An Bord Pleanála
Inspector’s Report
Applications : 09.HA0046 M7 Osberstown Interchange and R407 Sallins Bypass Scheme
: 09.MA0013 Kildare County Council M7 Osberstown Interchange Upgrade Motorway Scheme Order 2013
: 09.KA0031 Kildare County Council M7 Osberstown Interchange and Sallins Bypass Scheme, Compulsory Purchase Order 2013
Applicant : Kildare County Council
Site Inspections : 13 th and 19 th March, 6 th , 15 th and 17 th May 2014
Oral Hearing : 3 rd , 4 th and 6 th June 2014
Inspectors : Mairead Kenny and John Desmond
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 75
INTRODUCTION The report concerns the proposed M7 Osberstown Interchange and R407 Sallins Bypass Scheme and considers three concurrent applications KA0031, MA0013 and HA0046.
The report should be read in conjunction with the accompanying report of Mr John Desmond, Planning Inspector which addresses the traffic and transport impacts of the scheme, the modelling undertaken, the need for the scheme, alternatives investigated and related matters.
A related scheme is before the Board at present, namely the M7 Naas to Newbridge Bypass Upgrade Scheme. The two schemes have a physical interface at the proposed Osberstown Interchange. The applicant states that the operation of this scheme prior to the Naas to Newbridge Bypass Upgrade would not be feasible for reasons of traffic capacity. Cumulative impacts arising are considered in the EIS.
The current scheme may be constructed in two phases, the Osberstown Interchange and the Sallins Bypass. The prior construction and operation of Osberstown Interchange is assessed as an ‘interim scenario’.
The Board has previously considered an application for an interchange at this, albeit one of lesser capacity. The application was refused for reason of lack of definition of the route of the Sallins Bypass. The Board’s view was that the interchange and bypass should be considered together, even if they are separately constructed.
Naas Town Council in its decision of February 2000 to grant permission for a development of 110 hectares of business park now known as Millennium Park. By condition it was required that the applicant design and construct an interchange at Osberstown.
OVERVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT AND SITE CONTEXT The proposed road scheme runs generally from south to north between the Western Distributor Road in Naas and the R407 Clane Road to the north of Sallins. The scheme includes a new motorway interchange (Osberstown Interchange) at its southern extent and a Bypass of 3.65 kilometer length. The Bypass crosses through the original demesne lands of a protected structure, Osberstown House, passes under Osberstown Road and under the mainline railway prior to crossing the Grand Canal and, at two locations, the Liffey. The scheme for much of its length traverses a fine rural landscape and good agricultural land. It provides for a connection between the proposed Bypass and the main street in Sallins in the form of a ‘link road’. I describe the site and development in more detail below. The new interchange is to be located at an existing agricultural bridge which connects the former demesne lands of Osberstown House with lands to the south of the M7. The south of the M7 at this location is particularly defined by the emerging
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 75 industrial zone of Millennium Park. In the immediate vicinity of the proposed interchange is the major Kerry Group Global Technology and Innovation Centre which is under construction and a large attenuation pond, which is intended also to act as an amenity zone within the business district. To the north of the proposed interchange are farm buildings which appear to be part of the Osberstown House demesne. North of the interchange the Bypass commences, traversing a sharp north-westerly direction through lands to the front of Osberstown House, which are now in separate ownership under the same ownership as Millennium Park. This stretch of the Bypass is in cut or at grade from Ch0+300 and a landscaping scheme has been prepared. In this general location also the Bypass would cross some small streams and under a 10kV power line. The Bypass continues to traverse in a north-south direction towards Osberstown Road, a minor road which would be re-aligned to cross over the Bypass and in relation to which specific landscaping measures are also proposed. There is a modern dwellinghouse at this location and further west is Hill House, a two-storey period building. Access to the modern dwellinghouse would be re-located. The Bypass then crosses under the mainline railway and after about 100m at the location of a proposed attenuation pond, it rises and passes over the canal. There are a few houses at this location also. Between the canal and the first Liffey crossing is proposed roundabout which provides the connection for the Sallins Link Road. The link road would mainly pass through zoned lands. At its eastern end it would connect with Millbank housing estate and emerge at Main Street. A realigned access to this estate is proposed. In this general location the scheme also would impact on access to playing fields and would encroach marginally on the edge of an open space at Castlesize housing estate and pass to the north of a foul sewage pumping station, which is unaffected. The elevated Bypass is proposed to next traverse isolated agricultural lands to pass over the Liffey at the second crossing point a few hundred metres from the Clane Road. Further attenuation ponds are proposed along this section. A ruined watchtower is positioned close to the line of the road. The Bypass would connect with the Clane Road at a roundabout, close to a dwellinghouse, the access to which would be relocated.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
Scheme objectives The objectives of the scheme are identified by the applicant below.
- The interchange will provide for better balance between regional and national roads thereby reducing congestion on the local and regional road network and
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 75
reducing traffic flows at motorway junctions and alleviating congestion in the towns.
- Reduce journey times for long distance and local traffic and improve safety along existing roads and junctions.
- Public transport services including local bus trips and train station access will be improved and greater use of existing ‘park and ride’ will be encouraged.
- The Bypass will eliminate congestion in Sallins through removal of strategic traffic with benefits for cyclist, pedestrians and safety and amenity.
- Facilitate the development of the North West Quadrant and provide connectivity to the regional road network north of the M7.
- In the longer term assist in the achievement of a Public Transport Interchange should such development proceed.
The combined EIS for the Osberstown Interchange and the Sallins Bypass are stated to comprehensively consider the relationship between the two infrastructure projects and the assessment is based on concurrent construction for the purposes of a worst case assessment.
The scheme may be constructed in two phases comprising the interchange and, secondly, the Sallins Bypass and the associated link road. In terms of timing of construction, the scheme will not be constructed prior to the Naas to Newbridge Bypass Upgrade Scheme.
Scheme elements The main elements of the Scheme are described below.
Osberstown Interchange will be a standard dumbbell interchange located between Newhall (J10) and Maudlins (J9) and positioned between the proposed Sallins Bypass and the local and regional road network to the south. The interchange will be fully connected in terms of provision of on and off slip roads. The interchange design has capacity to cater for future traffic needs to 2030 design year.
Segregated slip lanes are proposed to the four proposed slip lanes to the interchange to facilitate free-flow movements and increased capacity at the interchange and are designed with auxiliary lanes to the motorway.
The southern section of the Bypass is dual carriageway in design up to the junction with the proposed link road. The northern section is a single carriageway up to the Clane Road junction.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 75
In all seven structures are proposed including the interchange, the Osberstown Road overbridge, the Sallins Bypass Railway Bridge, the Grand Canal Underbridge, the two Liffey Underbridges and a Sallins Link Road Culvert.
Link roads are proposed and are stated to have been designed in accordance with DMURS. These are the Sallins link road between the Bypass to the town centre and the Distributor Link Road between the interchange and Western Distributor Road.
Figures 4.2a and 4.2b show all proposed cyclist and pedestrian facilities which include dedicated paths along the Sallins Bypass between the railway crossing and the Clane road, use of local roads between the railway line and Naas and a dedicated pedestrian and cyclist connection between the Canal Road and Western Distributor road. There are also cyclists and pedestrians along the Sallins Link Road.
The development includes a new drainage system and improvements to the existing drainage where necessary. Measures to contain spillages and attenuation flows and contain normal road-related pollutants are proposed and are described under the EIA section of this report.
The demolition of six structures is proposed. These are one shed on the proposed R407 at Ch 1+610, three sheds on the Osberstown Road at Ch. 0+370, one dwellinghouse on the Canal Road (plot 120) and an accommodation overbridge. No permitted developments are impacted.
OISB may be progressed in two contracts depending on finances. An interim scenario is thus presented in the EIS which considers the consequences of constructing the interchange separate to the bypass.
In order to minimise disruption to road users two lanes of traffic flow will be maintained on the M7 in both directions between 6am and 10pm. Construction of the merge and diverge auxiliary lanes and ramps adjacent the M7 mainline is likely to result in traffic management and erection of barriers and may require night-time working.
Construction phase disruption for a 4 month period at Osberstown Road is likely. Constraints in terms of timing of working will be set in contract documents. The installation of pre-cast or fabricated bridge components over the M7 and installation of the railway structure will require some limited night-time working. Otherwise night time working will generally be prohibited.
Construction traffic and access is described in section 4.4.11. Construction compounds are described in section 4.4.7 and on Figure 4.13 Volume 3.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 75
The bulk of the 76,000 m3 of material excavated will be re-used on site. Material requirements are set out in section 4.4.9. Materials will be used immediately when brought to the site or stored within the site.
The two M7 schemes before the Board have an interface based on location of the interchange and on traffic as construction of the Osberstown scheme affects traffic patterns on the M7. In summary the OISB benefits the junctions but increases the mainline flow.
PLANNING HISTORY
PL09.HA0018 The Board on 26 th February 2010 refused to approve an application for consent for the M7 Osberstown Interchange Motorway Scheme. The Board noted that the proposed interchange was stated by the applicant to be interconnected with the proposed Sallins Bypass and decided that the planning of the proposed interchange should be undertaken in a comprehensive manner with the planning for the Sallins Bypass, even if both projects are to be separately implemented.
The detailed decision referenced sections from the EIS including:
- The transport objectives of the proposed interchange include providing relief to the existing congested M7 interchanges at Newhall and Maudlins
- Provision of a public transport link between Naas and Sallins
- Connection of the M7 and the railway
- The proposed Sallins Bypass currently going through a planning process
- The design and location of the interchange is influenced by the Bypass.
The decision also referenced sections of the Sallins Local Area Plan including the proposed Bypass and the plan to develop a Public Transport Interchange including the expansion of bus and train station facilities on lands adjacent to the Sallins Bypass.
The decision also referenced policies in the Naas Town Development Plan including objectives for the possible provision of a link road from the Sallins Bypass to connect with the road network in Naas and the development of a strategic transport corridor linking the railway station to the Millennium Park and Naas town centre.
PL09.HD0012 In response to an application for a direction as to whether an EIS would be required for the Sallins Bypass the Board decided that an EIS would be required. The reasons and considerations may be summarised as follows:
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 75
- The Board noted relevant law and guidance and the report of the Inspector and had regard in particular to the fact that the proposed road would involve the construction of two bridges over the Liffey and one bridge over the Grand Canal a proposed NHA and considered that the development would be likely to have significant effects on the environment.
North-West Quadrant Within the north-west quadrant of Naas a number of significant permissions have been granted including those noted below.
Under planning reg. ref. 99/500154 permission was granted by Naas Town Council on 25th February 2000 for development of 110 hectares of industrial and warehouse uses. This included a new interchange at Osberstown. A new roundabout at the junction of Sallins Road and Monread Road and a new road network including a bridge over the Grand Canal was also proposed and these have been completed.
A condition of the permission required that the applicant prepare all necessary documents for the interchange and construct and maintain the interchange until taken in charge. The reason for the condition identified a need to provide the interchange due to serious traffic hazard as the road system is seriously deficient and would be unable to accommodate the additional traffic generated.
Under planning reg. ref. 13/500018 permission was granted by Kildare County Council to Kerry Group for a Global Technology and innovation Centre which is a major facility and is now under construction. This is located close to the site of the proposed Osberstown Interchange and in fact the sites slightly overlap. The submission of the NRA dated 12 th April 2013 noted that in time the development will benefit from access to the M7 at the proposed Osberstown Junction. However, it was considered that the TTA submitted should assess the impact on the existing interchanges at Maudlins and Newhall both with and without Osberstown Interchange being operational. The Transportation Section of the Council in response noted that the increased flows are under the relevant threshold and that the national road network will not be significantly impacted. Conditions attached referred to minor improvements in roads in the vicinity of the site and to a minimum of 784 car parking spaces and provision for monitoring and providing additional spaces.
Under planning reg. ref. 06/500189 permission was granted for a private day hospital close to the proposed Osberstown Interchange. The permission was extended and will now expire in 2017.
PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT A brief outline of significant policy documents is provided below. Where relevant I elaborate on policy provisions under the assessment section of this report. In this case I consider that the most important policies relating to this scheme are national
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 75 and regional level plans, specifically Smarter Travel and the Guidelines for National Roads. I refer the Board also to European policy, which is elabourated under HA0045.
European and related provisions White Paper Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system 2011 This paper considers how best to address European Transport needs for the future in the context of economic growth, climate change, existing bottlenecks and other issues. This is a wide ranging paper addressing funding, technology and all modes of transport. It notes that curbing mobility is not an option and the challenge is to break the transport system’s dependence on oil.
The Core Network Corridors – Trans European Transport Network 2013 The route between Belfast, Dublin and Cork is part of the TEN-T Network and lies within the set of core network corridors which are to be completed by 2030. The core network comprises the strategically most important parts of the network. The multimodal core network will provide for transnational traffic and long-distance flows for freight and people and due to their integration will provide for a highly resource efficient infrastructure use.
Other Policy The Board will be familiar with the range of policy provisions and agreements made at international level which require to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. These include the Kyoto Protocol under which Ireland has agreed to limit net growth of greenhouse gases and the Gothenburg Protocol which sets targets for national emissions limits including for emissions associated with road traffic.
National Plans and Policies Smarter Travel – A New Transport Policy for Ireland 2009-2020 This policy document sets out 5 high level objectives, a range of specific targets to be achieved and 49 specific actions to be undertaken.
Smarter Travel recognises the economic importance of efficient movement of goods and people. It identifies a need to improve the efficiency of motorised transport with a view limiting the development of traffic jams and to reducing emissions. It sets a target of no increase in vehicle kilometers over 2009 levels and a reduction in selection of private car for commuting trips from 65% to 45%.
The fast tracking of establishment of park and ride facilities along major public transport nodes and at the periphery of major urban areas is a specific action.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 75
Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities New or enhanced junctions may be necessary to service development needs of national and strategic importance and the NRA may support such proposals where there is a demonstrated need, consistency with plans and strategies and early examination of options including the use of public transport and other criteria.
National Spatial Strategy The NSS has been confirmed under Circular 2/2013 as the framework for spatial planning at a national level, pending its replacement at a future unspecified date. The NSS designates Naas , along with Kilcullen and Newbridge, as a Primary Development Centre within the Greater Dublin Area. Such areas need to develop self-sustaining growth, particularly in terms of employment, while not undermining the achievement of critical mass in other regions. Towns such as Naas are identified as having a relationship with Dublin and with their environs. Implementation of the road investment programme under the NDP is a key element in enhancing the regional accessibility and underpinning better regional development.
Infrastructure and Capital Investment 2012-2016 – Medium Term Exchequer Framework In relation the national road network the focus will be on maintenance and on the improvement of specific road segments for which there is a clear economic justification.
