be generated at a particular location and the impact that would be generated on adjacent properties and questions were raised regarding the level of information available regarding specific construction activities at various points along the route and whether the impact of these activities had been addressed in a satisfactory manner. Mr Conroy for the applicants made efforts to set out the possible scenarios that could arise depending on the possible construction methodology details and the phasing / sequencing of works. At a fundamental level, the Board has to determine whether it is satisfied with the approach undertaken by the applicant regarding the use of a noise limit value and reliance on a construction methodology being put in place by the appointed contractor to the scheme that ensures that these set limits are adhered to. The alternative is that every possible detail regarding the construction methodology and noise implications arising are worked out in advance and detailed in the EIS. For the reasons set out in 9.3.1 of this report I do not consider that such an approach is either required in order to comply with the provisions of the EIA Directive and Irish legislation or feasible in the case of a scheme of the scale and nature of that proposed in this application.

An Bord Pleanala Page 152 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.3.6.6 With regard to the detailed methodology used in the assessment undertaken, Mr Brown for the objectors raised a number of queries. Firstly, Mr Brown noted to the hearing that Figures 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 appear not to indicate all the survey locations where survey work was undertaken. Specifically it was noted that location S06 is missing. It is agreed that location S06 is omitted from Figure 7.3.1, however I would note that Table 7.3.1 of the EIS gives a description and co ordinates of this survey location which I consider to be adequate to determine its location. I would also note from 7.3.2 of the EIS that it would appear that survey locations S03 and S09 were the unattended survey locations and that when these are taken out of the overall numbers there were 10 remaining attended survey locations at which information was collected.

9.3.6.7 Mr Brown also set out how he considered that the location and number of survey locations along the route does not satisfy the NRA requirement that such assessment be carried out along the proposed scheme and existing road network and specifically highlighted that section 7.3.2 of the EIS indicates that unattended 24-hour monitoring was conducted at only two locations out of the 12 baseline survey locations that were selected. Ms Harmon set out to the hearing how the survey locations were chosen and I consider that the location of survey points along the route covers the entirety of the study area. I would also note and accept the comments made by Ms Harmon to the hearing with regard to the nature of the survey locations and the purpose of the results obtained which is to provide a method of validating the modelling results. In my opinion therefore the choice and location of survey points as set out in Figs. 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 is adequate.

9.3.6.8 The fundamental issue raised by Mr Brown regarding the noise impact assessment undertaken was that it was based on the use of the CRTN LAeq method. According to Mr Brown, the requirements of the Noise Directive are that the French computation method NMPB96 is put forward in Annex II of Directive 2002/49/EC as the “recommended interim computation method” for “ Member States that have no national computation methods ”. It was further stated by Mr Browne that Ireland has no national computational methodology and that as a result, the transposing Regulations should have recommended the French method if they had faithfully transposed the Noise Directive. It was therefore submitted by Mr Brown that the incorrect computation method has been used for this scheme.

9.3.6.9 The assertions of Mr Brown with regard to the appropriate computational method are noted and in response I would highlight the following to the Board. Firstly, the approach used in the noise assessment undertaken by the applicant is that which is commons to the road schemes of which I am aware and it is not apparent to me that the assessment methodology used, and specifically the requirement that the French method be employed, has been questioned in relation to other schemes and proposals. Secondly, I would note and draw the attention of the Board to the fact that Article 6(2) of the Noise Directive (2002/49/EC) states that ‘ common assessment methods for the determination of Lden and Lnight shall be established by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 13(2) through a revision of Annex II. Until these methods are adopted, member States may use assessment methods adapted in accordance with Annex II and based upon the methods laid down in their own legislation. In such case, they must demonstrate that those methods give equilivent results to the results obtained with the methods set out in paragraph 2.2 of Annex II.’ In Annex II, the French method is stated with regard to Road Traffic Noise. Paragraph 3 of Annex II goes on to state however that ‘If a

An Bord Pleanala Page 153 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

member state has no national measurement method or if it prefers to apply another method, a method may be defined on the basis of the definition of the indicator and the principles stated in ISO 1996-2: 1987 and ISO 1996-1: 1982. ’ In the case of Ireland, the relevant computational method is set out at SI 140 of 2006 – the Environmental Noise Regulations, 2006. Article 9 of these regulations states that ‘pending adoption of a common assessment method for the determination of Lden and Lnight as foreseen by Article 6(2) of the Directive, noise mapping bodies shall use the assessment methods recommended in Part II of the Second Schedule. ’ Part II of the Second Schedule sets out two methods for road Traffic Noise, one of which is the CRTN method and the other being the French method.

9.3.6.10 It is therefore my reading of Annex II of the Directive and of the Environmental Noise Regulations, 2006 that it is open to member states that have no national computational method to define alternative methods subject to them according with the ISO standards specified in the Noise Directive. It would also appear to me that this has been done in the 2006 Regulations and that it is open to use either the CRTN or the French method. The relevant documents, namely the Directive and the 2006 regulations are attached with this report to inform the Board and assist in their deliberations on this issue.

9.3.6.11 Mr Searson on behalf of the clients of Rea Agri Environmental raised a number of issues with regard to the noise assessment and the impact of the proposed development on specific properties located along the route of the proposed scheme. As part of this analysis undertaken by Mr Searson, assessments of the background noise environment were undertaken. The issues raised by Mr Searson relate primarily to the fact that at a considerable number of locations along the alignment of the proposed scheme the recorded noise levels are very significantly lower than the limit values proposed to be set by the applicant. It is therefore contended that the impact of the proposed development would be to result in a very significant change in the noise environment at a number of the identified locations even in the event that the noise level on completion of the development were to be within the levels specified by the applicant and contained in the EIS. Mr Searson contended that it would be a case of good practice that the potential impacts arising from the development would be limited further where possible and outlined a range of measures and locations where it was stated that noise attenuation structures could be provided that would mitigate the potential noise impact arising as a result of the proposal. During the course of discussion at the hearing, the applicant stated that it was envisaged that some temporary noise attenuation structures would be included at the construction stage, however the use of permanent structures was not envisaged at either construction or operational stage. Mr Searson proposed that permanent structures could be provided during the operational phase at a number of the locations where he had identified significant variations between existing and proposed noise levels. During cross questioning at the hearing it was apparent that the attitude of the applicants is for the use of temporary screens during the construction phase to ensure that the stated noise limits are met and that it is not necessary that any permanent screens be used as the noise modelling undertaken indicates that the three criteria where mitigation would be required as set out at 7.3.1 of the EIS will not be met.

An Bord Pleanala Page 154 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.3.6.12 It is accepted that some screening would potentially be necessary at certain locations along the route to meet construction noise limits however I would accept the analysis undertaken by the applicant that the noise levels predicted are not such as would exceed the relevant thresholds and require the provision of permanent noise attenuation controls, barriers or other mitigation measures. The issue highlighted by Mr Searson and other objectors to the hearing with regard to the potential impact on properties that are currently located in a low noise environment are noted and in this regard I would specifically note the area in the vicinity of the Shannon River Crossing. The impact of the proposed scheme on the residential amenity of properties at these locations are considered in more detail in the assessment of specific objections received (see 9.2 above) and also the consideration of landscape and visual impacts.

9.3.6.13 Mr Brown for the objectors made a number of points at the oral hearing with regard to the air quality assessment undertaken. Firstly, it was noted by Mr Browne , and accepted by the applicant at the hearing, that the assessment undertaken and the relevant sections of the EIS (7.4) made reference to the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2002 when there are now Air Quality Standards Regulations, 2011 published. Considerable time was spent at the hearing trying to assess what were the implications for the specific project at hand from the change in the regulations. This discussion did not enlighten me as to what aspects of the assessment of air quality that were relevant to the assessment of the subject proposal, namely a road project, had been undertaken in a deficient manner relative to the requirements of the 2011 Regulations and following further review of the Regulations since the hearing I do not see how the analysis undertaken or the proposed scheme is inconsistent with the most recently published regulations.

9.3.6.14 At the hearing, Dr Porter for AWN Consulting set out how the air quality analysis had been undertaken and it was stated that while the analysis was undertaken in 2009, and therefore prior to the adoption of the 2011 Regulations, the analysis was undertaken in accordance with the Directive 2008/50/EC. This directive was transposed into Irish legislation in 2011 in the form of the 2011 Air Quality Regulations. Mr Brown made reference at the hearing to the number of sampling points used in the analysis and questioned Dr Porter as to whether the sampling undertaken was consistent with the requirements of Schedule 5 of the 2011 Regulations. In response, Dr Porter stated that the requirements of Schedule 5 relate to monitoring by the regulator, in this case the EPA, to ascertain air quality and are at a national level rather than being applicable to a local level scheme such as that proposed. It was further stated that the requirements of Schedule 5 were not relevant to an air quality assessment as part of an EIS. Reference was also made by Mr Brown to alert thresholds as set out in Schedule 12 of the Regulations. Again it was the opinion of Dr Porter that these thresholds are applicable to the EPA. I have reviewed the 2011 regulations and a copy is attached with this report. The relevant section in the regulations relating to Schedules 5 and 12, as well as the text of Schedules 5 and 12 are highlighted. It is my opinion from a reading of these sections that they are not applicable to a project of the form and scale of the subject proposal and I would therefore accept the comments of Dr Porter as submitted to the hearing.

9.3.6.15 The discussion at the hearing went through a number of specific contaminants which may be of relevance to the proposed scheme. These contaminants were discussed by Dr Porter and the rationale as to why certain pollutants raised by the objectors were not considered to be an issue (e.g. SO2, lead and ozone) explained. From the discussion undertaken at the hearing and a review

An Bord Pleanala Page 155 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

of the EIS I have not identified other pollutants that are of potential relevance that were not included in the assessment and therefore consider the asse4ssment undertaken to be comprehensive and appropriate for the type of project proposed.

9.3.6.16 Mr Brown made the point in his closing submission to the hearing that the consultants did not address the issue of whether the 2011 Regulations had materially changed the requirements of air quality assessment and that once it was raised that the Regulations had been revoked, it was a rebuttable submission that the assessments contained in the EIS had not changed. Reference was made to the judgement of Charleton J. in An Taisce v. Ireland [2010] IEHC 415, where it was held that “proofs are absent. The duty that is cast on a planning authority, or on An Bord Pleanála on appeal, is to make an appropriate enquiry. See Weston Limited v. An Bord Pleanála [2010] IEHC 255, (Unreported, High Court, Charleton J., 1st July, 2010)” in this regard. In response, I would refer to 9.3.6.13 above and on the basis of the information presented at the hearing, the responses of Dr Porter during cross questioning and my review of the 2011 regulations I am satisfied that the analysis undertaken by the applicants as presented in the EIS is consistent with the provisions of the 2011 Regulations. If there was an additional issue regarding the scope or methodology employed in the assessment that Mr Brown was seeking to put forward this was not made clear at the hearing and it is therefore not evident to me in what manner that the analysis undertaken could be considered to be deficient when set against the requirements of the 2011 regulations.

9.3.6.17 Mr Brown questioned the sections in the EIS relating to climate change and the reference to the most recent international meetings which is stated in the EIS to have been in Poznan in 2008 (EIS, 7.4.1). The fact that there have been further meetings since that date was discussed and while I accept the point being raised by Mr Brown regarding the delay between the preparation of the air quality assessment and submission of the EIS and the fact that time was not taken to update the assessment prior to submission of the EIS, I do not see how the content of these meetings is directly of relevance to the assessment of the subject proposal. It is also correct as stated by Mr Brown that the EU has made commitments to reduce GHG emissions by 20% from 2005 levels by 2020 and that this was not mentioned in the EIS however it was accepted by Mr Brown in his submission that the scheme would likely have a negligible impact on climate change albeit that this is an anomaly in the EIA process, which is not fit for purpose in assessing the climate change impacts of individual projects.

9.3.6.18 Finally, reference was made by Mr Browne to the dust minimisation plan set out in the EIS (Appendix 7.4.1) and that the preparation of such a plan post consent was contrary to the provisions of circular letter PL/07 and NPWS 1/07 which states that under no circumstances should planning authorities use compliance conditions to complete an inadequate EIS. From a review of the contents of 7.4.1 I would be of the opinion that what is stated is really a commitment that a series of measures as set out at Appendix 7.4.1 of the Plan and under other sections relating to mitigation will be implemented. The applicant has made the case that what is intended by the plan is an implementation strategy of all the relevant mitigation measures proposed relating to dust and that it does not provide for the creation of additional mitigation measures to be developed post approval contrary to the provisions of circular letter Pl/07. Having regard to the measures referred to in Appendix 7.4.1 and other mitigation measures set out in the EIS I would agree with the applicants interpretation in this regard. I would also note that having regard to the uncertainties regarding

An Bord Pleanala Page 156 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

phasing and the scope of works the formulation of a definitive plan at this stage is not possible.

9.3.6.19 The approach of the EIS with regard to vibration is as per that relating to noise and it is proposed that vibration limits as set out in Table 7.3.8 of the EIS would be adhered to in the work. These values have been derived from the NRA Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Road Schemes. Objectors to the scheme raised a number of locations where it was considered that vibration impacts could be an issue and these included at the Ballyvally end of the scheme and the vicinity of the Ballyvally cutting and the river crossing and potential impacts on Clarisford palace. Similar to the case with noise impact, the uncertainty with regard to the exact detailed nature of the construction methodology in some locations and the schedule and phasing of works means that the assessment of exact vibration impacts is not feasible and it is my opinion that the proposed use of a maximum allowable vibration velocity is an appropriate method to control impacts.

9.3.6.20 With regard to whether the peak particle velocity values specified are applicable to all buildings along the route, I note from the content of 2.3.4 of the NRA Guidelines that the values cited, and proposed in the EIS, are based on what is considered to be the appropriate guidelines for relatively modern buildings and have been adapted (by the reduction in the relevant value) so as to take account of more sensitive building types. The values included in the EIS have therefore been so modified though not to the extent that match the German standard as set out in the NRA Guidelines for the protection of particularly sensitive structures or those that are of particular intrinsic value. Ballyvally House predates the 1787 grand Jury map on which it appears and there was information presented to the hearing that a part of the structure significantly predates this. The gate lodge dates from c.1820. With particular regard to the potential impact of the scheme on Ballyvally House, it is my opinion on the basis of the information available and having regard to the separation of this structure from the alignment and the likely excavation method in the vicinity of the Ballyvally area that the standards set out in the EIS are appropriate. Should the Board have concerns regarding the potential impact on Ballyvally House arising from the proposal it may consider it appropriate that a separate more restrictive vibration limit would be applied in the case of this property.

9.3.7 Material Assets

9.3.7.1 Chapter 9 of the EIS covers the impact of the proposed scheme on material assets and focusses on the impact of the scheme on farm holdings in terms of land take and severance. The chapter includes a review of the current farming enterprises along the route in terms of farm type and size.

9.3.7.2 Post mitigation measures, the scheme is predicted to have a major negative impact on one farm. The issues in relation to this particular farm holding are addressed in detail previously in this report. Overall, the predicted impact on farms is assessed as being not significant in 7 cases, minor in 5 cases, moderate in 8 cases and major in one case. There are no holdings that are assessed as having a severe negative impact. When the assessment is taken with mitigation in place, 9.5 of the EIS clarifies that these mitigation works relate to engineering accommodation works alone and do not take account of further measures to compensate farmers due to land acquisition, drainage works and loss of facilities and these issues will be

An Bord Pleanala Page 157 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

addressed by the valuer at the relevant stage of the arbitration process if the CPO is confirmed. Temporary measures to allow for access, field drainage and disturbance to services are set out in the EIS.

9.3.8 Soils, Geology, Water and Hydrology

Soils and Geology

9.3.8.1 The potential impact of the scheme in terms of water and hydrology at both the construction and operational phases is one of the most significant potential impacts arising from the proposed development. The assessment relating to soils and hydrology was undertaken by Roughan and O’Donovan Limited and Mr Tony Cawley of Hydro Environmental was retained by the applicant to assess the methodology proposed and to review the information.

9.3.8.2 Mr Brennan for the applicants set out in his brief of evidence ( Item A2 ) how the area to the west of the Shannon is characterised by moderately strong to moderately weak thinly bedded to laminated, fine grained siltstones and sandstones. In the river crossing section, the bedrock is relatively shallow and comprises old red sandstone. On the sections of the R494 realignment, it was stated that rock is not present close to the surface. Mr Brennan outlines to the hearing how there were no areas of peat or soft ground encountered along the alignment of the Killaloe Bypass and river crossing sections. Some pockets of peat and silty peat were encountered along the R494 and these areas will have to be excavated and replaced with suitable material. From the ground investigations undertaken there were two areas of made ground encountered along the route that contain domestic waste at chainage 0+150 on the bypass and 1+730 on the R494. No Karst features are known of in the alignment of the proposed scheme. A full description of the soils and geology along the route is set out at 7.6 of the EIS.