National Cycle Policy This outlines a vision to create a strong cycling culture in Ireland and sets a target that by 2020 10% of all journeys will be by bike. A number of national cycle routes are identified.
DMURS The Design Manual for Roads and Streets aims to re-examine the role and function of streets in urban areas. The objective through improved design places to develop places which are safer and more attractive and which encourage use of more sustainable modes of public transport and other benefits.
NTA Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy 2011-2030 (Draft) The document confirms the importance of roads. Section 11.1.2 refers to development of the road network. In general unless required to address issues such as safety concerns, provision of space for public transport priority or local servicing of development lands there will be a clear presumption against development of new road proposals. Alternative solutions such as demand management measures should always be examined to identify if they could effectively address the particular issue.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 75
Any major new national road scheme should consider and incorporate where appropriate demand management proposals as an integral part of their delivery. Management of strategic roads for the GDA will be in accordance with ROAD 5.
Regional and local plans Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2010-2022 Located within the Hinterland of the GDA Naas is identified as a Large Growth Town I and Newbridge as a Large Growth Town II. Such towns are noted to be self sustaining regional economic drivers for the GDA.
Chapter 6 deals with physical infrastructure and notes that the message from national policy documents is that within the GDA there is a need to implement land use policies that support and protect the investments being made in public transport and to ensure that regional transport policy dove-tails readily with other policy objectives.
In relation to road transport it is recognised that the road network will continue to be critical to transport management and efficient movement of buses, people and goods in the GDA and beyond. National policy is to safeguard the carrying capacity and efficient operation of the strategic road network. Where there are competing modes on a route corridor greater weighting should be given to the more sustainable mode of travel.
Kildare County Development Plan The plan aims to promote an integrated approach to land use and transport planning and to support improvements to all aspects of the transport network. Naas is targeted for significant growth.
Objective RP2 refers to facilitating the provision of an additional interchange to access Millennium Park.
Other objectives refer implicitly to the Sallins Bypass (Table 6.1) and improving connectivity between the national, regional and local road network.
Objective LT3 refers to the long-term objective of developing a new public transport interchange.
Naas Town Development Plan 2011-2017 This has the high level aim of promoting ease of movement within and access to Naas. The plan aims to promote an integrated approach to land use and transport planning and to support improvements to all aspects of the transport network.
The objective is to seek to development of Naas as a model town for sustainable transport. It is also policy to ensure that the national road system is planned for and
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 75 managed in an integrated manner enabling economic development of Naas and the wider area while encouraging sustainable forms of transport.
RP06 refers to the additional interchange.
RP05 seeks to assess the provision of a link road from the Sallins Bypass identified in the Sallins Local Area Plan.
Sallins Local Area Plan 2009 PT3 refers to encouraging greater use of the rail line. PT5 refers to development of Public Transport Interchange including the expansion of bus and train facilities on lands adjacent the Sallins Bypass route. Maps do not indicate where this would be located. PT7 refers to working with CIE to identify lands adjacent the proposed Public Transport Interchange for parking of trains. PT8 refers to working with Bus Eireann to investigate the feasibility of identifying lands adjacent the proposed Public Transport Interchange for development of a terminus for regional bus services. Other specific objectives refer to cycling.
The LAP notes the designation of the Grand Canal as a proposed Natural Heritage Area and in addition to the provisions of Chapter 17 of the CDP, objectives NH 1 – NH10 of the LAP refer to protection of pNHAs, protection of trees as specified on Map 1, preservation of views and prospects along the river and canal and to ensure that development does not affect the quality of the scenic viewpoint of the waterways amenity.
In relation to Amenity and Recreation policies of Chapter 13 of the CDP and section 7.1 of the LAP refer including requirements to undertake visual impact assessment and to apply adequate mitigation measures.
Naas Northwest Quadrant Masterplan 2007 The 2005 NTDP noted that over time the entire 300 hectares including lands presently zoned as White Lands may be developed, hence the need for a Masterplan. The Northwest Quadrant will provide for a mix of uses and up to 6,000 employees and is the designated location of much of the town’s future residential and employment growth and will act as a counter balance to Dublin for the region.
OBSERVATIONS
Prescribed Bodies An Taisce The application needs to be addressed on the basis of its interaction and cumulative impact with concurrent application for the Naas to Newbridge By-pass Upgrade. A justification for separate parallel consent applications and EIS’s has not been made.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 75
The scheme is in breach of national policy as set out under Smarter Travel. Unless the scheme is complemented by provisions to enhance and promote public transport use and reduce car dependence the effect of the scheme will be to undermine achievement of smarter travel targets in the Naas – Sallins area, to make car access from Naas and Sallins to the M7 easier and to make commuting from the N7 to the Millennium Business Park more attractive.
There is a lack of integration with the overall objectives of Chapter 7 of the Naas Plan. The Council’s parking standards are incompatible with achieving smarter travel targets.
The Board has never attached conditions relating to restriction of greenhouse gas emissions, traffic generation or requirement for parallel investment in public transport and control of car based sprawl and downstream congestion. Smarter travel has entirely changed the considerations under which road and transport investment must be assessed. This application fails entirely to provide for traffic management measures required.
The EIA has not fully considered the impact of oil dependent infrastructure in relation to greenhouse gas reduction targets. The Board is requested to have regard to a number of listed reports. The scale of change to meet the 2020 agreement is enormous. By 2020 Ireland is likely to have accumulative excess emissions of 2 to 20MT.
This scheme should be refused permission on grounds of failure to be integrated with an overall strategy to meet smarter travel targets in the surrounding area.
DAHG The nature conservation observations including the following points: • Hydrological advice may be required. • The development is situated over the Curragh Aquifer and while cuts will be kept to a minimum some dewatering will be necessary. • It is not clear if dewatering will have temporary or permanent impacts on the aquifer and how much water will be pumped out. • Unless there can be certainty that dewatering of the aquifer will not adversely affect the integrity of Pollardstown Fen or any other water dependent Natura 2000 sites the project should not proceed. • Cumulative impacts including the Kildare By-Pass will need to be considered.
An Bord Pleanála may also wish to seek further information on the following: • The results of the bat survey do not appear to have been included in the EIS. • An Bord Pleanála should satisfy itself that the bridge foundations will be situated so as to have no significant effects on the riparian zone used by otters.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 75
• Any mitigation measures detailed in the EIS and/or screening/NIS shall form part of a construction management plan, which should be detailed in the EIS/NIS. • The impact of the project in the absence of such minimum standards and mitigation measures cannot be adequately assessed. • A detailed construction management plan and emergency operating plan for dealing with potential water pollution incidents is still be established. • Barn owl roosts should be looked for in advance of tree felling and suitable mitigation measures put in place if necessary.
In relation to archaeological impact all mitigation measures detailed in Section 8.6 should be carried out in full in advance of commencement of construction works. A programme of geophysical survey should be conducted across all off-line sections of the scheme in advance of archaeological test excavations. Overseeing of the works by a project archaeologist is recommended.
Health Service Executive This sets out requirements in relation to reporting of spillages or incidents which have the potential to affect the drinking water supply in the River Liffey and in relation to required buffer zones for pesticide use. The pesticide buffer zones should be determined from the information provided by the suppliers.
Inland Fisheries Ireland The scheme is within the Liffey Catchment which represents a highly significant salmonid system. The Liffey also holds populations of freshwater crayfish and lamprey. The Liffey is a valuable resource in terms of fisheries and angling amenity.
There is no objection to the scheme subject to the following: • All works to be subject to construction management plan and environmental operating plan. • All works to be in line with the mitigation measures detailed in Chapters 14, 16, 17 and 21. • All in-stream works to be completed during May to September and in line with an agreed method statement. • Detailed design of all structures on salmonid channels will be subject to agreement with IFI as discussed throughout the EIS.
National Transport Authority The Authority has no objection in principle. The design of facilities for cyclists and pedestrians is welcomed and appears acceptable. It is necessary to make adequate provision for the connecting ramps from the Grand Canal cycle route to the western
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 75 distributor road and the Authority would welcome liaison with the designers in relation to these facilities at detailed design stage.
Landowners and others Alan Lloyd (Observation active on 21/07/2013) This refers to a range of submissions relating to the proposed bridge to accompany the road scheme located over the canal which is 50 metres from the observer’s house. Other matters of concern relate to drains, waste dumping, pedestrian and cycling access, whether it is proposed to resurface part of roads recommendations relating to the provision of speed ramps, road markings and linings, lighting and CCTV signage and cameras, pedestrian footpaths/cycle lane.
It is stated that there is a need for a detailed 3-dimensional drawing/scaled model over the Grand Canal. There is reference to the need to upgrade the towpath on the side of the proposed Grand Canal Bridge. A report from NRA/Waterways is required. There is reference also to access to services for residents. The issues outlined are specific and of a very detailed nature.
Castlesize Drive Residents Association (Withdrawn) This submission relates to the proposed access road from the centre of Sallins Village to the Sallins Bypass which will take away an area of our recreation green. There is significant health and safety implications in having a main road cut through this recreation area used on a daily basis. Noise and air pollution hazards will also affect all of us. If the road is permitted a permanent reinforced boundary of sufficient height enclosing the full perimeter of the green area will be required.
A sewage overflow tank was positioned by the developer in the green area and this is used prior to pumping to the sewage pumping station. It is located behind the boundary of the proposed access road. We are concerned that the gardens will again be flooded with untreated sewage while this overflow tank is out of commission during the access road construction phase. There is a reference to an attached map which shows the location of this overflow tank 1. The access road to the centre of Sallins seems to be excess to requirements and will cause a major bottleneck.
Osberstown Development Limited (Observation active on 21/07/2014) Osberstown Development Limited own Millennium Park. This comprises 160 hectares of land straddling the M7 between Junctions 9 and 10 of which 140 hectares are currently available for development. Millennium Park is less than 2 minutes from the train station. A bus connects Millennium Park to the train station
1 However the map is not attached.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 75 and to Naas Town. The Integrated Framework Plan for Landuse and Transportation for Naas 2003 largely remains the preferred framework for the future development of Naas. This envisages an expanded town centre and development of a public transport corridor from the town centre through the north-west quadrant area linking to Sallins Railway Station. Employment will be concentrated primarily in the north- west quadrant and within the town centre. Up to 6,000 employees may be accommodated in the north-west quadrant land. There is also an opportunity for reverse commuting from Dublin given the proximity to the railway station. Osberstown Development Limited fully supports the proposed scheme. The scheme is essential as it will achieve a number of effects.
The M7 Osberstown Interchange and R407 Sallins Bypass Scheme 2013 will have a positive traffic impact on the local road network in terms of reducing traffic volumes on key sections of the local road network particularly the western distributor route, releasing capacity for local trips and public transport services and cycle and pedestrian infrastructure. The Bypass will remove regional orbital through traffic including HGVs accessing the motorway. This traffic currently has to access the M7 by the western distributor road and the Newhall interchange to the south or by the Monread Road and Maudlins Interchange to the north. The scheme is considered therefore to be in accordance with government, regional and local policies.
Peter Sweetman (Observation active on 21/07/2014) The development is an extension of the development proposed in HA0045. The Board should not accept these applications in view of the EIA Directive and the judgements of the CJEU. Project splitting arises.
Peter Traynor (Observation active on 21/07/2014) Mr. Traynor owns a renowned greyhound enterprise on the lands and regularly produces some of the best dogs in Ireland. Greyhounds are very sensitive to sight and sound.
The existing railway bridge over the canal road has very low clearance hence high loads are used to access the operation from the Digby Bridge direction. The drawings shown indicates a minimum height clearance of the new bridge of 5.3m. Mr. Traynor a legally binding document relating to clearance at the canal road.
The observer objects to the location of the proposed attenuation pond as it may pose a flood risk and affect future insurance liability. The proposed drainage scheme may have impacts on the existing drainage system.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 75
There is a substantial security risk to the observer’s greyhounds and a 2 metre high palisade fence needs to be erected along the scheme boundary from the railway bridge to the proposed canal bridge.
Mitigation measures need to be put in place to ensure problems of unlawful parking do not arise.
Submission on behalf of Anthony Keogh, Michael O’Connor, Leo Heavey, Brendan Heavey, Damian Woods, Patrick Shanahan, Sean Shanahan (Withdrawn) The landowners have no objection to the route or the profile of the Sallins Bypass road or the Sallins link road. The landowners note that the lands are zoned H. Arups have undertaken to amend the schedule to note the zoning of the land.
When the lands come to be developed access will be required to the proposed Sallins link road. An objective in Chapter 4 of the EIS is to ensure landowners are given access to the local road network in the area and that access can be gained between the local road and primary roads. Table 4.10 includes a schedule of entrances, access roads and underpasses required as accommodation works for properties affected. There is no reference to the subject lands.
The Sallins link road is elevated as it crosses the subject lands and this may affect the location and arrangements for access and will have implications for drainage including possible flooding and for provision of urban services.
Anthony Neville of Briar Gate Developments (Withdrawn) The Sallins link road impacts on our clients lands, Plot 112. Factors of note include the elevated nature of the proposed Sallins link road, lighting proposed for the Sallins link road, proposals for surface water drainage and attenuation measures which include attenuation pond on lands that form part of the CPO of my client’s landholding, crossing of the canal pNHA, proposals to maintain hydrological and ecological connectivity including a box culvert proposed at the boundary of our client’s lands, the visual impact of the scheme as described in Section 10.4.3.7 of the EIS, illumination of the proposed Sallins link road, proposals to mitigate landscape and visual impacts, details of the noise assessment, phasing of the construction in a single or in two phases, location of temporary construction compounds.
The lands are zoned H, B and A and are severed by the scheme. The observer is not opposed to the road scheme. Certain items need to be clarified or taken into account by the Board including the level of the road and the fall from the roundabout. An additional submission received by the Board on 25 th April requests that consideration be given by the Board for the granting of permission for a junction at the location shown on a drawings submitted.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 75
Kerry Group Services International (Withdrawn) Kerry Group welcomes and supports the proposed infrastructure development. The client also has legal rights of access to and use of land to the northeast at the site close to Osberstown attenuation pond. The scheme will bring significant traffic benefits including to new and existing public transport and walking and cycling. The existing two lanes would not have capacity to accommodate the estimated peak flows of 3,950 vehicles in the AM peak and 4,100 vehicles in the PM peak.
Access arrangements from the Kerry building are unclear and a pedestrian underpass is required. We request a condition which prohibits encroachment onto the permitted pond and swale or parking.