9.3.8.3 There are a total of 9 no. cuttings along the route and the most significant of these is that located at the northern end of the bypass route in the Knockyclovaun and Ballyvally areas. This cut is deep with a maximum cut depth of 17.7 metres below existing ground level to the road surface and 19.2 metre overall cut depth when account is taken of the requirements for road foundation and drainage. Of the other cuttings along the route, the maximum depth is 4.9 metres overall.

9.3.8.4 With regard to the deep cutting at Ballyvally / Knockyclovaun, the depth of cut in this area is significant. The ground investigations reported by the applicant indicate that in this area, the topsoil over stiff gravelly clay and overlying sand and gravel deposits. The ground investigations undertaken indicate that the level of rock will vary between 5 metres and 9 metres below ground level. The depth of the cutting in this location is such that the excavation will be below 9 metres over a length of c.250 metres out of the entire length of cutting of c.580 metres. The proposed method of extraction of rock material in this location was the subject of discussion and questioning during the course of the hearing. The applicant was not definitive with regard to the methodologies to be used in this area specifically and this is the most significant in terms of the potential for the requirement of rock removal. The submitted EIS does not give any details with regard to the methods of extraction to be used in the area of the Ballyvally / Knockyclovaun cutting and the description of the construction process as set out in Chapter 3 focusses on phasing of the scheme and earthworks balances.

An Bord Pleanala Page 158 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.3.8.5 During the course of the hearing, in response to questions set out the likely nature of the excavation process, the applicants set out how it was envisaged that there would be a number of potential techniques with bucket removal and the use of drilling and ripping the most likely. In response to questions as to whether blasting would be an option that would be utilised at this location or potentially at other locations along the proposed route, the applicants stated that the use of blasting techniques could not be discounted and that the exact nature of the extraction process would not be known until further information regarding the rock at these depths was known. The possibility of alternative blasting techniques such as chemical blasting was noted by the applicants and it was stressed that whatever methodology was employed that the relevant standards relating to dust, noise, vibration and effluent discharge as set out in the EIS and specified in the Schedule of Mitigation Measures would be required to be adhered to by the contractor. In response to questions from Mr O’Donnell for the objectors, the applicant stated that the use of blasting techniques and other extraction methods would be undertaken in a dry environment as far as practicable and that this would be achieved by the excavation of trenches and the creation of a drawdown scenario to reduce the level of water. Table 7.5.10 of the EIS indicates that the anticipated maximum depth of the water table in this cutting would be 3.9 metres.

9.3.8.6 The uncertainty with regard to the exact methodology has been discussed at 9.3.1 above in the context of the validity of the approach in the context of the requirements of the EIA Directive and the relevant Irish legislation and it is my opinion that the level of detail submitted is sufficient in this regard. The issue regarding the excavated areas and the concerns expressed by objectors to the scheme with regard to the resulting impacts on their properties in terms of noise, vibration and dust are noted and appreciated, however the EIS and the Schedule of Mitigation submitted sets down detailed requirements in terms of the methodology employed, monitoring and the limits that must be adhered to by the scheme contractor.

9.3.8.7 With regard to the water table and the effect on hydrology, there was significant discussion with, and questioning of, Mr Cawley during the hearing with regard to the impact of the proposed scheme and specifically the Knockyclovaun / Ballyvally cutting on the hydrology of the area. Table 7.5.10 of the EIS sets out the depth of the proposed road cuts and the estimated maximum depth of the cut below the water table. This indicates that the maximum depth of excavation below the water table would be of the order of 3.9 metres in the vicinity of the Knockyclovaun / Ballyvally cutting. This cut is stated to have a direct minor negative and permanent impact on the water table which may be lowered permanently in a local area in the vicinity of this cut. The EIS states that the impact of this cut will be restricted to a local geographic area by the aquifer status, distribution and characteristics of the subsoils and the underlying bedrock in the study area. This assessment was elaborated upon by Mr Cawley during the hearing and he outlined how the area in question is a poor aquifer and that the volumes of water that are readily mobilised are not significant. Mr Cawley also outlined to the hearing how in this area the direction of groundwater flow was from west to east in the direction of the river Shannon and that the zone of recharge in the hill to the west of the cutting was narrow. With regard to the potential impact of the cutting on the ponds that are within the Ballyvally estate Mr Cawley stated to the hearing that the area and zone of draw down in this area is such that there would be no negative impact on these ponds arising. Having reviewed the data provisioned in the EIS and listed to the evidence of Mr Brennan and Mr Cawley and the responses to questions provided by Mr Cawley at the hearing , I am satisfied that

An Bord Pleanala Page 159 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

the impact of the proposed cutting at Ballyvally would be such as to have a minor negative impact.

9.3.8.8 The impact of the proposed scheme on wells has been addressed in 7.5.7 of the EIS and this assesses the potential impact of the proposed scheme on well hydraulics and chemical impacts arising. A survey of wells undertaken identified 3 no. wells within 500 metres of the centre of the alignment and a further 3 no. wells located between 500 and 1250 metres from the scheme. A well impact assessment was undertaken based on GSI information that indicated that 5 of the 6 wells were within the same aquifer as the road and the assessment concluded that there would be no significant impact. Table 7.5.9 of the EIS summarises the results of the analysis undertaken. It is stated that prior to construction commencing a comprehensive well audit survey of all wells within 1.25 km of the scheme would be undertaken. In addition, a comprehensive set of mitigation measures with regard to wells is set out in 1.7.1 of the Schedule of Mitigation Measures and sets out the proposed process for well auditing and monitoring. Sampling will be every quarter during construction and a final sign off sample post construction will be undertaken. The mitigation measures proposed with regard to wells and water quality are in my opinion satisfactory and I do not consider that on the basis of the information presented there is likely to be a significant negative impact on supply wells within the catchment of the proposed scheme.

9.3.8.9 As noted by Mr Brennan in his evidence to the hearing, Item A2, there are a number of other minor cuttings along the route of the bypass however these are generally less than 3 metres in depth with the exception of cutting 2 which has a total depth including road foundation and drainage of 4.9 metres. All of these cuttings are indicated as having a maximum depth of excavation below the water table of less than one metre. No significant cuttings are proposed along the Shannon bridge crossing section or the R494 improvement.

9.3.8.10 In terms of fill sections and embankments, the bypass requires a number of fill locations however these are all less than three metres in height. The Shannon crossing section will be constructed on fill and the embankments in this location are stated by the applicant to be a maximum of c.6.5 metres at the western end and c. 7.0 metres at the eastern end. There are a number of fill areas proposed along the R494 improvement, the most significant of which is proposed to be in the vicinity of the Shannonside Business Park where the embankment will be c.7.0 metres above the existing ground level.

9.3.8.11 In terms of overall earthworks quantities and balances, section 7.6.6 of the EIS sets out the overall earthworks quantities for the whole scheme. This indicates that if the scheme was to be constructed as part of one contract, there would be an overall deficit of c. 25,000 cubic metres of material, comprising a surplus of c.114,000 cubic metres for the bypass section, and deficits of 42,500 and almost 98,000 cubic metres in the case of the bridge crossing and R494 improvement sections respectively. The EIS and the evidence of Mr Brennan to the hearing noted that these balances, and the requirement for importation and removal of material from the site would be impacted by the sequencing of the scheme and to a lesser extent the quality of some of the material excavated and potential for its reuse in the scheme. The Schedule of Mitigation Measures submitted by the applicant (section 1.8) also makes reference to the fact that the surplus earthworks volume can be reduce by the

An Bord Pleanala Page 160 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

steepening of the sides of cuttings from the assumed 2H : 1V, but the feasibility of this will need to be the subject of further investigation prior to construction.

9.3.8.12 At the hearing, Mr Brown for the objectors questioned the appropriateness of the use of a 1 in 50 year event for the design of the drainage system. Mr Cawley in response set out to the hearing how the use of a 1 in 50 year flow is standard practice and how given the very large base flow in the River Shannon the increased discharge could easily be accommodated, much more than would be the case with a smaller river. The comments of Mr Cawley in this regard are noted and accepted.