In relation to climate impact assessment Malone O’Regan recommends additional construction management measures. Matters relating to the landscape detail and removal of a boundary fence need to be addressed by condition and direct reference to appropriate species and methods referred to should also be subject of condition. The timescale of the two schemes is noted as is the confirmation by project engineers that the schemes can be constructed at the same time. Progression of the interchange is of particular importance. Concurrent construction of both road schemes is critical to the successful operation of our clients facility. A situation where the proposed interchange facility does not commence until such time as the M7 upgrade works are completed is entirely untenable.
The report of Malone O’Regan in relation to the EIS provides a peer review and concludes that predicted concentrations at GTIC will comply with limit values.
The TIA report clearly demonstrates that even without the development of GTIC certain junctions need to be upgraded in the short-term. GTIC will increase congestion at these junctions. The interchange is one of the key amelioration measures required to ensure that these junctions operate within capacity.
It is requested that the Board confirm some details relating to the CPO and on this basis there is no objection to the CPO relating to Plot 109F.203 and 109F.202. The Board is requested to attach condition that the rights or equivalent rights be preserved when the land is transferred back to Osberstown Development Limited.
Ciaran O’Neill (Withdrawn) This objection states that the Council appear to be acquiring more land than is necessary and that the client’s private residence will be impacted by the noise generated by the proposal and otherwise. Sufficient details regarding accommodation works are not available including boundary treatment works along the new CPO line and the replacement of existing boundaries. Insufficient detail has been provided regarding artificial lighting proposals along the new road. The road
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 75 creates an open area to the rear of the house and no proposals have been made to deal with unauthorised parking.
Desmond Ward (Withdrawn) While generally welcoming the scheme, the observer has a number of concerns regarding his property. Joint consideration of this project with the Naas-Newbridge Scheme is required as otherwise project splitting arises.
The development is proximate to the Grand Canal and River Liffey and requires full appropriate assessment under the precautionary principle.
It is queried as to who is funding the planning stage and questioned whether vested interests are impacting on the proposed route and the timing of the project. The scheme is very close to the property boundary and will carry a lot of HGVs associated with Millennium Park and in the absence of the Dublin Orbital Route will take significant volumes of traffic travelling north/south wishing to avoid the M50.
In relation to construction impacts there is particular concern regarding works to the railway line and environs and out-of-hours works. Access to the Ward family home will involve a lengthy and circuitous diversion.
Lands in the vicinity of the Ward home are subject to flooding including at the location of the proposed attenuation pond. The family objects to the CPO of lands to the front of the dwellinghouse as these will undermine the boundary. The Wards’ mother’s home is to be acquired and it is requested that this house also be acquired.
If this option is not exercised a 2.4 metre wall should be constructed and appropriately finished to act as a defence to the inevitable flooding. Further installation of acoustic glass in windows and doors and construction of appropriate landscaping and berms is requested. Provision of an access from lands being acquired to his dwellinghouse which will require an amendment of the CPO boundary.
Pat O’Brien (Withdrawn) The submission on behalf of Pat O’Brien is identical to that on behalf of Desmond Ward and the plots are adjoining.
Elizabeth Ward (Withdrawn) Mrs Ward, aged 75 when advised that the Council were going to take her garden, felt that she had no option but to move away and agreed to the compulsory purchase of her house also. This was her family home for 51 years. She is concerned that her
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 75 house would be left derelict and become a dumping ground. It is requested that the compulsory purchase be dealt with early on in the scheme to minimise effects on her mental and physical health. The observer is also concerned about the condition of her son’s dwellinghouse in the future.
Edward O’Loughlin (Withdrawn) The observer’s lands contain a cattle shed and entrance from the canal towpath. There is no mention in the scheme of providing replacement cattle shed. The lands are zoned agricultural and there is an objective to provide a footpath and cycle track to a point on the towpath east of the landholding. Due to use of this part of the towpath for mooring and parking and width and condition of the road, the canal towpath is inadequate for a cattle truck to safely negotiate the canal towpath. The objective to provide a footpath and cycle track will also ensure that this vehicular access is effectively closed off. The only suitable agricultural entrance to our client’s landholding will be located at the roundabout where the Sallins bypass meets the Sallins link road. This is a requirement as is a new cattle shed.
Kieran O’Flaherty and Morgan O’Flaherty (Withdrawn) The observers operate a high quality dairy farm. The two fields impacted are bounded to the north by the Liffey. The scheme will divide mature hedgerows and part of the farmyard will be removed. The height of the scheme varies from 1.5 metres to 4 metres at the top of the slope to 8 metres at the Liffey. Part of the land is zoned agricultural and amenity and a footpath along the Liffey is proposed.
The EIS does not contain any valid reasons for dismissal of client’s proposal for an alternative route for the Bypass. A possible alternative route to the emerging preferred route was referred to the Council in June 2013. The report prepared at the time is enclosed. The alternative route would cut through Castlesize housing estate , would be shorter and would not require two major bridges over the Liffey. The significant long-term impact of the current emerging preferred route would far outweigh the short-term construction impact on Castlesize housing estate.
The current proposal as submitted will have significant and profound effect on the operation of the intensive dairy farm including significant and serious visual impact, increased workload, disruption, severance and other impacts.
In relation to the cycle and footpath track proposed in the road scheme, this cycle and footpath track is on the eastern edge of the bypass. The objectives in the LAP will provide access to the general public across our clients’ landholding connecting the two River Liffey road crossings. This is totally unreasonable and unsustainable. The EIS is not taking into account the impact of lighting and the impact of pedestrians and cyclists with access to the Liffey. Boundaries should be 2m high.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 75
The underpass involving relocation of the farm road is not practical and gradients for machinery too steep.
In summary the objections relate to the provision of footpath and cycleway connecting to a future footpath cycle way along the Liffey, significant and profound impacts on the operation and viability of the farm, inaccessibility of the severed field by reason of steep gradients, serious security issues and disturbance, and overall the Bypass scheme and CPO should be refused.
Patrick Garvey of Waterfort, Osberstown (Withdrawn) The value of this property will be greatly affected but none of the benefits of the motorway will accrue as access will not be possible. The motorway will be at the front, rear and side of the property and only 10m from my garden. Noise pollution, light pollution, impacts on the drinking water and on the operation of my septic tank and consequences for surface water are noted.
Further matters noted in the submission relate to safety concerns, inadequate boundary treatment, inadequate landscaping, variations in levels and road design which might arise at construction stage, negative impact on the soiled water drainage, possibility of structural damage, optimum route for the road has not been chosen, footpaths and cycle paths have not been adequately catered for and the design does not allow for sufficiently wide hard shoulder as no work is being proposed on the local road to our clients’ property.
Another letter on file as part of the submission requests a scaled model of the proposal. It is stated that sunlight will be blocked because of the high level of motorway and roundabout to the side and front of the property. A full compulsory purchase order should have been offered to me.
Seamus McCarthy (Observation active on 21/07/2014) Mr McCarthy objects to the CPO and to the scheme. The farm at Bodenstown is rented on a con-acre basis and contains an existing agricultural land entrance where the proposed new R407 is located. The existing entrance was installed previously as part of the Sallins-Clane R407 upgrade. Closure of this existing agricultural entrance is objected to. Under the Sallins LAP, lands are zoned for various uses as shown on the enclosed map which also indicates the route of the proposed development. At roundabouts at the western distributor road and the Naas ring road provision was made to provide vehicular access and pedestrian access into zoned lands. The proposal for vehicular and pedestrian access to the client’s land is shown on drawings enclosed.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 75
The Waterstown Co-Owners – Kimberly SA, James Quinn, Thomas McAndrew, Christopher O’Sullivan, Thomas English, Patrick Brady and Michael Donnelly (Withdrawn) The submission by Kildare County Council and Naas Town Council to Sallins Cold Stores Limited advising that they propose to submit a number of plots. The observers are owners of farm ID 103 listed in Appendix A6.1 and Appendix A6.2 of the EIS. The separation of 12.3 hectares separated from the rest of the 71 hectare farm has no alternative access available. The scheme will interfere with our clients’ lands compromising access and the development potential on the lands.
William Neville & Sons Construction Limited (Withdrawn) The observer objects on the basis that the County Council appear to be acquiring more land than is necessary for the construction of the road. Insufficient details have been provided regarding access to a permitted shopping centre (Reg. Ref. 04/1823 and 10/1248), access to main services and boundary treatment works.
Deirdre & Martin Boran (Withdrawn) The objection relates to six land parcels which total in area of 0.4455 hectares and numbered 108A-201, 108A-202, 108B-201, 108B-202, 108B-203 and 108B-204 at Osberstown. Considering the local status of the Osberstown Road which is to be realigned adjacent to and downstream of our clients’ lands the extent of land-take is excessive. A 50 kph limit would facilitate less land-take and less intrusive impact on the existing residential dwelling and landholder.
Relocation of our clients existing vehicular access and revision and alteration of the internal driveway and removal of the treed verge will have a negative and visually intrusive impact.
The route will have a detrimental and negative impact due to noise, visual impact of the elevated R407 bypass structure and pollution.
It is considered that no specific details of how the implementation of the proposed R407 Sallins bypass will improve this traffic congestion have been presented.
ORAL HEARING
Overview The hearing was held in Hotel Keadeen, Newbridge, commenced on 3 rd June 2014 and ran for under three days concluding on 6 th June.
The following parties were in attendance for at least part of the hearing :
Representations on behalf of Kildare County Council
Mr Declan McGrath, SC
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 75
Ms Eileen McCarthy, Engineering
Mr Michael Kenny, Acting Director of Services, Kildare County Council
Mr Kieran Kennedy, Planning
Mr Con Curtin, Agronomy
Ms Marie Fleming, Soils and Geology
Ms Catherine Buckley, Hydrogeology
Mr Paul Murphy, Ecology
Ms Jennifer Harmon, Noise and Vibration
Ms Sinead Whyte, Air Quality and Climate
Mr Thomas Burns, Landscape and Visual
Mr John Bligh, Material Assets
Ms Faith Bailey, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
Mr Paul Arnold, Architectural Heritage
Craig Bullock, Human Beings and Socio-Economics
Prescribed Bodies
Mr Ian Lumley representing An Taisce
Ms Loughman representing Health Services Executive
Observers
Mr Seamus McCarthy represented by Maguire and Associates
Mr Alan Lloyd
Mr Peter Traynor represented by Mr John Dore
Kerry Group Services International Ltd represented by Brock McClure
Mr Peter Sweetman
Day 1 I opened the hearing with some preliminary comments relating to the nature of the proposal and the manner in which it was proposed to run the hearing. I called out the names of the parties who had made written submission to the hearing and queried whether it was intended that they would make submissions.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 75
Note : The hearing was recorded and the recording is on file. The foregoing is a summary of the proceedings which is intended to assist the Board in the identification of relevant matters in the recordings.
Opening Comments Mr Sweetman queried the attendance of DAHG and noted the requirement that the Board undertake a screening of whether or not an NIS is required, that there is no evidence that this has been undertaken and that this should have been done prior to the hearing. He noted case 258/11.
Mr McGrath noted that the applicant’s evidence would enable the Board to undertake the screening.
Mr Dore referred to costs outstanding in relation to the Galway Bypass case and invoices which had been submitted to the Board 7 years ago. The hearing should be adjourned until costs outstanding in relation to that case are addressed. Mr Dore withdrew from the hearing but subsequently appeared to advised Mr Traynor.
Mr McGrath circulated errata to the EIS, to the motorway order and the CPO.
Applicant’s submission Ms McCarthy presented her brief of evidence on Traffic, Non-agricultural Material Assets, Waste, Hydrology, Inter-relationships and Cumulative Impacts.
She outlined the background to the scheme noting that the Naas to Newbridge Bypass Upgrade is being separately promoted and that the current scheme is dependant on the former.
Ms McCarthy noted the need for the scheme as set out in the EIS and stated that it would lead to a 46% decrease in hgv traffic through Sallins. The scheme would improve safety, facilitate development of the town and promote a more balanced road network and better accessibility to the public transport network.
The humpbacked and skew bridges in the town centre of Sallins were noted. The scheme provision for cyclist and pedestrians were identified and the planned public transport interchange noted.
Key elements of the proposal were described and Ms McCarthy clarified that the lands subject of the CPO were required for the scheme.
In relation to the consideration of alternatives the Do Nothing option would compound congestion and militate against the delivery of an integrated transportation plan for Naas and environs.
The Do Minimum alternative , which assumes that the Naas to Newbridge Bypass Upgrade is in place, does not resolve a number of issues including congestion on local and regional roads which occurs in peak periods, lack of capacity in medium
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 75 term which will impact on planned development, traffic volumes in Sallins which continue to increase and severance in the urban area. In the Do Minimum alternative deliverability of an integrated transport plan for Naas and environs will not be possible.
The Public Transport Only alternative including investment in local public transport infrastructure would be hampered by access to the train station. The scheme is part of a more integrated transport strategy including removal of traffic from local roads, improving access to the train station and in the long-term facilitation of a new Regional Transport Hub.
Route alternatives go back to an early separate assessment of the interchange and bypass and then as a single scheme. Later options including to the west of Osberstown House and through Castlesize in a tunnel were considered also. The Castlesize option which is supported in the O’Flaherty’s observation would have had significant drainage and cost implications as well as construction phase disturbance. The selected option is justified and the costs and benefits are outlined.
Key findings of the traffic and transport assessments are presented in section 5. Traffic count information obtained in 2012 shows an increase in peak period traffic volumes on the M7. Traffic modelling demonstrates that this scheme is dependent on the other. It would benefit local roads and the M7 interchanges at Maudlins and Newhall. It results in a small increase in traffic demand on the mainline as regional traffic would stay longer on the M7 due to the more direct route to the R407 and to the Naas North-West Quadrant. A letter of support from the NRA is enclosed. The overall performance of junctions in the area was assessed and junction have sufficient capacity to accommodate the projected traffic. Short-term improvements to public transport will result.
In the afternoon Mr Kenny confirmed that the scheme is in compliance with development plan policies . He also confirmed the necessity of lands for the scheme .
Mr Kennedy presented the planning policy context . Amongst the 30 page written submission he highlighted the matters set out below.
The interchange was required under the permission for the development of the Millennium Park and was previously recommended for permission by the Inspector. The same policy provisions which then supported the interchange are still in place.
Key goals of Smarter Travel note the continued importance of roads. Action 22 recommends fast-tracking the establishment of park and ride facilities. It refers to removal of bottlenecks and easing congestion in towns.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 24 of 75
The RPGs highlight the planned growth for this region. Towns such as Naas act as important self-sustaining regional economic drivers. A letter of support from Enterprise Ireland is enclosed.
Under the county plan Naas is targeted for 12.9% increase in population growth. There is an objective to facilitate the interchange and to develop a public transport hub and to improve connectivity between roads. The Naas and Sallins plans have related objectives.
Under the Northwest Quadrant Masterplan 2007 a potential employment level of 6,000 is proposed. The vision is for a sustainable urban extension which will act as a counter to continued reliance on commuting for employment.
The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport which authored Smarter Travel has submitted a letter of support as have Bus Eireann, the NTA and the NRA.
Mr Curtin presented his evidence on Agronomy . He especially noted that the closure of the accommodation bridge on the M7 will increase the separation impact of farmland. Permanent disturbance due to additional journey times also arises where land is separated. He further noted impacts such as angulation of fields, changes in access arrangements and loss of shelter and increase risk of trespass and loss of privacy.
Section 5.4 notes the magnitude of impacts prior to mitigation which in the case of farms 102, 103 and 104 are profound and in the case of farms 101, 109, 112 and 119 is significant adverse.
Residual impacts for each farm are described in section 7 of the presentation.
In section 8 he responds to the individual submissions made by observers.
A presentation on Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology was made by Ms Fleming and Ms Buckley.
Ms Fleming noted the EIS submissions which indicate that the impacts of the construction phase and the on-going operation phase will be negligible. The development is 2.41km from the Curragh Aquifer and 11.4km from Pollardstown Fen.
The presentation reiterated information presented in the EIS. It reduced the ranking of aquifers and consequently of impacts.
Section 5.12 notes that the significance of impact to the Liffey groundwater dependent ecosystem is moderate / slight and no impact on the Grand Canal.
The technical note presented refers to potential impacts on the Curragh aquifer, Pollardstown Fen or Mouds Bog.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 25 of 75
It was noted that no bedrock will be encountered.
Groundwater level monitoring will be put in place 12 months before construction and where dewatering is required a dewatering plan will be developed which will state the optimal time and rate of abstraction.
An EOP will be implemented for the construction of the bridge footings in the river gravels for crossing of the Liffey and the Canal. Measures related to fuel storage, stockpiles and run-off to other water bodies are listed.
Mr Murphy presented evidence on Ecology. He noted that the Habitats Directive Screening report takes account of the best scientific knowledge and that no significant effects are likely on any European Site. Indeed the scheme will not have any effects on any European Site.
The main ecological impacts of the scheme will arise from the construction of the crossings of the river and canal but these impacts are deemed to be readily capable of mitigation.
The operational phase risks of road run-off and spillages are mitigated in the design of the road drainage and the attenuation, spill containment and run-off treatment facilities.
The Bat Fauna Assessment noted foraging and commuting of 4 different bat species near hedgerows, the Liffey and Grand Canal. No evidence of bat roosting was observed in any of the structures on or adjacent the route. Mitigation measures recommended refer to aspects of the new infrastructure (bridges and lighting) and to removal of trees and new landscaping. A minor negative residual impact is expected as displacement of bats will occur due to severance of treelines and hedgerows. The crossings of the Liffey and the canal are unlikely to interfere with the movement of bats due to the height and span of the structures.
Ms Harmon presented evidence on Noise and Vibration . For the operational phase the design goal of 60dB L den applies and for the construction phase a maximum of 70 dBL Aeq,1hour is relevant to the daytime hours. Lower limits apply to evening and weekends as is presented in the EIS.
In the baseline survey the main source of noise is the M7 motorway and other passing traffic and noise levels measured were in the range of 47 to 60 L den .
In the absence of mitigation the construction phase limits may be exceeded and mitigation measures are identified in the EIS and in section 5 of Ms Harmon’s brief. Due to the requirement of Iarnrod Eireann works in proximity to the railway will be required to take place out of peak times and some night-time work will be required for a duration of about 4 weeks. A 4m high temporary screen around the works site will be required to comply with requirements for night-time construction phase.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 26 of 75
In the operational phase in 2030 six properties will require mitigation and all other properties are below the 60dBL den or do not require mitigation for other reasons.
For properties along the new bypass and link roads the incorporated noise mitigation measures ensure that residual noise levels are all within the noise criteria.
Specific responses are provided to the submissions of Mr Lloyd and other observers
Ms Whyte’s evidence on Air Quality and Climate was next presented. For the Do 3 Something scenario in 2015 as the increase in NO x recorded is over 2µg/m then the requirement to provide an assessment of the sensitivity of the Grand Canal ecosystem to NO x has been complied with.
In terms of Climate Impact the DMRB model does not allow for existing congestion and low speeds through Sallins. Therefore the Do Minimum scenario underestimates the level of CO 2 emissions. If this and other factors was assessed it is likely that the impact of emissions due to the scheme would significantly reduce. The issues paper for the Low Carbon Roadmap for Transport is noted as is an EPA publication which refers to public transport improvements and efficient road traffic movements. In this regard the scheme has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the future. In response to the submission of An Taisce it is noted that the EPA states that the main contributor to dramatic reductions will be technology.
Mr Burns evidence on Landscape and Visual Aspects of the scheme noted 4 locations where the development will give rise to some level of significant impact . Moderate and significant local landscape impacts will result at the setting of Osberstown House and the river and canal. Removal of through traffic from the town centre is positive.
Works to mitigate impacts including at Osberstown House, where a false cutting is proposed, are set out. It is considered that residual impacts will be limited to Osberstown House, the house R10 and properties at the crossing of the canal R22 and R26.
A response to Mr Lloyd and others is provided. Additional photomontages of the Boran property where Osberstown Road is to be raised were presented.
Ms Bailey’s evidence on the Archaeological and Cultural Heritage referred to the three areas of archaeological potential and nine sites of cultural heritage significance. It is considered that once the mitigation measures are carried out there will be no residual negative impact. No objections were received with regard to this matter and the recommendations of the DAHG will be carried out.
Mr Arnold presented evidence on Architectural Heritage. Referencing section 9.2 and 9.3 of the EIS he noted that in the construction phase non-permanent changes to the visual landscape will arise and in the operational phase the setting and lands
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 27 of 75 of Osberstown House will be subject to noise and light pollution and visual disruption of the setting. Mitigation in the form of appropriate tree planting to visually screen the proposed development from Osberstown House and diminish light and noise pollution is recommended. There is a moderate negative indirect impact on the protected structure arising from the regional importance and the impact on the setting including that the Bypass will be visible from within the curtilage and/or the attendant lands. Mitigation is to be effected by comprehensively planning the verges.
The evidence of Mr Bullock referred to Human Beings / Socio-economics . Positive impacts were recorded in the main including the better connectivity, the removal of traffic from the town centre, the improvement in the environment for pedestrians and cyclists and improved access to the train station. However, during the construction phase it is noted that use of local roads for a duration, including use of the Canal Road, will be required. There will also be new severance associated with the scheme.
In economic terms a major positive impact relates to the north-west quadrant of Naas and to the amenity of Sallins but the removal of passing trade may negatively impact on businesses. No new mitigation measures additional to those presented in the EIS were offered. Specific responses to observers are provided.
Day 2 Observers’ submissions Mr Lumley for An Taisce made a comprehensive statement to the hearing.
The scheme is for the purpose of transportation management for the Naas Sallins and Clane area and must be assessed under Smarter Travel. It is contingent on the Naas to Newbridge Bypass Upgrade which would undermine Smarter Travel and increase car dependency in the area and in the wider catchment.
Development of the motorway network has not been accompanied with necessary traffic management and Naas and Sallins are examples of urban sprawl and bad planning. Castlesize clearly was a major failure of planning as it now necessitates two Liffey crossings and associated costs.
While the scheme is provided for in the plans there is a need to ensure that public expenditure and car borne travel are properly addressed. This is not a sustainable travel proposal, not an integrated series of measures but a continuation of a failed series of bypasses . While the Council endorses Smarter Travel it does not set out clear targets. Targets can only be achieved if there are transportation management measures. Future investment needs to be more targeted and sophisticated.
Increases in traffic are occurring as the economy improves and new employment locations opened. The context includes insufficient feeder buses to the railway.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 28 of 75
PAG 5.3 requires a new approach to forecasting. The Chair of An Bord Pleanála at a conference noted that the Board favours maximising use of the infrastructure. This is a very strong statement that the Board will not preside over car dependent sprawl.
It is not disputed by An Taisce that measures including new roads are needed to meet Smarter Travel requirements. An Taisce would not disagree with the increased access to the rail and more efficient connections for buses and decreased congestion in Sallins. A request is not being made for a public transport option only.
The difficulty however is that there is no active transport management and this is a crude and out of date engineering measure. By the time the improved sustainable transport facilities are put in place it will all be undermined. A strategy for the entire area covered by the two schemes is required and both schemes should be abandoned. If it proceeds as proposed there will simply be increased traffic and congestion.
In relation to climate change EPA data shows that targets for 2020 won’t be met. Benefits from lower emission cars will be offset by an increased numbers - for this reason the Smarter Travel objective related to vehicle kilometers was set out.
No increase in emissions should be allowed but the EIS acknowledges a small increase. While Inspectors generally argue that this matter should be considered under Climate Policy Smarter Travel has been designed to address the matter.
The Kerry Group mobility management accompanying the application to the Council in April 2013 included 95% travel by car in relation to which An Taisce entered into discussion relating to condition 13. The NTA submission was feeble. In general the Department of Transport is not putting in place the necessary investment strategy for Smarter Travel. There is a complete mis-match of public policy.
A grant of permission would ease congestion in Sallins and make it easier to get to the railway but will also ensure easier to access Dublin / the M50 by car. The proposed PTI is unresolved as is upgrading of the railway line. The scheme will result in future congestion at the M50.
Permission should be refused to allow for a comprehensive approach in a new application. That should primarily focus on reducing dependence on the private car and only then should consideration be given to what road infrastructure is needed to provide access to the train station, which nobody can disagree with in principle.
Mr Lumley clarified that he would delegate his questions to Mr Sweetman and Mr McGrath indicated that he has no questions of Mr Lumley.
Mr Maguire then made a submission on behalf of Mr McCarthy of Clane Road. The landowner has no objection to the overall scheme but has a major issue with the existing farm gate which is at the location of the proposed roundabout at the Clane
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 29 of 75
Road. The proposal appears to be plan-led. He questioned how this facilitates his client’s lands.
Ms McCarthy noted the existing access and agricultural use and a safe access is being provided on the lower speed section of road. Mr Maguire is looking for an access off the roundabout which might be acceptable in the future but is not part of this scheme. To provide a stub off the roundabout in the absence of a masterplan and knowledge of the future uses is not acceptable.
Mr Maguire stated that there is no need to provide a masterplan at this time – the purpose of the scheme is to facilitate planned development and an access at that point would facilitate the planned development. This matter could be addressed by condition if the Inspector saw fit.
Ms McCarthy noted that the fourth arm could go at that location but at present the agricultural use is served by the proposed access which is 90m from the roundabout as appropriate. The objection to it at this time relates to what impact it would have in terms of traffic generation.
Mr Maguire reiterated his position with reference to the works which have been undertaken around the Millennium Park and at other locations. Ms McCarthy noted the adopted masterplan under which they were constructed. She also noted that the long-term development of these lands for commercial development might be on the town side of the roundabout also, that would be the preference. A private access from the roundabout at this time is inappropriate. If you wanted to continue the circle around Sallins the fourth access would then be taken.
Mr Sweetman questioned Mr Kenny on the need for the road and how it is sustainable and necessary. He noted that the EIS addressed the need for the scheme which is identified in the various plans and is Council policy. It is needed for a number of reasons including the issues facing Sallins and the need for the interchange. Mr Sweetman referred to congestion at the Monread Road to Sallins where a major supermarket was granted by the Council. Mr Kenny noted that Sallins main street has faced a number of challenges.
Mr Sweetman questioned whether the traffic problems in situ were created by the construction of houses close to the road. Mr Kenny noted that the traffic in Sallins is not largely generated in Sallins and the road goes to Kilcock. Ms McCarthy stated that 37% of the traffic would divert to the Bypass. Mr Sweetman questioned would Sallins then be sustainable? The problem will be unresolved he stated.
Mr Sweetman wanted it put on the record that this is the best EIS for a road scheme that he has ever seen. However, the brief was wrong. He queried the proposed independent checks and audits and whether these had ever been undertaken at Maudlins under the last scheme undertaken. Ms McCarthy stated that since 2009 under NRA guidelines a post construction audit takes place.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 30 of 75
The PTI has not been assessed in terms of site location stated Mr Kenny. There are objectives in the plan but nothing has been done. Mr Sweetman stated that the only way that could be done is to move the railway station. A regional bus station to connect with the train is required and he the current scheme may interfere with that objective. Mr Kenny noted the scheme would provide better access to the railway.
Mr Sweetman (referring to the Naas to Newbridge Bypass Upgrade) stated that the eastern bound lane in particular needs to be scrapped. The west bound lane is perhaps another thing. The point is there is no plan.
In the afternoon Brock McClure made a submission on behalf of Kerry Group. The previous points of submission are now withdrawn. Kerry Group employs over 24,000 worldwide. The development under construction will be the headquarters for the global division and when it opens in January 2015 will employ 900 people.
A workplace travel plan for employees is being prepared. It will include staff shuttle buses, car sharing initiatives from the airport, cycle to work scheme and other staff facilities and initiatives. In the current temporary offices car pooling and a shuttle bus to the railway station operate. The latter is inhibited by the congestion however, which will be exacerbated by additional employment.
The establishment of the centre by Kerry Group was influenced by the various policies in the development plans. The EIS has been prepared in accordance with best practice. The GTIC building we accept is not a sensitive receptors in terms of guidelines. Progression of Osberstown interchange is of particular importance. While we accept that the interchange cannot operate safely until such time as the upgrade works on the M7 is completed a situation whereby construction of Osberstown Interchange is not commenced until the upgrade is completed cannot be countenanced. Both projects need to be progressed.
Mr Desmond queried the detail of the workplace travel plans and the take-up of the shuttle bus. Ms Brock stated that there are two services in the morning and afternoon, which would be increased. She could not provide information on usage of the shuttle buses or the modal split for the existing employees. The target modal split is being worked on at the moment and she referred to the Smarter Travel targets.
Mr Lloyd made a submission to the hearing. He requested more details of the proposed bridge as it leaves the ground and the egress points for pedestrians. He noted that his house is 50m from the bridge. In relation to drainage he stated that this is floodplain. The landfilling and the 9m high embankment need to be further addressed in terms of drainage including in relation to high the existing water.
He indicated that the development may not constitute a good use of public funds. Given its length the amount of €50 million is very high. The development is a large imposition on the property 50m away. There is a requirement for a local area plan to address the four lane motorway being put through an amenity area.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 31 of 75
If commuting from Dublin he stated there are two points of access and a requirement to do 270 degree circuit of Sallins to get into the town centre. The alternative of going by way of Naas golf course is a practical alternative route (via Johnstown).