Water and Hydrology – Construction and Operation

9.3.8.13 During the course of the discussion and questioning relating to water and hydrology, Mr Cawley for the applicants observed that he was not concerned with regard to the potential impact of the scheme in the sense of the potential impact on groundwater and that a more significant concern would arise in relation to the appropriate mitigation measures with regard to drainage during construction and operational phases of the road. I would agree with this assessment. With regard to the hydrology of the area, there are a total of fourteen drainage crossings on the route and all are within the catchment and ultimately discharge to the River Shannon. The River Shannon in this location comprises part of an area that is designated as a Natura 2000 site (Lower River Shannon cSAC) and so the implications of runoff and discharge from the scheme is significant in terms of its potential impact on ecology and the qualifying interests of the cSAC in particular. I also note that the River Shannon and Lough Derg upstream of Killaloe and in the vicinity of the northern end of the bypass route is designated as a proposed NHA and that Lough Derg is also listed on the Register of Protected Areas as a recreational lake, a nutrient sensitive lake and as a drinking water lake.

9.3.8.14 The sub catchments of the study area in terms of hydrology are mapped in Figures 7.5.2.1 and 7.5.2.2 of the EIS and are described in 7.5.3 of the main text of the EIS. A total of eleven sub catchments are identified and these have catchment areas ranging from less than 1km to in excess of 96 sq. kilometres in the case of the Kilmastulla River.

9.3.8.15 Sections 7.5.7 and 7.5.8 of the EIS detail the likely impacts arising from the proposed road construction and drainage of same during the construction and operational phases of the scheme. During the construction phase, the EIS sets out the nature of the proposed mitigation measures (7.5.8). These measures include mitigation with regard to the siting of borrow pits if necessary, the construction of interceptor drains upslope of the construction area and collection and diversion of this water to percolation areas prior to discharge. Outfalls of such collection areas are proposed to be located no closer than 50 metres from any watercourse and a sampling programme put in place. Mitigation measures with regard to the storing and refuelling and maintenance of construction machinery and plant are detailed and mitigation in the case of spillage or accident outlined. Temporary drainage at the Knockyclovaun / Ballyvally cutting is referred to in section 4 of Mr Brennan’s brief of evidence relating to soils and geology (Item A2). Overall, it is my opinion that the methodology set out in the EIS with regard to the construction phase of the development is satisfactory and the mitigation measures set out are sufficient to

An Bord Pleanala Page 161 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

ensure that any potential adverse impacts on the environment and specifically on the cSAC are avoided.

9.3.8.16 The EIS also details the proposed measures involved in the construction of the Shannon River Crossing and this is set out at 3.7.4 of the EIS. During the course of the hearing there was some discussion regarding the likely construction method that would be used at the River crossing section and specifically the form of piling that would be used and whether it was proposed to use a coffer dam technique and / or the use of silt curtains. The method of piling was clarified during the course of the further information phase of the scheme and is restated in the schedule of mitigation measures submitted. This clearly states that piling shall only be undertaken from barge mounted plant and that a geotextile curtain suspended from a floating boom shall be employed to surround that area of piling. It is also confirmed that piling methods shall be limited to vibratory or rotary methods only and no impact hammers shall be used. During the course of the hearing it was also clarified that a coffer dam will not be used and that the pouring of concrete would be completed in a dry environment facilitated in the area of the river piers by the use of suspended shuttering and dewatering of the localised area. On the basis of the information provided in the FI response and as discussed at the oral hearing, the methodology proposed is considered to be clear and is, in my opinion, acceptable.

9.3.8.17 The proposals for the drainage of the road during the operational phase of the scheme is set out at 7.5.8 of the EIS and is detailed in its scope. The proposed methodology and mitigation measures set out in the EIS were augmented by the applicants response to Further Information which was received on 25 th May, 2012. Item No.1 of the FI request required that further details regarding the proposed sustainable drainage system for the road would be submitted and that details be provided as regards the type of system proposed at each location along the route would be provided. In addition, Item No.2 of the FI request required that further details of the drainage system for the Shannon River Crossing and Kilmastulla river crossing sections of the route would be provided. In response to these items the applicant submitted comprehensive details with regard to the drainage system along the route. This information details where it is proposed to use filter drains, open ditches / over the edge drainage, kerb, gully systems and also provides additional details with regard to the proposed constructed wetlands / attenuation ponds that are to be provided at all outfall locations from the road. The EIS and RFI also detail how given the anticipated traffic volumes on the road the anticipated pollution levels would be low, however given the sensitive nature of the receiving waters from the perspective of designated Natura 2000 sites, the scheme has been designed to ensure that a minimum standard of removal of 85% of suspended solids, 50-80% of heavy metals, 50 percent of COD and 90 percent of hydrocarbons. The submitted RFI gives details regarding the construction of the proposed wetland areas. Details in the form of figures showing the catchment areas along the route and the proposed drainage system on each one was submitted as part of the FI response. In response to Item No.2 of the FI response, the applicant has detailed the drainage of the two main river crossings on the route. The Shannon crossing (Outfall OB1) will drain to the outfall at chainage 0+250 and will discharge to a stream at chainage 0+130S. It is clarified that the drainage on the river crossing is a closed system and that there is no discharge to the river directly. A similar closed system outfalling via a wetland pond is proposed in the case of the Kilmastulla River. On the basis of the information submitted and the details contained in the response to further information, it is my opinion that the approach proposed by the applicant is acceptable and would result in

An Bord Pleanala Page 162 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

the control of road runoff such as to protect water quality in the Shannon and Kilmastulla Rivers. It is noted that the Development Applications Unit in their submission to the oral hearing did not raise any specific issues of concern with regard to the methodology of road drainage proposed and that it was recommended by the DAU that the Board would ensure that the requirement that salmonid water quality in the river would not be compromised.

9.3.8.18 Reference was made during the course of the oral hearing to the potential for the connection of some of the houses along the R494 improvement to piped drainage. This was also referred to in the EIS. It was clarified during the course of the hearing that the council are examining the potential of such a scheme and in response to a question from the inspector it was stated that it was considered that such a scheme would be feasible although it is not clear how far south along the R494 it might extend. It was however stated by the applicant that the details of any such arrangement had not been developed and that for the purposes of the application what was proposed was the replacement and reconfiguration of the on site treatment systems. The proposal is assessed on this basis. Questions were raised by objectors regarding the compliance of replacement systems with the relevant codes of practice and the provision of assurances / compliance in this regard. It is my understanding that any such replacement systems would have to be in accordance with the relevant code of practice as set out by the EPA and that the onus would be on the acquiring authority to ensure that this is the case.

9.3.8.19 Although not directly connected with architectural heritage, it is noted that there was discussion at the hearing with regard to the drainage of the road in the vicinity of Fort Henry and the relative levels of the attenuation pond, pond outfall, stream and River Shannon. Specifically, information was provided by the applicant with regard to road drainage and the level of the proposed attenuation pond at chainage 0+975 and how this would connect with the stream within Fort Henry estate. This information is presented as Item C11 attached. The information presented was that the outfall of the pond in this located was 31.2 MOD (Malin) and that the stream discharge level was 30.25 MOD. It was noted by Mr Sweetman for the owner of Fort Henry estate that the target level for the Shannon was 30.86 MOD (Malin) and that there was a variation of c..80 metre over that at high river level conditions. This would bring the level of the river above the outfall of the attenuation pond and significantly above the stated stream level. Mr Sweetman contested the surveyed levels of the stream within Fort Henry and it was agreed by the applicant in questioning that their survey of the area had only extended as far down stream as the confluence of the two streams within the estate. It was also stated by the applicant that they were under the impression that there was some form of control on the discharge of the stream in Fort Henry but in questioning they were not sure what the nature of that control was. I examined the lands within the Fort Henry estate and my observations of the area is of a shallow gradient to the stream and a generally shallow depth of only 20-30 cm in the upper part and deepening to 60-70 further along. From my observations, the gradient of the stream was more of the order of the 100mm over the length cited by Mr Sweetman than the 700mm between the road and the confluence of the two streams as stated by the applicants. There was no obstruction on flow that I could observe. The road level over the section between the proposed attenuation pond PC1 and the vicinity of this entrance to Fort Henry is of the order of 200 - 800mm higher than the existing level and it would appear feasible that the surface discharge from the road via the attenuation pond could be discharged to this stream. It would also appear likely to me that the size of the

An Bord Pleanala Page 163 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

stream within Fort Henry and the levels are such that there would not be a requirement for regarding or excavation of the bed of the stream in this location. (For the information of the Board, details of the area in question and the attenuation pond inlets and outfalls are shown in figure RFI 1.10 of the FI Response and the extent of road catchment is shown in Fig. RFI 1.3). This issue requires clarification regarding levels in this location prior to the commencement of works and it is in my opinion appropriate that given the uncertainties regarding the levels in this area that the option of a temporary CPO (plot Ref. 169a. 201 and 202) would be accommodated in this location.