In relation to the towpath Mr Lloyd noted its attractiveness and its use as for commercial traffic and he noted use of local roads by cars travelling at speed along its length. Traffic calming is required for its length.
Regarding the proposed egress for pedestrians under the railway bridge there is a public safety issue here also. The local road will be used, which justifies traffic calming and lighting in view of the speed of vehicles and shadow from the bridge.
Regarding Osberstown Bridge itself on the canal he noted that traffic from Sallins will be meeting traffic coming down the canal all of them trying to navigate a bottleneck prior to coming to the elevated section of Osberstown road near Mrs Ward’s house.
In relation to the 150m long ditch where there is a lot of dumping this contains about 1.5 tonne of domestic waste, 4m deep. Ownership of it needs to be determined and it needs to be cleaned out. The attenuation pond proposed is nearby. It needs to be addressed. He presented a range of photographs showing the waste and the body of water. The Commissioner for Arterial Drainage needs to be involved. We are concerned about the effect on our water supply. By easement Mr Lloyd is obliged to supply water to the adjoining house while Mr Garvey has his own well. He feels that he will have to wait too long for the duration of the project and possibly deal with contamination from the project.
Mr Lloyd noted an opportunity to connect the three septic tanks to the sewer. There is a main sewer at Mr Traynor’s. These three properties will effectively be landlocked and devalued. The mains sewerage needs to be explored, or biocycle units or other option. The burden of the proposed structure far outweighs the small cost of the works proposed.
Mr Lloyd referred to issues relating to waste licences. He referred to the need for equity and injurious effects on those who are outside the CPO. Negative equity resulting should be measured and the absence of same the process is flawed. Deals are being made with corporations, while a home owner seeking sewage and water is left almost landlocked in an almost famine cottage.
Mr McGrath responded with respect to the statutory consent under the Waste Management Acts, which will not be required. In relation to consent under the Arterial Drainage Act this will be applied for by means of a separate statutory process after decision. Compensation payable to persons affected will be made.
Ms McCarthy noted that the road is a dual carriageway with posted speed limit of 80kpm and there is no access at Osberstown Road. The embankment is large
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 32 of 75 because of the crossing of the canal and the need to provide access to Mr Traynor’s property and to Mr O’Loughlin’s property north of the canal.
Returning to the visual impacts which were discussed previously Mr Burns noted that three properties were referenced by the Inspector. Mr Lloyd’s property is shown in sketch 152 and the mitigation and landscape measures were described. There is commitment to minimising tree and hedgerow removal in the EIS and provision of protective fencing. Provision of temporary solid boarding at Mr Garvey’s was proposed in the EIS (table 10.5). An additional commitment is to provide a solid wall instead as well as a new mature instant hedge along the line of the CPO.
Additional measures for the operation stage include a screen south of the canal to a location north of the roundabout, including an additional screen along the parapet of the bridge. The landscaping and mitigation are reflective of the impact on Mr Garvey’s and other houses.
Ms McCarthy confirmed that there is no access from the bridge to the local road but provision is made for safety fences and that is the purpose of the railing at the north and south of the canal. Mr Burns noted that the photomontage 10.7a gives a view from the towpath looking west close to the point referred to by Mr Lloyd. This was the best location to show the bridge and it is shown without landscaping. It’s a typical bridge structure and there are similar in the area already. The embankments will be densely landscaped to reconnect with the hedgerows and while there is an impact its not unusual.
There was further discussion during the hearing of the design of the bridge which culminated in a commitment to finish it with limestone. The screen proposed on the parapet will reduce somewhat the view of the traffic and will be especially effective at night. The significance of the structure is not denied but in time with the mitigation measures it will fit into the landscape. Mr Lloyd queried a detail in response to which Mr Burns stated that 10.7B is a reflection of the diagonal of the other side.
Ms McCarthy noted the uses of the north side of the towpath and the scheme does not concede use for commercial property other than for necessary access. The best forms of traffic calming are constrictions and presently this is provided by the railway bridge and by the Leinster Aqueduct and indeed the condition of the road. There will be reduction in traffic on that local road network from the scheme (2,600 to 1,750). Pedestrians and cyclists will be brought onto the local roads and since publication of the EIS a second access point to the south of the railway bridge is now added so that they can go under the bridge. Mr Lloyd reiterated that the scheme is unsafe.
The ditch this is owned by Mr Traynor. The Inspector noted that a number of the issues raised by Mr Lloyd are not related to the scheme. In relation to drainage as a possible indirect effect of the scheme Ms McCarthy noted the overland flow collects in Mr Traynor’s ditch which is blocked. The scheme proposes an interceptor ditch to
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 33 of 75 collect that flow – this is a grass lined structure like a swale and there will not be flooding of the adjacent properties by the embankment of otherwise. This runs slowly all the way to the Liffey and should alleviate the existing problems. The responsibility for maintenance will be with the Council and commitments with respect to all of the ditches can be added to the Schedule of Commitments.
Ms McCarthy noted it is not practical to take a private connection from existing pressurised sewers. There is no gravity sewer suitable for connection.
Regarding water Ms McCarthy noted that services will not be provided as part of the scheme. Ducts are provided and if they are needed they are in situ.
Mr Dore on behalf of Mr Traynor questioned Mr Curtain on his expertise on greyhounds. Mr Curtin indicated a general familiarity with noise impacts on farm animals and that some of his clients have greyhounds. As Mr Curtin was unable to answer questions put, Mr Dore stated that he clearly knows little about greyhounds.
Mr Curtin noted the layout of Mr Traynor’s kennels and that noise from the N7 could be heard at the property and along the lands nearby. In relation to night-time train noise he was unable to provide details, Mr Dore noting that there are no trains between midnight and 6am. Mr Dore noted that the existing railway embankment is between the kennel block and the N7 and this 10m high structure provides a fantastic noise barrier to the kennels. The existing environment is not as described.
Ms Harmon noted that R18 is close to Mr Traynor’s property. The noise will travel from the road which screens the land including the kennels for a distance. Mr Dore noted that this was not referenced to greyhounds.
Ms Harmon noted that the existing environment does have an element of road traffic and also acknowledged that the railway would provide a good barrier. The kennels are 100m from the source and road traffic noise tends to be steady state and would not create startle effects for example. Speeds and volumes are not high and will be lower in the evening. Ms Harmon acknowledged there will be night-time traffic. Ms Harmon acknowledged that the source of the railway being higher is preferable but the railway noise is disruptive. Mr Dore reiterated the need for a noise barrier.
Mr Dore queried the effect on Mr Traynor’s material assets. Ms McCarthy stated that there would be no change and the exact same material asset would remain. There is no requirement for a building line setback from a dual carriageway. Mr Dore stated that this had not been properly assessed. The impact of the large attenuation pond on his material asset needs to be considered as it could be considered a wetland and could result in a liability. Ms McCarthy refuted these arguments.
Mr McGrath noted the setback from a dual carriageway would be 31m and there could be no conceivable impact. The potential for greyhounds to escape is not a significant issue stated Mr Curtin. Mr Dore stated that mitigation would be needed to
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 34 of 75 make things as safe, including to protect cyclists. Ms McCarthy noted that fencing near the attenuation pond could be extended. Works these would comply with the measures set out in the EIS and mitigation measures would be in place.
Mr Dore noted that allowances should be made to move the greyhounds during construction. The impact on Mr Traynor’s assets have not been properly assessed.
Mr Sweetman had questions on the waste disposal location. Ms Fleming noted that anything which cannot be reused on site will be disposed of to suitably licensed facilities and the material is inert. The tarmac will be tested appropriately and classified. Mr Sweetman stated that the waste management is part of the construction and should be properly considered.
In relation to the demolition of the bridge it is not suitable for reuse and the materials are included in the EIS. Mr Sweetman noted also that by excluding the demolition works this is a fundamental part of the EIA process and Ireland has been found in breach of EIA on that basis. Even the EOP says it will be done later.
Ms McCarthy noted that the outline EOP prepared in response to the Department’s submission – the noise and other impacts have been assessed in the EIS in 18.4.3 – Mr Sweetman noted that this addressed the waste. However, the EIS does not assess the matters to be considered in the EOP.
Ms McCarthy stated that they know its composed of very light beams which can be easily removed. Mr McGrath indicated that when the detailed methodology is presented by the contractor it will be again assessed but it has been assessed.
Mr Sweetman stated that he completely accepted the information relating to the SAC but reiterated that this should have been done by the Board before the hearing.
Regarding bats Mr Murphy noted the diversity is high. Otters will use the overhead routes when necessary – due to the extent of lands between the Liffey crossing points regular use is unlikely.
In relation to the source of materials Ms Fleming stated that two potential quarries were assessed and both have full planning permission (Hill of Allen and Arkil). Mr Sweetman refuted their planning status. Mr Sweetman noted however that s261A does not permit work. In relation to haul routes she noted use of Clane not Millicent bridge. Mr Sweetman noted that Clane was not considered a suitable route due to schools. Ms Fleming stated that material will also sourced from the south.
Mr Sweetman questioned Ms Harmon who confirmed that she was not involved in the previous N7 scheme and that baseline monitoring for the Naas Newbridge scheme is provided therein. Mr Sweetman queried levels on Naas Newbridge noting that the direct and indirect effects have to be considered and that by not commenting on levels on that scheme she was walking the Council into project splitting. He
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 35 of 75 stated that this is reliant on the other going ahead. Ms Harmon noted that while two separate EISs and assessments were undertaken each has considered the other. Different criteria are set out in the schemes due to context.
Mr McGrath on the matter of project splitting stated that there is no element of project splitting which is only to avoid thresholds for assessment. I do accept that the Board needs to consider cumulative impacts and to the extent that the other scheme is relevant in that regard Mr Sweetman’s question is relevant.
Mr Sweetman stated that the EC interpretation is different to the Irish. Mr Sweetman referred to all the previous schemes along this route, some of which were not subject to EIA. The cumulative effects of the widening scheme (in particular) relative to the M50 at the Red Cow has not been assessed.
Ms Harmon referred to Chapters of the two schemes which outline the baseline environment and other matters. Mr Sweetman referred to table 15.3 of the Naas
Newbridge scheme which references the derived L den figures. Seven readings on the N7 are listed and only one is in compliance.
Ms Harmon noted that this is a different application and that the older criteria for that original scheme (Newbridge Bypass) applied. There are two separate sets of monitoring for the two schemes. She acknowledged again that the N7 noise levels are high and that the KLANAP levels formed the basis for that scheme.
Mr Sweetman noted that noise mitigation was provided for the Newbridge Bypass and that it failed. Most motorways have noise problems. L den is an average and does not reflect nuisance value necessarily. Ms Harmon stated the assessment is robust.
Mr Sweetman questioned Mr Burns who stated that a three year landscape maintenance programme would apply. Mr Sweetman referred to parking at the railway station which is relatively difficult to access. Mr Sweetman queried how the scheme would benefit railway travel given that the car park can be full.
Mr Bullock stated that there is also parking at the Supervalu and that the provision of connectivity is all that can be done under the scheme. Mr Sweetman noted that the southern car park was full that morning at 9pm but Ms McCarthy noted that the north side is never full. Mr Bullock noted that the Integrated Framework plan is in place. There have been improvements to the bus service and feeder buses to the station.
Mr Sweetman while complimenting the EIS noted that there has been a lack of implementation of the schemes and projects and policies with respect to public transport. Ms McCarthy noted schemes going under Part 8 this year. Mr Sweetman stated that the brief was wrong. The justification for the southbound lane on the Naas Newbridge scheme would address the PM build up as the road was too narrow and widening it would get traffic down the country in a better fashion. However, the
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 36 of 75 inbound lane should not be widened as it will only move the problem inwards and the existing blockage may encourage use of the train.
The substantive elements of the day had concluded at that point and following some administrative matters the hearing was closed for the day.
On the last day Friday 6 th June the Inspector’s posed a range of questions and concluding statements were taken. The Inspectors questions focused on the impact of the development on Osberstown House and other landscape and visual impacts, noise thresholds which would have previously applied to road schemes, the proposed night-time working under the current scheme, some details of the reasons for acquisition of particular plots of land and the future development of the Naas lands. In relation to the protection of views along the canal there will be impacts but these have to be considered relative to the positive impacts.
Details of the modelling, the delivery of cycle routes and other measures were discussed. Ms McCarthy noted that there is no mechanism to quantify the risk of reduced congestion leading to more car usage. She noted that this is addressed under Smarter Travel. Mr Kennedy acknowledged that unless tolled there is a possibility. The problem is to do with vast numbers of car commuting and the key to solving that is in relation to growing successful enterprises to allow people to work and live in the same locality. The emphasis of the latest NTA programme is bus based travel. Mr McDade noted the particular schemes being progressed which are promoted by the NTA and which includes very detailed schemes for Naas. Cycle tracks on the existing Sallins road are being advanced and the scheme offers a chance to go one step further later. The modelling is completely realistic in this regard.
The proposed PTI would include park and ride and bus access etc. A study by KCC with the NTA about seven years ago resulted in the provision of parking at the Supervalu. While there is inadequate space for bus lanes there will be service improvements when congestion is relieved. The M7 was noted to be relatively under-provided in terms of park and ride. The PTI objective is to provide for a more regional long-term scheme.
Ms McCarthy referenced the relevant sections of DMURS which were used as the basis for the link road design and made a commitment also to street planting which had been discussed.
Closing In concluding for Mr Traynor Mr Dore stated that the setback required would be from the fenceline of the route. Mr Traynor’s enterprise and his material asset was not properly undertaken and the EIS is thus flawed. The sterilisation of 300m of road frontage would have a profound impact. Mr McGrath repeated his understanding of the 31m.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 37 of 75
In concluding for the applicant Mr McGrath stated that there is general support for the scheme which delivers benefits, which he outlined. He noted the quite exceptional cost benefit ratio set out in the EIS. The scheme complies with policy provisions at a national, regional and local level.
There is no merit to the suggestion that it fails to deliver the objectives of Smarter Travel. Indeed Mr Lumley indicated that the construction of roads infrastructure is required to deliver objectives of Smarter Travel. Smarter Travel recognises a number of matters which are relevant for this scheme including in relation to access to the train station and other lands and facilitating cyclists and pedestrians. Clearly this is not solely a road engineering project but provides an integrated approach to multimodal travel. . The scheme is consistent with EPA publications which set out a range of measures including efficient road traffic movements which will reduce and mitigation emissions.
Traffic modelling undertaken was comprehensive and fully in accordance with requirements. The matter of project splitting can easily be refuted as it relates to avoidance of EIA which clearly is not the case. The interactions and cumulative effects of the schemes was assessed throughout and the Board is invited to assess the interactions and cumulative effects of this scheme and the M7 upgrade scheme.
There was marked lack of criticism of the EIS which was described as ‘superb’. The overwhelming body of objective evidence confirms that it can be excluded that the scheme will have a significant effect on a European site. The Board is required to make its screening determination before approving the scheme but not before a hearing.
The hearing was then formally closed.
ASSESSMENT I consider the merits of the road scheme and the need for the CPO with reference to the issues raised by the parties and under the following headings :
- Traffic and transport
- Environmental Impact Assessment
- Appropriate Assessment
- Motorway Order and Compulsory Purchase Order
- Other issues including procedural and legal matters and phasing.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 38 of 75
Traffic and Transport The foregoing relies heavily on the report of Mr John Desmond which is attached for consideration by the Board. I refer below to what I consider are the most significant issues in relation to traffic and transport. These are:
• The need for the scheme.
• The alternatives considered.
• Traffic and traffic and transport effects including relationship with Naas/Newbridge Upgrade and effect on local roads.
• Compliance with policy provisions.
• Detailed design.
• Modelling and junction analysis.
• The interim scenario.
Need for the Scheme The stated need for the scheme relates to connectivity between national, regional and local road networks, the inadequate capacity on the existing R407, the presence of regional traffic on the local road network in Naas and Sallins and to facilitate planned and zoned development lands. It is the applicant’s submission that the scheme is in compliance with government policy through facilitating sustainable transport.
In order to facilitate economic growth in the region the scheme is deemed to be necessary as it will improve and integrate transport infrastructure, reduce congestion and provide for network connectivity and accessibility to the public transport network.
In terms of the physical layout I consider that a simple inspection of the existing versus proposed road network demonstrates that the location of the bypass and interchange will provide for much necessary improvements to connectivity between Naas and Sallins. Furthermore given the constraints in Sallins town centre including two bridges and a reasonably narrow road network which is constrained by these bridges, the principle of a bypass is especially beneficial. These factors favour consideration of a grant of permission in my view.
I note Mr Desmond in Section 3.3.3 states that the EIS does not put forward a strong case for a bypass of the R407. He indicates in 3.3.4 that the applicant puts forward no strong case for the economic costs associated with the proposed infrastructure nor the benefits associated with same. Further it is his opinion that the scheme does not provide for an efficient integrated transport system and the development will constrain site selection for a proposed public transport interchange. He goes so far
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 39 of 75 as to say that the bypass may undermine the achievements of those sustainable transport objectives. The route selection for the bypass did not take a site for the PTI into account. These are strong statements in relation to the scheme.
The above should be considered by the Board in the context of 4.1.1 of the Mr Desmond’s report which addresses the do-nothing scenario. In such circumstances he states that the lack of capacity on the local and regional network will ultimately impact on development potential. Further the delivery of public transit, street-based public transport and walking and cycle networks at local and regional levels is seen to be constrained by the limitations of the existing network as well as by existing and increasing levels of traffic congestion.
When the above two sections of Mr Desmond’s report are considered in combination with the designation of Naas/Newbridge/Kilcullen under the Regional Planning Guidelines, I submit that there is stronger justification for the scheme. In relation to the economics, in particular I note the emphasis placed by the Council and by Kerry Group on the Osberstown Interchange. As the interchange was previously required to be installed by permission of Naas County Council for a major business park and as the Board has previously indicated no objection in principle to its development, I submit that there is further justification for the interchange.
In relation to the bypass element of the scheme I note that Mr Desmond’s reservations relate in particular to the lack of progress by the Council on the selection of a site for the PTI and on the promotion of sustainable transport methods, to which I later return.
In relation to the need for the scheme I note Section 3.3.6 of Mr Desmond’s report which refers to the strategic importance of the R407 between Naas and Kilcock, the present lack of direct connection to the national network and in this regard he supports the scheme describing it as an opportunity to create connections, establish an ordered roads hierarchy and provide for growth in the town of Naas.
I note that while Mr Desmond in Section 3.4.8 ultimately concludes that there is a need for the proposed infrastructure, he also notes that no case is made for the scheme on the basis of safety. He also notes the lack of quantification of the benefit or improvements arising from the scheme. He further states that no progress has been made in relation to the integrated public transport provision and that there is no timescale within which these will be pursued. I agree with these points and return to some of them. However, I reiterate my above conclusion that on balance in principle the provision of a new interchange and the bypass are acceptable.
Alternatives On the matter of alternatives I have previously referred to the do-nothing scenario. I note and concur with Mr Kenny’s evidence to the hearing that the appropriate development of Sallins has been hampered over the years by the former meat plant
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 40 of 75 site and by traffic congestion and I again refer to the particular constraints posed by the bridges in the town. The do-nothing scenario is not in the interest of the development of Sallins nor is it in the interest of promoting the further growth of the permitted business area in Naas.
In relation to the alternative of a public transport only option, I note that An Taisce indicated at the hearing that they were not promoting such an alternative in this case. While Mr Desmond notes the lack of assessment of this alternative, I do not consider that it is a viable option which should have been investigated by the applicant.
In relation to the upgrading of existing interchanges again this would not overcome the deficiency in the road hierarchy between the R407 and the M7 and it would not facilitate the continued development of public transport services or the long-term strategy to provide a public transport interchange. Again I do not consider that this should have been subject of a further assessment as an alternative.
In relation to alternative locations for the interchange and the bypass, I note Mr Desmond’s comment in 4.4.1 on this matter. Having reviewed both documents prepared namely the Preferred Route Corridor Report and the Supplementary Route Selection Report both of which were presented by the applicant, he reasonably concludes that a systematic review of the potential significant environment effects has been undertaken. He further concludes that in his opinion the route location/route selected by the applicant has been justified.
I note that at the oral hearing while observers including Mr Sweetman, Mr Lumley and Mr Lloyd all regretted the fact that a bypass of Sallins now requires two major bridges over the Liffey and one bridge over the Grand Canal, none made a particular issue of this point. I agree that for its length this appears to be an extremely complicated and costly project. The question however is whether there is an alternative at this point. Only the Johnstown route was mentioned as an alternative which it was considered should still be open for consideration. Having considered the length and heritage impacts of that option I am unconvinced that it warrants serious further consideration. In relation to the possibility of traversing through the open strip of land in the Castlesize housing estate, I consider this was reasonably rejected by Ms McCarthy on the grounds of both cost and construction phase amenity. In conclusion while I would share some of the reservations expressed by observers regarding the nature of the current scheme, I am unconvinced that there are alternative locations for the interchange and the bypass. In principle I consider that the route selected is the optimum available at present.
Traffic and Transport Two main issues arise in this regard namely whether or not the scheme is dependent on the prior operation of Naas/Newbridge and what is the effect on the local roads. I
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 41 of 75 refer to Section 6 of Mr Desmond’s report which provides considerable more detail in relation to the facts and figures to support the foregoing comments.
The scheme through the relocation of traffic will result in an increase of AADT on the M7 of between 12% (west of Osberstown interchange) and 8% east of the proposed interchange in 2015 and (9% and 11% are indicated for 2030). The scheme involves moving traffic onto the main line that is one of its objectives. Thus Table 5.6 of the EIS indicates predicted increases in AADT of 10% AM peak and 7% PM. peak in 2015 and 8% and 6% in 2030.
Mr Desmond in Section 6.1.1 considers this issue and notes that the actual capacity of the upgraded M7 (three lanes) estimated at 4,800 vehicles per hour is close to capacity at peak hour for the combined Osberstown Sallins Scheme. Thus, I consider it is reasonably demonstrated that the prior operation of the Naas – Newbridge Bypass Upgrade is a requirement if the Board is to favourably consider the current scheme.
When considering the two schemes together I have also previously suggested that the Board may consider it appropriate to grant permission for the Naas – Newbridge Bypass Upgrade partly in recognition of the fact that it does facilitate the Osberstown Scheme, which in itself may be considered to have considerable regional, local and economic development benefits.
I note that both teams of consultants were united on the need for the prior upgrade of the M7 before the operation of the Osberstown Interchange and Sallins Bypass. In the interest of clarity I consider it appropriate that the Board attach a condition relating to this matter. I separately later consider this scenario of the interchange alone being constructed.
I note that in relation to the impact on the M7 Mr Desmond queries some of the analyses undertaken by the applicant and in particular states that there may be some capacity available on the section of road between Newhall and Maudlins where the proposed interchange is to be positioned. He also notes however that the traffic flow arising from the interchange would absorb this capacity and therefore reasonably concludes that the Osberstown Interchange and Sallins Bypass is dependent on the proposed upgrade.
In relation to the effect on the local and regional road network I note Mr Desmond’s consideration of this matter in Section 6.1.4 and his conclusion that it can be reasonably assumed that the scheme will improve traffic flow and provide for reduced journey times and improve journey speeds on the local and regional road network. I note that this is of particular importance not only for the amenity of Sallins and Naas and the objectives to increase pedestrian and cycling in those areas, but also due to the fact that for the most part the Kildare to Dublin buses utilise the regional road network rather than the motorway.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 42 of 75
In relation to the junction capacity Mr Desmond deals with this issue in Section 6.2.1 concluding that the relevant junctions have been properly assessed and will operate within capacity in 2030.
In relation to the impact on public transport Mr Desmond deals with this issue in Section 6.3.0. He notes the stated potential for improved public transport arising from the scheme, but also refers to the delays in implementation of any measures to date and the particularly high rate of commuting to work by car (75%). However he also states that following on from the scheme commuting by private car may become more attractive relative to rail and bus services and he notes the lack of cross-modal impacts assessment. I return to this matter in consideration of the interim scenario and the end of this report.
In relation to the impacts on cyclists and pedestrians it is noteworthy that the scheme incorporates an amenity cycle track and footway on the Sallins town side of the bypass and makes provision for future connection to future cycle networks and pedestrian routes along the canal.
In relation to the overall traffic levels arising from the scheme I note Mr Desmond’s consideration in Section 6.7.0 of induced traffic, which has not been assessed by the scheme and in 6.8.0 of the development potential in Naas in particular, which in relation to its traffic generating capacity may be underestimated. While concluding that the proposed scheme would not in itself result in significant adverse impacts on traffic and the road environment and indeed gives rise to appreciable improvements in Sallins Main Street and Monread Road in Naas, Mr Desmond also notes that the differing development potentials have been factored into the traffic modelling and the applicant’s assessment of the environmental impacts. However he also notes, and I consider this point should be emphasised, the lands are zoned for development and in returning to this matter later he indicates that the density of development for the industrial part of the zones will be at lower levels than previously expected.
In conclusion I consider that it is demonstrated that the current scheme is dependent on the prior operation of the Naas to Newbridge scheme and that if permission is refused for the latter then permission for the former should also be withheld, with the possible exception of the Osberstown Interchange. However, that matter would have to be put to the applicant for consideration prior to decision.
I also consider that it is demonstrated by the applicant that the scheme through readjustment of traffic flows will have a positive effect on the local and regional road networks which is important in terms of the economic development of Sallins and Naas and to allow for future growth in the north-west quadrant in particular.
Compliance with development plan and other policies I consider that the Osberstown Interchange Sallins Bypass Scheme is supported by a range of policies at national, regional and local level. I refer to Section 2.0 of Mr
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 43 of 75
Desmond’s report which addresses in detail each of the policy provisions which he considers material and in general I concur with the assessment therein.
In relation to policies at a national level, I note in particular the provisions of the National Spatial Strategy and the fact that the development facilitates access to zoned lands within the primary development cluster from the national road network.
In relation to the NRA Policy Spatial Planning and National Roads I consider that the scheme in terms of the Osberstown Interchange in particular is consistent with the purpose of the national roads network namely to provide strategic transport links between main centres of population and employment and access to all regions. In this regard the proposed interchange is consistent with the NRA policy on the provision of additional interchanges.
This scheme clearly supports the Regional Planning Guidelines for the GTA which acknowledge the importance of the road network in terms of transport management for movement of people, buses and goods. In addition I consider that the applicant’s points relating to freeing up of congested local or regional roads and the facilitation of improved bus services is material.
In relation to the NTA draft transport strategy for the GDA I note the support of that authority for the project and I consider that the NTA strategy and in particular objectives Road 1 and Road 5 are not of particular relevance to this scheme. In terms of cumulative consideration with the Naas to Newbridge Bypass Upgrade, I have addressed that policy in particular under that report.
In relation to Smarter Travel I note Mr. Desmond’s assessment in 2.7.0 and in particular his comments relating to the lack of progress on the provision of bus priority routes in Naas or the provision of the PTI in Sallins. There is evidence of some activity by the Council in relation to matters pertinent for the purposes of sustainable travel including the current consultation regarding above a town centre bus hub (Part 8 scheme ) for Naas and Sallins and the proposals to undertake environmental improvements in Sallins. I also note Mr Kenny’s comment at the hearing that in the short term access to the train station will be facilitated. Thus while I concur with Mr Desmond’s overall point in relation to the lack of selection of a site for the PTI, I consider that having regard to the nature of this scheme and the provision for pedestrians and cyclists, the scheme cannot be deemed to be contrary to smarter travel and in many respects falls comfortably within that policy.
The Kildare County Development Plan has specific objectives relating to the Osberstown Interchange and to the improvement in realignment of regional roads including the R407 Kilcock to Naas Ring Road. The scheme conforms with these objectives.
Similarly the Naas Town Development Plan contains specific objectives to develop the proposed Sallins Bypass and to assess the possibility of a link road from the
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 44 of 75 bypass to the Naas Road Network. This specific objective relating to additional motorway interchange is outlined in RPO 6. There are also a range of objectives relating to the provision Park & Ride, Quality Bus Network and bus priority routes.
The Sallins Local Area Plan contains a specific objective TR3(v) for the construction of a new road from the main street to the bypass. TR3(iv) refers to the construction of a new road from Clane Road to the Naas Road which is the objective which supports the Sallins Bypass.
In conclusion I consider that the scheme is supported at national, regional and local levels.
Interim Scenario It is a constant theme in Mr Desmond’s report that the Council has made little or no progress in relation to a number of the sustainable transport objectives which are outlined in detail in the plan. I consider that there is evidence that this situation is about to change and in particular I note the following:
• There is a current proposal under public consultation at present and subject of an application in relation to EIA screening for environmental improvements at Sallins Main Street.
• There is an on-going consultation recently announced for the provision of a bus hub in the centre of Naas Town.
• The development of the Western Distributor Road in Naas does include footpaths/cycle routes.
• The Council has expressed a commitment that Naas become a model town for sustainable transport objectives.
• The Sallins car park has recently been extended to the north presumably by or in conjunction with Iarnrod Eireann.