9.3.8.20 The schedule of Mitigation Measures submitted by the applicant includes a comprehensive set of mitigation measures relating to hydrology and hydrogeology that covers both the construction and operational phases of the scheme. These mitigation measures incorporate the original mitigation measures and the applicants response to Items 1 and 2 of the Response to further information. Having regard to the content of the EIS, to the response to the Further Information request as it relates to hydrology and road drainage, I am satisfied that the approach taken by the applicant is comprehensive and would ensure that the potential for contamination of surface waters, ground waters and private water supplies is minimised during both the construction and operational phases of the proposed scheme.

An Bord Pleanala Page 164 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.4 Environmental Impact Assessment

9.4.1 Need for an Environmental Impact Assessment

Section 50 of the Roads Act, 1993 as amended by section Roads Amendment Act 1998 and the Roads Act, 2007 requires that:

‘A Road Authority or the authority shall prepare a statement of the likely effects on the environment (‘environmental impact statement’) of any proposed road development consisting of

1. The construction of a motorway, 2. The construction of a bus way, 3. Any prescribed type of road development consisting of the construction of a proposed public road or the improvement of an existing public road’.

The definition of a prescribed road development is given in SI No. 119 of 1994 and is defined as follows:

‘(a) 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 or realigned road be eight kilometres or more in length in a rural area, or 500 metres or more in length in an urban area. (b) the construction of a new bridge or tunnel which would be 100 metres or more in length’.

In the case of the Killaloe Bypass, Shannon River Crossing and R494 Improvement Scheme, the relevant requirement is the preparation of an EIS in circumstances where the development involves the construction of a new bridge that is longer than 100 metres in length.

9.4.2 Compliance with the Requirements of Sections 50(2) and 50(3) of the Roads Act, 1993 (as amended).

In terms of the compliance of the submitted EIS with the requirements of section 50 , subsections (2) and (3) I would refer the Board to the discussion above at paragraph 9.2.2 of this report relating to the consideration of alternatives, and also to 9.3.1 which related to the overall adequacy of the EIS and the approach to development description, impact identification and mitigation followed. To summarise the conclusions from those sections of the assessment, I do not agree with the contention of the objectors as set out at the hearing that the level of detail with regard to the nature of the proposed development is inadequate and insufficient to enable an assessment of the likely significant effects on the environment arising from the proposed development to be undertaken. Then approach taken by the applicant with regard to the description of the proposed development and the construction method is, in my opinion appropriate for the form of development proposed having regard to the limitations on detail presented by the proposed method of procurement of the scheme and the uncertainties regarding whether the scheme will be developed in a single contract or as part of more than one contract. The approach taken under certain impact headings to include mitigation by compliance with a set standard is

An Bord Pleanala Page 165 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

considered acceptable and appropriate for the form of development proposed and to be consistent with the provisions of the Roads Act, 1993 (as amended) and the consolidated EIA Directive.

With regard to alternatives, the issues raised regarding the possibility of alternative river crossing point that was further from the town and which would not impact on property to such an extent, the possibility of the redevelopment of the existing bridge and / or the provision of pedestrian facilities on this bridge and the rationale for the choice of route 7c for the bridge crossing rather than route 6 were raised by objectors and are noted. It is my opinion that the available route options are set out in the EIS and the route selection reports and background documents submitted by the applicant, including the Punch Report from 1996 relating to the bridge widening option. I would also note the specific requirements of s.50 of the Act which refers to an ‘outline’ of alternatives being given in the EIS and that the applicant set out the ‘main reasons for its choice’ ‘ taking into account the environmental effects .’ It is my opinion that these requirements have been complied with I the submitted documentation.

It is my submission to the Board that the submitted EIS, in overall terms, is in compliance with the requirements of section 50 subsections (2) and (3) of the Roads Act, 1993 as amended. In this regard, I note the fact that the EIS submitted:

• Describes the proposed road development, comprising information about the site, design, size, physical characteristics and land use requirements of the proposed development.

• Provides the data necessary to identify and assess the main effects which the proposed road development is likely to have on the environment,

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

• describes, where significant adverse effects are identified with respect to any of the categories listed above, the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy those effects;

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

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

An Bord Pleanala Page 166 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

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

(a) the estimated type and quantity of expected emissions resulting from the proposed road development when in operation;

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

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

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

9.4.3 Identification of the Likely Significant Direct and Indirect Effects of the Project on the Environment

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

Human Beings • Construction Impacts • Socio-Economic • Severance • Property Take

Agriculture • Land take from farms, • Severance of agricultural holdings,

Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology • Excavation and Construction • Effects on Watercourses • Effects on groundwater • Effects on water supplies / wells • Drainage Impacts

Water Quality / Aquatic Ecology • Interfering with surface hydrology • Undermining water quality and control of runoff • Effecting important habitats including wet woodland habitat along the route.

An Bord Pleanala Page 167 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

• Potential Impact on the Rivers Shannon and Kilmastulla and the Lower River Shannon cSAC.

Terrestrial Ecology • Potential impacts on protected fauna and their habitats

Fisheries • Fishery destruction/displacement • Effect on River Shannon, Kilmastulla and smaller tributaries , streams and drainage channels within the catchment of the proposed scheme.

Air Quality & Climate • Impact on local air quality arising from changes to existing route (R494) and construction of new road alignment. • Dust emissions.

Noise & Vibration • Noise and vibration disturbance at construction phase • Noise impact particularly on properties currently not located close to heavily trafficked roads.

Landscape and Visual Impact • Erosion of landscape character, particularly arising from bridge crossing. • Potential impact on scenic routes • Impact on views from residential properties, • Light impacts on properties. • Impact arising from the removal of trees.

Cultural Heritage • Adversely affecting archaeology • Adversely affecting structures of architectural heritage

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

9.4.4 Description of the Likely Effects Identified

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

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

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

An Bord Pleanala Page 168 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Severance: Loss of direct access to premises.

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

Agriculture Land Take: Potential impact on farm viability and functioning.

Severance: Potential impact on farm viability and functioning.

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

Effects on Watercourses: Bridging/culverting of waterways.

Drainage Impacts: Introduction of road drainage affecting natural drainage.

Effects on groundwater : Localised drawdown and lowering of water table.

Effects on water supplies / wells : Discharges to groundwater of contaminants potential, particularly during construction operations.

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

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

Effecting Important Habitats : Distorting the natural water system and undermining the important habitats for protected species; siltation impact potential on Pollan, Lamprey, and salmon; Alteration/removal/fragmenting of valuable habitats on the site through excavation and earthworks.

Potential Impact on the R. Shannon and Kilmastulla and the Lr R. Shannon cSAC : Changes in surface runoff volumes; impacting on water chemistry and quality for protected and other species.

Terrestrial Ecology Potential impacts on protected fauna and their habitats : Impact on habitat of terrestrial ecology within the Lower River Shannon cSAC, notably Kingfisher and otter. Degrading / fragmenting habitats; reducing diversity of species, including deer, otter, Kingfisher and badger.

An Bord Pleanala Page 169 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

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

Effect on River Shannon and Kilmastulla: Significant in-channel works on the watercourse crossing of the River Shannon. Potential mobilisation of sediment and contaminant discharge during construction.

Air Quality & Climate Effects on Local Air Quality : Potential increased levels of NOx, NO2, PM 2.5 / 10, Benzene and CO from traffic.

Dust Emissions : Dust arising from the construction phase

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

Noise impact particularly on properties currently not located close to heavily trafficked roads : Significant change in noise environment for certain properties that currently have low levels of background / ambient noise.

Landscape & Visual Impact Landscape Character: Disruption of the natural landscape character by routing and works. Significant alteration of landscape character at Shannon River crossing point.

Potential Impact on Scenic Route : No designated scenic routes impacted.

Visual Impact on Residents : Obtrusive impact of scheme from residential properties in terms of view / aspect and lighting impact from the road.

Impact arising from the removal of trees . Loss of local and town level features and impact on individual properties from loss of trees or parts of mature stands of trees / woodlands.

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

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

An Bord Pleanala Page 170 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Interactions

The effects of the interactions between humans and noise, air quality, visual impact, and material assets, between flora and fauna and water quality, noise, hydrology, and soils, and between landscape and the natural environment and cultural heritage are implicit in the above.

9.4.5 Assessment of the Likely Significant Effects Identified, Having Regard to the Mitigation Measures

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

Human Beings

Construction Impact: Controlled and monitored construction management; provision of temporary traffic management and planning of works; noise, air quality and visual impact mitigation measures apply; limiting working hours, keeping residents informed of works, locating main compounds away from sensitive receptors, phasing construction programme to limit disruption to road users.

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

Severance : Provision of alternative access arrangements including underpasses.

Property Take : Minimisation of land take and demolition, balance of land take on both sides of the R494 improvement, proposals for agreements with property owners on new boundary treatment, reinstatement of affected utilities, road design to minimise effects on existing roads.

Agriculture Land Take: Minimisation of land take required. Provision of alternative accesses. Severance: Severance of some agricultural holdings unavoidable. Only one agricultural holding categorised as having a major negative impact on its operations.

An Bord Pleanala Page 171 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology Excavation and Construction : Deep cut at the northern end of the bypass scheme unavoidable due to local topography. Mitigation of impacts in this area by construction management plan regarding dewatering, minimising potential for surface water contamination and mitigation relating to noise, vibration and dust.

Effects on Watercourses : New bridging/culverting of waterways where required and maintenance of existing water crossings. Mitigation regarding surface water collection, settlement and disposal to minimise impact on watercourses.

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

Effects on groundwater : Limited (6 no.) wells within 1.25km and limited impact. Ongoing monitoring of impact. .

Effects on water supplies / wells : Road designed to modern standards with mitigation to prevent and collect discharges to groundwater during construction.

Water Quality / Aquatic Ecology Effect on Habitats : No works in Kilmastulla River. Works on Shannon crossing to include mitigation measures including use of silt curtains, and piling techniques designed to minimise impact on aquatic habitats.

Impact on Surface Hydrology :: Comprehensive suite of mitigation measures for drainage and monitoring during construction and operation.

Undermining water quality and control of runoff: Comprehensive suite of mitigation measures for drainage and monitoring during construction and operation.

Potential Impact on the R. Shannon and Kilmastulla and the Lr R. Shannon cSAC : Changes in surface runoff volumes; impacting on water chemistry and quality for protected and other species.

Terrestrial Ecology Potential impacts on protected fauna and their habitats: Comprehensive suite of mitigation measures for drainage and monitoring during construction and operation. Minimisation of potential for siltation or other pollution. Reinstatement of wet woodland area lost in vicinity of western abutment of river crossing.

An Bord Pleanala Page 172 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Fisheries Fishery Destruction/Displacement: No in-channel works at the Kilmastulla River crossing.

Kilmastulla River and other streams / channels: Comprehensive set of mitigation measures consistent with recommendations of IFI.

Shannon River Crossing: Comprehensive suite of mitigation measures for drainage and monitoring during construction and operation. Minimisation of potential for siltation or other pollution.

Air Quality and Climate Effects on local air quality : No requirement for specific mitigation as predicted levels are significantly below required threshold levels. Dust Emissions : Dust Minimisation Plan.

Noise & Vibration Noise & Vibration Disturbance : Best practice construction methodologies; limited working hours, adherence to set limits relating to noise and vibration.

Noise impact particularly on properties currently not located close to heavily trafficked roads : No requirement for specific mitigation at operational stage as predicted levels are below relevant threshold levels.

Landscape and Visual Impact Landscape Character Change: No specific mitigation as the main impact is from the bridge crossing. Design of bridge developed to reduce the negative impact on landscape character. In other areas, there is a low level of landscape resource change predicted.

Impact on Designated Routes : No requirement for specific mitigation as views from routes not significantly impacted.

Visual Impact on Residents: Application of suitable native planting and detailed set of landscape mitigation measures covering the alignment of all three sections of the scheme.

Impact arising from the removal of trees . Minimisation of loss of mature trees by route design and detailed alignment. Application of suitable native planting and detailed set of landscape mitigation measures covering the alignment of all three sections of the scheme.

An Bord Pleanala Page 173 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Cultural Heritage Archaeology : Programme of pre-construction archaeological testing and subsequent investigation.

Architectural Heritage : Preservation by record of the entrance to Fort Henry and protection of entrance to Gortna House and protection of gate Lodge of Ballyvally House during construction. Photographic and descriptive record of Cool Bridge (to remain) Survey and test trenching of the area of the canal at the bridge alignment, photographic and descriptive recording of other bridges and culverts.

Interactions

There is a distinctive interrelationship between a wide range of mitigation measures applied, notably in the relationship between soils, hydrology, and ecological sensitivity, between residential impacts and noise and air quality control, and between the natural environment and the landscape impacts. Questions were raised by the objectors to the scheme regarding the adequacy of the interactions section of the EIS (Chapter 11). Chapter 11 and the matrix of interactions provided makes clear that the interactions identified are the key interactions / interrelationships and interactions relating to the main impact area headings are addressed in the relevant chapters of the EIS and elaborate on the key interactions contained in Chapter 11 of the EIS.

9.4.6 Conclusions Regarding the Acceptability or Otherwise of the Likely Residual Effects Identified

The conclusions regarding the acceptability of the likely main residual effects of this proposal are clearly addressed under the various headings of my main assessment and I do not propose to repeat them. The principal areas of concern relate to potential impacts on Natura 2000 sites and qualifying priority habitat as per the Habitats Directive, residential amenity in terms of noise, dust, vibration and visual impact, impacts on farming and other business activities and the potential impact on water, soils, and the landscape, including the loss of trees and mature planting along the route.

An Bord Pleanala Page 174 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

9.5 Natura Impact Statement / Natura 2000 Sites

9.5.1 Appropriate Assessment (AA) considers whether the plan or project alone or in combination with other projects or plans will adversely affect the integrity of a European site in view of the sites conservation objectives and includes consideration of any mitigation measures necessary to avoid, reduce or offset negative effects. This determination must be made before a decision is made or any consent given for the proposed development. Consent for the project can only be given after a determination is made that the proposed development would not adversely affect the integrity of a European site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. (The following sections should be read in conjunction with the assessment of environmental impacts at 9.3 above and in particular, 9.3.8.13 – 9.3.8.17 above relating to water and hydrology and 9.3.2.2 -9.3.2.4 relating to ecology.).

9.5.2 As part of the application documentation, the applicant submitted a Natura Impact Statement Report. This report has four main stages comprising a review of the Natura 2000 sites in the area of the project, a Stage 1 screening assessment relating to the three Natura 2000 sites identified, an ecological assessment of the Lower River Shannon SAC and an assessment of potential impacts. The Natura 2000 sites identified within 1 km of the route and 10 km downstream of the route were the Lower River Shannon SAC (Ref. 002165), the Lough Derg Special Protection Area (4058) and the Slieve Bernagh Bog SAC (Ref. 002312).

9.5.3 The conclusion of the screening process is that in the absence of mitigation the proposed scheme has a potential significant negative impact on the conservation objectives of the Lower River Shannon SAC arising from pollution and runoff from the bridge crossing. In the case of the Lough Derg SPA, the design of the bridge and the location of the bridge downstream of the SPA are such that there would not be a significant risk of bird strike or other impact. I would agree with this assessment. The Slieve Bernagh Bog SAC is located to the west of Lough Derg and the north west of the proposed scheme. The closest point of the proposed scheme would be located more than 3km from the SAC and there is no direct pathway of potential impact between the SAC and the catchment of the proposed scheme. On this basis, it was screened out of the assessment and I would agree with this conclusion. The conclusion of the screening assessment was to proceed to a Stage 2 assessment of the potential impact of the proposed scheme on the Lower River Shannon SAC (site code 002165).

9.5.4 In complying with the requirement to provide adequate information in the report to the competent authority, I note that the applicant has submitted the following details:

Screening Stage • A description of the proposed development, • Descriptions of the Natura 2000 site that are potentially impacted by the scheme, • Identification of the likely individual and cumulative impacts that will arise as a result of the scheme and the potential significance of these impacts. • Screening conclusions.

An Bord Pleanala Page 175 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Appropriate Assessment Stage (Stage 2) • A description of the Natura 2000 sites that require further consideration (Stage 2 AA), • Description of the significant impacts arising on the conservation objectives of these sites, • Mitigation measures.

It is also noted that in response to the Request for Further Information issued by the Board, the applicant submitted further information relating to a number of issues that relate to the impact of the development on the Lower River Shannon cSAC. Specifically, the further information submitted included details relating to road drainage, salmon and lamprey habitat and potential vibration impacts.