• The good level of regional bus services which operates from the Naas- Newbridge area was outlined by Ms McCarthy.
Notwithstanding the above, it is clear that progress on the PTI in particular is non- existent. In addition it is also the situation that 75% of Naas residents commute by car to work which is a high level in the context of the smarter travel objectives.
It was submitted by An Taisce that this is not an integrated sustainable scheme and that along with the Naas – Newbridge Upgrade it should be refused permission pending a more sophisticated approach to the matter of integrated transport in the region. I have outlined above a number of reasons why I consider that there is an actual need for the scheme. I also consider that it is reasonable to expect that better
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 45 of 75 access to the train station and the proposed environmental improvements and bus hub will benefit sustainable transport modes in the town and beyond.
However, two points are noteworthy in my opinion. First the proposed park & ride possibly with a relocated train station and the ultimate development of a public transport interchange in Sallins is neither impeded or promoted by the current scheme. Ms. McCarthy made it clear that if necessary, additional access to any identified site from the bypass could easily be put in place. I note Mr Desmond’s comments in relation to the only appropriate site being outside the Sallins LAP lands, but I am unconvinced that this point is demonstrated. Secondly, a change in modal shift will require a suite of interventions and I do consider that the proposed bypass and its benefits to the local road network, to cycling and pedestrian facilities and to access to the train station are positive in this respect.
I agree with An Taisce that this scheme is not as sophisticated as it could be, but I also consider that withholding of consent for that reason would not be appropriate. In concluding that the scheme should be permitted as it forms the basis for economic growth and for the promotion of sustainable development, I am mindful amongst other things of my recommendation in the Naas-Newbridge Bypass Upgrade Report to require monitoring and if necessary implementation of demand management measures along the M7.
Furthermore, in considering the current application and the interim scenario (namely the prior construction of Osberstown Interchange) I agree with Mr Desmond that this approach should not be accepted. 6.9.0 of his report refers concludes with a recommendation that the two pieces of infrastructure be constructed and commissioned as a single project in order to ensure the positive environmental impacts envisaged by the scheme including facilitation of public and alternative transport modes are retained and/or can be facilitated. I agree with this recommendation, which I refer to the Board for consideration.
I note however that the Board has the information available to it to consider the Osberstown Interchange on its own as the EIS fully considers all of the implications of the Osberstown Interchange alone. I note that the Board in its direction under the previous Osberstown Interchange Scheme, commented that the two pieces of infrastructure might be separately constructed, but in the interim it is my opinion that the planning policy context has change quite significantly and I would not therefore recommend that approach at this time. In the interim scheme (Osberstown Interchange only) there would be a higher increase in traffic on the western distributer road, compounding existing congestion there and the benefits to public transport, alternative transport modes and in terms of commuting in Sallins would be greatly undermined.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 46 of 75
Detailed Design I refer below under the EIA section of this report to the aesthetics of the proposed bridges. In this section I consider the following:
• Detail design of the interchange and bypass.
• Design of Sallins link road and integration with future development.
• Detail of connection with western distributor road.
I agree with Mr Desmond that it is reasonable for the Board to assume that the interchange design and design of the dual and single carriageway elements of the Sallins bypass will be compliant with relevant DMRB standards. Observers have not raised any particular issues on this matter and this is not something which the Board would always consider in great detail. I note Mr Desmond’s comments in relation to the new DMRB standards adopted in April 2014 and the material change in the cross section of the near side verge, which he considers can be accommodated within the boundary of the scheme. I do not recommend any alterations to the scheme in relation to the interchange or bypass design.
In relation to the Sallins link road I note Mr Desmond’s concerns relating to the 7- metre width and to the zoning and the request of the County Council that such a standard apply. I note that this would not be acceptable under DMURS in particular within the town centre zoned land at Clane Road. This section is addressed in 5.3.3 of Mr Desmond’s report which notes that it would be appropriate to provide for a gateway design feature such as use of different surfaces or colours in this area which is almost completely undeveloped. He also comments in 5.3.4 that the design approach needs to reflect different traffic priorities in the area. The recommendation regarding the reduced width of the street from 6.5 metres to 7 metres and other details set out in 5.3.5 appear to me to be reasonable. However I also note that this matter should be plan-led and should be designed by a multi-disciplinary team and would not therefore be appropriate to be addressed by prescriptive conditions. The condition set out in the recommendation below has regard to this requirement.
In relation to the integration of zoned lands with the elevated Sallins link road, this matter is of particular concern on the western part of the link road where at one point the road will be elevated 12 metres above current ground level. The road is designed to transition to about 2-3 metres above ground level at the crossing of the ‘dead canal’ and to about ground level close to the junction with Millbank Estate.
In relation to the fundamental point and whether it is possible to require (by condition or by redesign) the development of a shallower profile for the Sallins link road, I agree with Mr Desmond’s conclusion that this matter should not be further pursued. During discussion at the oral hearing, Ms. McCarthy noted the need to maintain hydraulic continuity for ecological reasons, particularly and that for this reason the
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 47 of 75 bridging of the ‘dead canal’ at the level shown (about 3 metres above existing ground level) was the minimum deemed acceptable from an ecological point of view. Having regard to the ecological value of the canal including as a conduit for otter passage and for other reasons, I conclude that the applicants’ design constitutes the best balance between the various requirements of the scheme. I therefore do not consider that the road profile should have a more steep transition from the 12 metres above ground level at the roundabout at the bypass. I note that the levels within the town centre and other sensitive zonings provide for possibility of development assimilating with the new road. I also note Mr Desmond’s comments in relation to the lesser requirements for connectivity at the area zoned for office/light industry and warehousing which is the area abutting the most elevated parts of the scheme. Mr Desmond’s recommendation regarding the planting of trees which was discussed at the hearing is incorporated in a condition in the recommendation below.
In relation to the connection of the bypass and the existing western distributor road in Naas I note that this area is reasonably described as having a low place context value and for this reason there is less need to provide for connectivity. Nevertheless the Board may wish to consider minor amendments to the design of this connection including large street tree planting along the proposed distributer road and the suggestion to replace the existing roundabout junction with a signalised junction of a design suitable to accommodate pedestrian and cycle traffic. I consider that these suggestions have considerable merit in the context of DMURS and in the context of the overall scheme which proposes promotion of pedestrian and cycling generally in the area.
I note Mr Desmond’s recommendation that it would be appropriate that the applicant identifies suitable locations for access roads onto the link and suitable locations for frontage direct access development. These matters will require detailed consideration at an appropriate time and are not therefore addressed in the conditions below.
Modelling and Junction Analysis In relation to the modelling undertaken I note the comments made in Section 7.1.0 of the Mr Desmond’s report relating to the selected type of model and his arguments that a variable demand model would have been more appropriately used. However he also states that the induced traffic issue is one which is primarily is of concern in relation to the proposed concurrent application for the upgrading of Naas-Newbridge bypass and not in respect of the current scheme.
In relation to the modelling of development growth the applicant’s future growth study is stated to demonstrate potential for residential development growth which is far in excess of that taken into account in the applicant’s LAM. Mr Desmond also notes that he would expect that the level of commercial development assumed in the applicant’s exercise is highly unlikely to be approached and Mr Kennedy at the
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 48 of 75 hearing noted that the density of development would be far less than was originally envisaged under the Naas Northwest Quadrant Masterplan due to the changed economic circumstances. Equally I suggest there may be a drive for lower density housing and it is not clear how the planning authority will respond to that.
In relation to the veracity of the modelling undertaken I also note the comments in Section 7.3.3 of Mr Desmond’s report regarding the selected sites for the purposes of TRICS. I also note Mr Shield’s comments which are summarised in Section 7.3.4 of Mr Desmond’s report regarding the use of the TRICS which was purely to determine the proportion of in and out trips within the sub-zone.
In relation to junction analysis, Mr Desmond’s comments on this matter are sufficient in my opinion. There is no indication that local and regional road junctions will be adversely affected and indeed the contrary is true for the most part. I do not consider that this is material to the Board’s decision in this case in particular.
Other issues I note the recommendation set out by Mr Desmond in relation to the restriction on construction traffic (condition 3 of his recommendation refers). I do not recommend this option to the Board. There is and will remain considerable uncertainty about the source of material and in this context the condition might be deemed to be overly restrictive. I have not therefore included that condition in the draft order below.
I also note the considerable level of support for the scheme and the relatively low level of objections which have been received in relation to it.
Conclusion The scheme provides for better regional connectivity, benefits human beings and the environment of Sallins in particular and is supported by development plan policy. The relief of congestion is a significant issue.
The interchange benefits economic development in particular. However, the benefits of the interchange are reinforced and optimised by the construction of the Sallins Bypass, which would allow for development of the Naas north-west quadrant in a more sustainable manner. The interim scheme should not be permitted in my opinion.
Environmental Impact Assessment In the environmental effects of the scheme I refer the Board to consideration of Traffic and Transport above. I consider is reasonably demonstrated that the development benefits the environment through the relief of congestion in town centres and on local road and thus makes provision for better access to and operation of public and other sustainable modes of travel. In the absence of prior
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 49 of 75 construction of the Naas to Newbridge Bypass Scheme the development would have adverse consequences for the operation of the M7.
In the foregoing I consider the environmental impact of the scheme under the following heading:
- Landscape and Visual Impacts and Cultural Heritage
- Ecology
- Noise and Vibrations
- Air quality and Climate
- Human Beings
- Soils and geology
- Agronomy and material assets
- Waste
- Cumulative Impacts
- Adequacy of EIS.
Landscape and Visual Impacts and Cultural Heritage I consider that the applicant’s submissions especially as supplemented by information presented to the hearing provide sufficient information on this topic. Despite its short length this scheme requires careful consideration in terms of its landscape and visual impacts as it involves crossing three watercourses and traversing through the demesne landscape of a protected structure and close to rural dwellinghouses.
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
The context is rich in cultural heritage. The EIS notes the position of Naas along one of the five great roadways traversing the country from the Hill of Tara. In the medieval period the Dublin to Naas road was a turnpike road. The estates of Palmerstown House, Osberstown House and Hill House attest to the architectural legacy. The Grand Canal and the associated Leinster Aqueduct and the railway line are other features of interest which retain a strong presence in the landscape. There is also a section of ‘dead canal’ which is also of ecological importance. The existing context is noteworthy for a number of bronze age and ecclesiastical sites. In terms of the character of the area I consider that the infrastructural features and demesne landscapes are perhaps of most interest.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 50 of 75
The EIS identifies three sites of archaeological potential, 4 no. townland boundaries and 9 no. cultural heritage sites which may be impacted by the scheme. The foregoing summarises the impacts arising.
There will be no direct impacts on RMP sites. The main sites of archaeological potential identified are a depression (AAP1), a fording point on Liffey (AAP2) and a shallow watercourse (AAP3). Should AAP1 prove to be of archaeological significance it may be profoundly impacted as it lies within the footprint of the scheme. No direct negative impact is envisaged on AAP2 but the diversion of the small watercourse at AAP3 may be a profound or significant impact. Mitigation involving archaeological investigation and excavation or in situ preservation of remains discovered will be undertaken for AAP1 and AAP2, with similar measures proposed for AAP3.
Archaeological testing of a mill race and a section of the dead canal will be undertaken as both will be impacted by the scheme. The bypass will cut across the mill race to the front of Osberstown House and the dead canal will be under the Sallins Link road. A written and photographic record of a townland boundary to be impacted will be undertaken. Archaeological testing of other features of cultural heritage interest including a former road and a farmstead will be required, with possible further resolution.
The two designed demesne landscapes at Osberstown House and Osberstown Hill are further considered below.
Based on the mitigation the applicant’s conclusion is that there will be no residual negative impact on the archaeological and cultural heritage resource which I consider is a reasonable conclusion. That view is shared by the Department of Arts Heritage and Gaeltacht.
Bridge design and landscape and visual impacts at Liffey and Grand Canal
In terms of the aesthetics of the scheme I consider that the design of the river bridges and the canal bridge are to an acceptable standard and detail and have been sufficiently considered including following oral hearing submissions. The EIS noted that the structural form for the bridges was chosen considering span length, overall costs and construction methodology and that aesthetics is also an important factor in the choice of structural form.
At the Grand Canal a single span structure is proposed and its general arrangement is shown on Figure 4.7. This structure will be visible for a short distance and following modifications presented to the hearing is acceptable in terms of its visual impact. The bridge provides for a necessary high clearance to serve a landowner. The intention is to ensure that landscaping provides for the embankment and bridge to reconnect with the existing hedgerows. In addition, the canal bridge will be finished with limestone. I am satisfied that the bridge itself represents a form of
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 51 of 75 structure which would not be considered to be out of character or visually intrusive. However, there is an imposition on this sylvan canal setting where a number of objectors reside will arise from the raised road, the embankments, views to and noise of traffic and lighting.
The Liffey bridge at Ch.1+975 is a two span structure with natural channel flow through the southern span and the northern span accommodating an access track and providing for flooding. Figure 4.8 of the refers.
The Liffey bridge at Ch. 3+050 is a three span structure with natural channel flows through the centre and the northern and southern spans accommodating potential flood flows and access. Figure 4.9 of the refers.
I accept the applicant’s submission that there is localised significant impact to the Liffey landscape. Mr Kenny advised that the Liffey Valley Study in relation to Co. Kildare did not set out detailed objectives for this part of the Liffey. Objectors noted with regret the crossing of the river in two places but did not focus in general on this issue during the oral hearing. I consider that the inevitable landscape and visual impacts, which will arise have to be considered in the context of my conclusions above that there is no alternative suitable route and that the Bypass is required.
I do not consider that the landscape and visual impact arising due to the Liffey bridges and the large embankments are such as to warrant refusal of the scheme and I am of the view that design modifications would not achieve a more satisfactory solution. The bridge spans and the associated embankments are reasonably considered and the planting proposed as mitigation will benefit the medium term integration. Both bridges are to be introduced into the very attractive Liffey Valley landscape, presently characterised by tranquility and pastoral scenery. However, I consider that the topography of both valleys can accommodate the proposed bridges. The applicant acknowledges moderate residual impact on the Liffey corridor, which I consider is a reasonable conclusion. Landscape character will change markedly but will remain attractive.
I refer again to the canal below.
Architectural Heritage
The EIS notes the presence of structures of architectural merit in the general area but excludes them from consideration on the basis that they will not be impacted. Notably Hill House is excluded from further consideration, which I consider reasonable. The house is not a protected structure although the Garden is listed in the NIAH. The limited survey work which has accompanied the listing of gardens under the NIAH to date was subject of discussion at the hearing and I accept Mr Arnold’s exclusion of the property from detailed consideration in the EIS. The house is separated from the road scheme by a distance of 600m and by mature hedging which is unaffected by the scheme. The road is in cut at that section. Subject to
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 52 of 75 appropriate landscaping I consider that the development is acceptable in terms of the effect on Hill House.