9.5.5 The NIS submitted identifies the main potential impact on the Natura 2000 site of the Lower River Shannon SAC as including the following:

• The potential mortality of salmon or lamprey from the construction activities, • Mortality arising from noise and vibration impacts, • The loss of river and stream habitat from the constructions. • The fragmentation of habitat within streams and rivers, • Potential disturbance due to noise, vibration and lighting. • Deterioration in water quality and increased sedimentation, • Loss of riparian habitat and habitat fragmentation arising from the road itself (bypass route).

9.5.6 Mitigation measures have been identified to address runoff from the road and control and treatment of runoff prior to discharge. Detailed construction mitigation measures have been developed to address issues of potential pollution of watercourses during construction including restrictions on methods and times of construction. Design measures have also been done so as to minimise the disturbance and fragmentation of habitat and mitigation measures regarding specific species, e.g. otter proposed. Pre construction surveys are proposed and limits regarding noise set down and lighting controlled. Detailed landscaping mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate for the loss and fragmentation of habitat.

9.5.7 Having regard to the above, I am satisfied that the methodology used in the report is adequately explained and that the sources of information are clear. I consider that the level of information provided allows the Board as the competent authority to assess the impact of the proposed project on the conservation objectives and integrity of the adjoining Natura 2000 sites.

9.5.8 The report concludes that the residual impacts of the proposed scheme are such that the proposed development will have no adverse impacts on the integrity of any of the Natura 2000 sites listed and that there is no potential for significant residual effects on the Natura 2000 sites. On the basis of the assessment provided and the information available relating to the receiving environment, the nature of the proposed scheme and the mitigation measures proposed, I consider that it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed development, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects would not adversely affect the integrity of a European site having regard to the stated conservation objectives of the sites.

An Bord Pleanala Page 176 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

10 Conclusions

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

• With regard to the objections to the proposed scheme, it is concluded that the land take is necessary for the development as designed and is suitable to meet the needs of the proposed scheme. • That the EIS submitted meets the requirements as set out in s.50(2) of the Roads Act, 1993 (as amended) and the consolidated EIA Directive. The principle followed in the EIS of mitigation by the prescription of a performance standard is noted and considered to be an acceptable approach for the form of development proposed. • The proposed scheme is compatible with regional and local transportation policies and objectives. • The existing R494 road is substandard and the principle of the proposed improvements on this section of the proposed scheme is accepted. • That the need for a new river crossing and bypass of Killaloe is accepted having regard to the traffic survey data presented, observations of conditions in the area and the nature and character of the road network and built environment in the area. • The applicant’s approach to the development of a cycleway along the route of the proposed scheme is considered to be a practical approach that would result in the connection of the cycle facilities on the R445 (old N7) with Ballina / Killaloe and onward to the Lough Derg area, is versatile, is likely to encourage greatest use of the route, and is sensitive in environmental terms. • The applicant’s approach to considering alternatives is satisfactory and adequate information has been submitted to give an outline of the main alternatives considered and the reason for the choice of the route proposed. The route option ultimately chosen and derived from the assessment of alternatives can be seen to take into account the potential environmental effects of the choice within the constraints imposed by the scheme objectives. • Due to the scale and design of the works, the avoidance measures to be employed and the significant range of mitigation measures proposed, notably with regard to road drainage and mitigation at construction stage, the scheme can be developed such that there will be no significant impacts affecting the conservation objectives of the cSAC (Lower River Shannon cSAC) in the vicinity of the scheme. The integrity of this and other Natura 2000 sites will not be adversely affected and the proposed development, in itself or in combination with other plans or projects, will not be likely to have a significant effect on a European site, having regard to the conservation objectives of these sites. The conservation status of the river and brook lamprey, freshwater pearl mussel, otter, Kingfisher, salmon, and other protected species will not be significantly adversely affected by the proposed scheme, having regard to the application of the proposed mitigation measures. • Those areas of sensitive ecological value beyond the designated cSACs and along the route corridor will not be significantly adversely affected by way of long term substantial loss, fragmentation of, or disturbance to habitats or protected species. This includes the area of wet alluvial woodland located on the western banks of the Shannon in the vicinity of the proposed river crossing and it is not considered that the works proposed will result in the long term long term substantial loss, fragmentation of, or disturbance to this habitat which is located

An Bord Pleanala Page 177 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

outside of any designated SAC or cSAC. For these reasons, the arguments made by objectors regarding works in this area being contrary to the Habitats Directive are noted but not agreed with. • There will not be substantial landscape character change resulting from the proposed development. The visual impact of the scheme will generally be localised as a result of the low lying nature of the terrain and, with the exception of the proposed new bridge over the River Shannon, generally, panoramic views of the route are not discernible throughout the wider landscape. Overall, the route character is protected by the development options being pursued. • The scheme will result in the loss / permanent acquisition of two residential properties and a major negative impact on one agricultural holding located along the bypass section of the route. At the level of the overall scheme, however the impact on residents, businesses, farm enterprises, and community interests is not predicted to be significant. • The scheme will not result in significant negative impacts on cultural heritage, archaeology or architectural heritage. It is not considered that the potential negative impacts on the setting or other interests of protected structures along the route will be impacted negatively to the extent that the proposed scheme should not be permitted. • If the road improvement scheme is to proceed to the design standard proposed, the lands to be acquired are necessary to facilitate the provision of the development.

An Bord Pleanala Page 178 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

11.0 Recommendation

11.1 Compulsory Purchase Order

I recommend as follows:

DECISION

Confirm the compulsory purchase order, subject to the errata and proposed changes to the schedule and deposit maps submitted to the Board at the oral hearing on 18 th October, 2012, and subsequently by e mail on 19 th December, 2012 and 8 th January, 2013 and the changes set out in the attached schedule based on the reasons and considerations set out below.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Having considered the purpose of the compulsory acquisition as set out in the form of the compulsory purchase order, the provisions of the Clare County Development Plan 2011-2017, the East Clare Local Area Plan, 2011-2017 and the North Tipperary County Development Plan, 2010 – 2016, the objections made to the compulsory purchase order and the report and recommendation of the person appointed by the Board to report on the case, it is considered that the acquisition by the local authority of the lands in question is necessary for the purpose stated and that the objections cannot be sustained having regard to the said necessity.

SCHEDULE

The extent of the CPO shall be amended as follows:

• The area covered by Plot Ref. 136a.103 and 135a. 102 shall be omitted from the CPO and these omissions shall be facilitated by the omission of the cycleway extending north from the R494, R463 and Shannon River Crossing junction from the approved scheme. • Plot Ref. 101a.102 (an open section of a culvert within the curtilage of the Ballyvally gate house shall be acquired on a temporary rather than the proposed permanent basis and shall handed back to the landowner when the works are completed. This plot shall be transferred from Part 1 to Part III of the schedule attaching to the CPO. • Plots Refs. 189a. 102, 104 and 105 and 190a.103 and 104 (located within the site known as Shannonside Business Park) shall be acquired on a temporary rather than the proposed permanent basis and shall be handed back to the landowner on completion of the proposed works. These plots shall be transferred from Part 1 to Part III of the schedule attaching to the CPO.

An Bord Pleanala Page 179 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

11.2 Application For Approval of the Proposed Road Development

I recommend that approval be granted under section 51 of the Roads Act, 1993, as amended, in accordance with the documentation submitted, including the environmental impact statement and Natura Impact Statement submitted on 7 th February, 2012 and the Response to Further Information submitted to the Board on 25 th May, 2012, as follows:

Having regard to:

(a) The regional and local strategic road policies and objectives, inclusive of those set out in the Mid West regional Planning Guidelines, the Clare County Development Plan 2011-2017, the East Clare Local Area Plan, 2011-2017 and the North Tipperary County Development Plan, 2010 – 2016 , (b) The sub standard nature of the existing R494 regional route between Ballina and the junction with the R445 (old N7), (c) The significant traffic delays and congestion that are exist at peak times at the existing Killaloe Bridge Shannon River Crossing and the traffic congestion and environmental impacts that result for the town centres of Killaloe and Ballina, (d) The design, layout and alignment of the proposed development minimising the impact of the proposed development on the Lower River Shannon candidate special area of conservation and, (e) The range of mitigation measures set out in the submitted Environmental Impact Statement and in the response to Further Information submitted

It is considered that the proposed scheme would not have significant negative environmental effects on the residential, farming and business community in the vicinity of the scheme, would not adversely affect the integrity of the Lower River Shannon cSAC through which the scheme partially crosses, or other Natura 2000 sites in the vicinity, would not have a significant negative long term impact on other ecologically important sites along the route or on flora and fauna which are identified for protection, would be acceptable in terms of the resulting visual and landscape impacts and would otherwise be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

CONDITIONS

1. The proposals, mitigation measures and commitments set out in the Environmental Impact Statement and as further stated and clarified in the Schedule of Environmental Commitments submitted by the local authority to the oral hearing on 18 th October, 2012, shall be implemented as part of the proposed development.

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

An Bord Pleanala Page 180 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

2. The design and layout of the proposed scheme shall be amended as follows:

(a) The proposed set down area to the rear (south) of St. Anne’s Community College shall be omitted from the scheme. The area shall be landscaped and provision shall be made for a connection between the cycleway along the northern side of the bypass in this location and the local access road to the north at c. chainage 0+430 S. (b) The design of the junction at the intersection of the bypass and Clarisford Palace / Clarisford Park shall be revised so as to provide for a ghost island junction at this location (chainage 0+340 S). Any additional lands required for the provision of a ghost island junction in this location shall be taken from the northern side of the alignment as indicated on the submitted plans. (c) The cycle track located to the north of the roundabout at the junction of the R494, R496 and Shannon River Crossing shall be omitted from the scheme. A pedestrian footpath shall continue along the full distance north of this junction as indicated on the submitted drawings.

Reason : In the interests of residential amenity, and traffic safety.

3. The works proposed in the wet woodland area on the western side of the Shannon shall be overseen by a qualified ecologist and this shall be additional to the mitigation measures set out at 4.1 of the Schedule of Mitigation Measures submitted by the applicant at the oral hearing.

Reason : In the interests of clarity and to mitigate the environmental effects of the development.

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

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

5. In addition to the mitigation measures relating to otter as set out at section 1.3.4 of the Schedule of Mitigation Measures submitted by the applicant at the oral hearing, the following shall be complied with in the development:

(a) The design of mammal fencing shall be in accordance with the CIRIA Wildlife Fencing Design Guide (2006) and the area within and adjacent to the cSAC will be thoroughly fenced. (b) Otter fencing and under road passes shall be inspected within the first six months of operation of the road and results of the inspection reported to the national parks and Wildlife Service. Fencing and road passes shall be inspected every six months thereafter and in the event of any blockage or damage shall be repaired within a maximum of two months from identification of any issues identified.

An Bord Pleanala Page 181 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Reason : To reduce the mortality of otter, a species included as a protected species in the Habitats Directive and a qualifying interest of the Lower River Shannon cSAC.

______

Stephen Kay

Inspectorate,

8th January, 2013.

An Bord Pleanala Page 182 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

Appendix A

Summary of Status of the CPO Objections Received

An Bord Pleanala Page 183 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025

KA0025 - Clare County Council (Killaloe Bypass, Shannon Bridge Crossing and R494 Improvement Scheme) Compulsory Purchase (Roads No. 1) Order 2012. Objection Status No: Name CPO Agent Status Date Withdrawn 1 Frank Conlan 104 Objector 29/03/2012 2 Jim Benson 105 Sweeny McGann Solicitors Objector 22/02/2012 Withdrawn 3 Heidrun Poppe and Klaus Sinnhoffer 106 Ivor Fitzpatrick Solicitors Objector 09/03/2012 John Crowley Consulting & representing 4 Kathleen Hawes 111 herself Objector 30/03/2012 5 HSE West 115 DTZ Sherry Fitzgerald Ltd. Objector 30/03/2012 6 Tom Hayes Limited 123 Holmes O'Malley Sexton Solicitors Objector 30/03/2012 John Crowley Consulting & Cunnane Stratton 7 AGT Services 127 Reynolds Objector 30/03/2012 Withdrawn 8 Electricity Supply Board 130 Gerard Crowley Objector 30/03/2012

9 Richard and Marella O'Toole 133 Martin & Rea & representing themselves Objector 08/03/2012 No 10 Herman and Caroline Kikkers 134 Martin & Rea & representing themselves Objector 29/03/2012 Withdrawn

11 Roy Benson 136 Martin & Rea & representing themselves Objector 29/03/2012 No 12 Vivian Cahalane (and Carol Ann Cahalane) 142 Martin & Rea & representing themselves Objector 12/03/2012 Withdrawn 13 Richard O'Donnell 151 Objector 22/02/2012

14 Mark D. Pollard (and Kathy Pollard) 155 Martin & Rea & representing themselves Objector 29/03/2012 No

15 Timothy and Elizabeth Shanahan 186 Martin and Rea & Martin J. O'Brien Solicitors Objector 28/02/2012 Withdrawn 16 K. Noel Broderick 189 Objector 29/03/2012 17 Sylvester Addley 190 PJ Brett and Associates Objector 28/03/2012 18 William Bird and Sons 192 Ger O'Keeffe Consulting Engineers Objector 28/02/2012 19 Córas Iompar Éireann 198 Niall Grogan (Group Property Manager) Objector 29/03/2012 Withdrawn 20 Clare VEC and St. Anne's Community College 129, 200 Objector 29/03/2012 Nagle Agricultural Consultants (x 4) 21 James and Miriam Ward 177 Nagle Agricultural Consultants Objector 26/03/2012 22 John and Johanna Ward (Donal Ward) 178 Nagle Agricultural Consultants Objector 26/03/2012 Withdrawn 23 James P. Hayes 182 Nagle Agricultural Consultants Objector 28/03/2012 Withdrawn 24 James and Bernadette Hates 184 Nagle Agricultural Consultants Objector 28/03/2012 Withdrawn John Crowley Consulting (x 25 & 2) 25 Peter Egan 107, 109, 115 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 26 Nora Smith (Tony Burns) 110 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 27 Patrick Malone 112 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 28 Anthony Foley 113 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 29 Timothy and Noreen Sullivan 114 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 30 Anthony Quigley 114 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 31 Patrick and Cindy Reddan 117 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 32 Norman and Marie Molloy 118 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 33 Gerard and Antoinette Ryan 121 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 34 Christopher and Susan Moroney 124 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 Withdrawn 35 Orla Kelly and Vincent Barrett 125 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 36 George and Raphaelia Hickey 138 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 37 Peter and Louise Delaney 150, 152 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 38 Niall Hogan 154 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 39 Michael and Breda Hurley 156 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 40 John and Kathleen Sheehy 156 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 41 Gordon Atkinson 159 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 42 Yvonne and Barry Bullman 183 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 43 Michael and Una McHale 185 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 Withdrawn 44 Richard Lewis 188 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 45 Martin and Bridget O'Brien 191 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 46 Bridie McKeogh (LPR John J McKeogh) 193 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 Withdrawn 47 Gerard Floyd and Breeda C. Darcy 194 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 48 Timothy Floyd and Cora Coffey 195 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 49 Carmel McKeogh 196 John Crowley Consulting Objector 30/03/2012 Withdrawn Martin & Rea (x 29 & 6) 50 Ungrund GmbH 101 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 No 51 Derg Line Limited 102 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 Withdrawn 52 William Daly 122 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 53 Domus Liegenschaftsverwaltung Geselschaft GmbH 131 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 No 54 Tyrone and Marie Elliott 132 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 Withdrawn 55 Dorothy Benson 135 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 No 56 Barry Ryan 137 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 No 57 Con and Ann Donovan 141 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 Withdrawn 58 William and Maura Nolan 143 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 Withdrawn 59 Jimmy and Ann Kelly 144 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 Withdrawn 60 James and Nora Carroll 145 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 Withdrawn 61 John and Elizabeth Young 146 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 Withdrawn 62 Róisin Healy 147 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 63 Patrick O'Dowd 149 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 No 64 Eve Moloney 158 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 65 Brian and Patricia Byrne 161 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 No 66 Joseph and Suzanne Doolan 162 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 67 Eamon and Maura Gilmore 163 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 68 Michael Larkin 165, 166 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 Withdrawn 69 Michael and Siobhán Larkin 166 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 70 AMR Limited 169 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 No 71 Henry and Noreen Mooney 170 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 Withdrawn 72 JJ and Mary Larkin 171, 180 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 Withdrawn 73 Joan Bissette 172 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 Withdrawn 74 Cornelius and Pauline Barry 173 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 Withdrawn 75 Declan and Joanne McNamara 174 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 Withdrawn 76 Joseph Shanahan Jnr. (Brian Shanahan) 175, 176 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 Withdrawn 77 Brian Shanahan 176 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 Withdrawn 78 Joseph Shanahan Snr. 176 Martin & Rea Objector 29/03/2012 Withdrawn

An Bord Pleanala Page 184 of 184 03.HA0038 / 03.KA0025