I refer the Board also to a ruined watchtower which is within 60m of the proposed road. This is not presently widely visible or accessible to the public. It is a simple structure, is in poor condition and will not be directly impacted by the road. Other structures noted in Mr Arnold’s written evidence are of vernacular or industrial character and are not impacted directly. I therefore concur with the assessment that the focus of interest should be on the Leinster Aqueduct and especially on Osberstown House.
Osberstown House is a mid eighteenth century three storey over basement house. This is a protected structure and the gardens, but not the house, are listed on the NIAH. Over time the property has devolved into separate ownership and been divided by the construction of the canal, the M7 and even the railway has intruded into the north-east corner of the holding. I agree with the applicant’s assessment that the landscape cannot be considered as a designed landscape in the sense of its relationship with the house. The house was designed to be seen against the trees planted to the north and south of the house. That remains unchanged as a result of the scheme. In terms of the view to the house and the landscape impact therefore I consider that the development is acceptable.
Impacts on views from the house will be most significant. I did not gain access to the house or gardens but the photomontages clearly describe the changes. The M7 is stated to form the real and perceptual boundary to the setting of the house. I note also the modern structure at the end of the garden which separates the formal garden from views to the wider landscape. Notwithstanding the context I submit that without careful consideration of the design it would be difficult to reconcile NIAH garden listing with the imposition of the dual carriageway.
The Bypass by reason of its long linear nature and position will change the setting of the house and result in a moderate negative impact. Evidence of Mr Burns and Mr Arnold on Day 3 of the hearing refers. The assessment is that the road will be is visible from the house and from a number of points throughout the grounds. The mitigation proposed in the form of a false cutting berm effect rising to 2m over the highest level of roadway carriage will be effective in shielding views to vehicles and vehicle lighting. I note a minor discrepancy between the original proposal set out in the EIS and that presented at the hearing. The original idea of grassland planting and tree copses appears now to be replaced with a more dense planting of trees. Mr Burns clarification however is that the intention is that tree planting will largely be in the form of copses and he reiterated that the dominant view would remain of the M7 to the rear, which I accept.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 53 of 75
In addition to the above I note that no appreciable change in ambient noise levels is predicted at Osberstown House and that shielding of luminaries is also proposed in order to mitigate night time lighting effects.
In relation to the interchange this is not positioned within the direct line of view from the protected structure. I appears that the interchange was deemed by the Board under a previous decision to be broadly acceptable. I note in particular the report of the Inspector who considered that permission should be granted.
The NIAH listing does not confer any status on the gardens. In terms of planning policy I consider that policies to protect demesne landscape character, which are listed in the development plan are superceded by the specific and detailed policy related to the bypass and interchange. I consider that the development is acceptable in terms of impacts on Osberstown House.
Grand Canal and Leinster Aqueduct
The aqueduct dates to 1783 and carries the Grand Canal across the Liffey. Its interest lies in industrial, technical and archaeological value and for these reasons is stated to merit its protected structure status. The high level link road roundabout associated with the scheme is about 350m from the aqueduct. The embankment at this part of the road is up to 9m in height and it runs parallel to the canal. View 7 of the EIS refers.
The applicant’s submission is that views from the aqueduct will be moderately negatively impacted. Following landscaping the overall impact is described as being neutral. The same elements which contribute to impacts on the the aqueduct also affect the ambience and setting of the canal landscape as an amenity as from the towpath there will also be short views to the embankment. The physical structure of the road and the associate noise intrusion will detract from the amenity somewhat.
In relation to the residential dwellinghouses the above comment applies also to a limited extent. However views from the immediate vicinity of will be as shown in View 6, namely towards the bridge, which I have previously discussed. I note also the inclusion of a 1m high screen along the bridge parapet and near the bridge which shields vehicle lighting. The strong hedgerow to the north of the canal will minimise views to the road embankment.
In relation to the individual residential receptors I note the response of Mr Burns to each of the submissions. Mr Lloyd’s submission and the response and mitigation measures in particular is noted. I submit that no further measures can reasonably be proposed by the applicant and notwithstanding the change in character and the impacts arising I do not consider that refusal of permission is warranted.
In relation to other houses I consider that the Boran property at Osberstown Road is noteworthy and the applicant has acknowledged the impact on that residence. The
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 54 of 75 submission has been withdrawn following presentation of detailed photomontages which show the raised Osberstown Road to the front of their house and following the presentation of additional construction phase and operational stage commitments.
I am of the opinion that the impact on the Castlesize estate open space was not material apart from the impact on the adjacent residence. and I note the withdrawal of that objection following additional mitigation measures being submitted during the hearing.
Finally I refer the Board above to the discussion under Traffic and Transport of the design of the route particularly the high level of the Sallins Link Road and the requirements to ensure future landscape integration.
I conclude that the cultural heritage and landscape and visual impacts have been adequately addressed by the applicant and that the residual impacts are acceptable and do not warrant either withholding of consent or additional modifications.
Ecology Apart from the potential for impacts on European Sites, which is separately considered, the main ecological impacts arising from the scheme are related to the construction of the crossings at the Grand Canal pNHA including the ‘dead canal’ and the River Liffey. These risks are described as being of temporary nature and readily capable of mitigation. I would agree with that broad conclusion. The submission of DAHG recommends that prior to consent a detailed construction management plan needs to be detailed in the EIS. In particular it is noted that detailed measures for dealing with potential water pollution incidents is to be established. In response to this point Mr Murphy notes Ms McCarthy’s evidence regarding an Environmental Operating Plan which will contain a number of items including an Incident Response Plan and a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan. An outline EOP was presented as are details of the proposed water quality monitoring requirement which will apply. In the circumstances of this case I am satisfied that the level of detail provided is adequate.
In relation to all of the crossing points of the watercourses I note the issue of otter movement. The applicant has responded in 8.4 of the oral hearing submission on the position of the bridge foundations relative to the river bank and potential impacts on the riparian zone and otter habitat. I consider that it is demonstrated that the bridge foundations are at sufficient distance not to affect the riparian zone and otter habitat. A 3m strip along the riverbank will be fenced for the duration of construction. I accept Mr Murphy/s evidence that there would be no likely significant effects on the riparian zone and otter habitat at the Liffey. In relation to the dead canal I note that the crossing of the ‘dead canal’ by the Link Road involving a portal frame culvert is intended to facilitate otter movement, as well as movement of aquatic species.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 55 of 75
In relation to the potential risk of mortality through collisions the applicant states that due to the height and span of the structures at the watercourse crossings no impact on bats is anticipated. No evidence of badger setts was located but crossings will be installed in any event. I consider that there is nothing to indicate undue concern relating to mammal mortality arising from this scheme. The applicant in response to the submission of DAHG noted that the Bat Survey results were not included in the EIS as it was not considered necessary in order to assess the main environmental impacts. The survey was presented to the hearing and did not raise any issues or mitigation measures other than those presented in the EIS.
In response to the further comment of DAHG relating to Barn Owl survey the applicant undertook such a survey and did not locate any birds or nest sites near the scheme.
In the operational phase the risks of water quality impacts arising from road run-off and from pollution events are noted. These are mitigated through the design of the road drainage and attenuation as described elsewhere.
In relation to air emissions affecting the Grand Canal pNHA I consider that this has been adequately addressed by the applicant. An assessment of operational levels of
NO x undertaken was concluded to give rise to minimal impacts on the ecosystem.
In conclusion I consider that the potential ecological impacts arising have been adequately considered by the applicant and that appropriate mitigation measures have been designed. I consider that the Board can be satisfied that no significant residual effects are likely to result from the construction phase. I conclude also that the location of abutments and piers associated with the bridges adequately responds to the natural environmental and that ongoing ecological connectivity is maintained. The potential for operational phase impacts is mitigated through design of the drainage scheme.
Noise and Vibration I propose to consider the assessment undertaken of operational and construction noise and then to address the individual submissions.
Operational noise is assessed in the EIS using a 3D acoustic model based on the medium growth scenario for AADT, and taking into account the traffic speeds, composition, topographical data and alignment drawings. To ensure its veracity the model was calibrated against the 2012 AADT traffic flows for the road network and the measured L den values for the two 24 hour survey locations. Outcomes were also sensitivity tested for the high growth scenario.
The applicant assesses road traffic noise in accordance with the standard 2004 NRA
Noise Document and a design goal of 60dB L den is thus applicable. Baseline information presented relies on two unattended continuous monitoring surveys (at a
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 56 of 75 balcony at Osberstown House and in rear garden of a property at Castlesize Drive) and on attended noise surveys. Derived L den values were calculated to be in the range of 47 to 62 dB L den. Table 11.3 and Figure 11.1 of the EIS refers. I the Board to the influence the M7 traffic but also to the relatively high noise levels even at the canal cottages S01-d where L den values of 55 are indicated.
For the purpose of noise prediction 41 no. receiver locations are identified. Of these the 2015 L den standard is exceeded at 12 no. locations, 7 no. of which meet the full criteria for mitigation. Noise levels at a number of receptors is predicted to decline. When the 2030 Do Minimum and 2030 Do Something levels are compared, 8 no. locations satisfy the requirements for noise mitigation.
Standard mitigation options were presented by the applicant including use of a LNRS surface and the installation of 2m or 2.5m high barriers at identified locations. The applicant’s submissions indicate that for the opening and 2030 years noise levels exceeding 60dBL den are not experienced at any residential property following installation of mitigation as appropriate.
On the matter of construction noise impacts these are calculated in accordance with BS 5228 : Part 1 and the contractor will be obliged to construct the scheme in accordance with the limits set in Table 1.1. The submission is that there will be no requirement for rock removal via breaking or blasting methods. It was clarified during the hearing that the reference to exposed rock faces in the landscaping section is erroneous – bedrock will not be encountered. However, there will be requirements for night-time construction in order to ensure continued operation of the railway line .
Construction noise calculations are presented by the applicant for distances of 25 to 150m from the works (thus representing different phases of the construction ) and assuming that plant items are operating for 66% of the time and that no screening is in place. On this basis indicative construction noise calculations are presented for the site preparation and excavation, for cut and fill and for road works and structural works phases. The conclusion is that the construction daytime noise limit of
70dBL Aeq can typically be complied with for the scenarios assessed. However, at distances of between 25m and 50m from the works and assuming the plant items assessed, the construction noise criteria could be exceeded. The Environmental Operating Plan will address this and as an environmental commitment for the scheme 4m high acoustic screens are proposed.
In relation to construction traffic this is discussed having regard to the summary of expected traffic along the routes used (M7, WDR and R407 Clane Road). In comparison to the existing traffic the expected increases are minor and no more than a 1dB increased in noise levels occurs for construction of any section of the scheme.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 57 of 75
Vibration associated with the operation phase would not be anticipated to be an issue subject to maintenance of the road surface. The construction phase sources of vibration would typically include excavation works, piling and lorry movements of which piling is potentially the most significant. Through careful selection of the method of piling and control of same there is no likelihood of structural or even cosmetic damage.
In relation to the observers I note in particular the outstanding concerns expressed by Mr Lloyd but in particular on behalf of Mr Traynor. In the case of Mr Lloyd’s house this was assessed under the EIS (R19). I have already identified that the Bypass will result in considerable change in the landscape character of this area, by reason of the physical structure and the introduction of traffic over the canal. This will be mitigated in time as planting matures. As the predicted noise levels are under the threshold for noise mitigation I consider that no further modifications to the scheme are appropriate.
I note that Mr Traynor’s concerns relate to operational noise as well as to the construction phase. Night-time construction phase noise was indicated in other observations from residents in the general area of the railway bridge. I am satisfied that there is no option but to undertake this work while at the same time facilitating the operation of the mainline railway.
Mr Traynor’s case requires further comment. It was well presented on his behalf by Mr Dore. Mr Traynor is stated to operate a very successful greyhound operation at this location. I consider that the case was well made in relation to the possible impact of night-time noise on greyhounds as well as to the screening effect of the existing railway embankment in terms of blocking noise from the M7 reaching the kennels. However, it was also noted by Ms Harmon that noise from trains running up to midnight would be more disruptive than steady state road traffic to which people and animals tend to become accustomed. On balance I consider that the Ms Harmon’s evidence should be accepted by the Board.
Mr Traynor’s requirements include re-location of his greyhounds during the construction phase and permanent noise barrier and I refer that to the Board for consideration. I am not convinced that these are reasonable or feasible measures in view of the fact that the noise threshold for mitigation is not exceeded and I do not recommend them to the Board.
Conclusions In conclusion I accept the applicant’s submissions in relation to the calculated residual impacts for the receivers which this shows that after mitigation none exceed the relevant thresholds. With the application of proposed noise limits, restricted hours of operation and implementation of appropriate noise control measures construction phase noise will be kept with acceptable standards. I consider that the Board can be satisfied that the scheme would meet the normal
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 58 of 75 criteria for such development and I am of the opinion that all reasonable mitigation is incorporated in applicant’s submissions.
Air Quality and Climate I refer the Board to Chapters 12 and 13 of the EIS and to Ms Whyte’s evidence to the hearing. The applicant’s position is that following assessment along the standard methodology the operational air limits are not exceeded for the opening year and the design year. I consider that this has been reasonably assessed and that the conclusions are demonstrated. In terms of air and climate issues of significance I consider that the construction phase, the ecosystem impacts and the climate impact are relevant for further comment.
The construction phase dust is acknowledged by the applicant to give rise to potential for significant soiling within 100m of the works. The focus of control procedures will be on the reduction of generation of the airborne material in the first place through a range of measures set out in section 12.5 of the EIS including damping of roads, control of stockpiling and vehicle speeds, careful location of plant and other measures. All of the requirements will be incorporated in the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan and the effectiveness of the measures shall be ensured through monitoring at sensitive locations which will include houses and the Canal. I am satisfied that the applicant has addressed this matter sufficiently at this time and that the Board can be satisfied that the development should not give rise to unacceptable consequences for residents.
In relation to the ecosystem impacts these are of relevance in this case insofar as an ecological assessment was required to be undertaken due to predicted 3 concentrations of NO x being increased by more than 2µg/m . The air quality 3 modelling undertaken shows a maximum increase in NOx in the order of 6µg/m . The ecological assessment undertaken refers to this not causing damage in the context of the particular ecological sensitivities of the pNHA.
The impact on Climate is summarised in section 10.1 and 10.2 of Ms Whyte’s presentation and she also responds in particular to the submissions of An Taisce. The applicant’s expert acknowledges that the scheme based on the DMRB assessment generates additional CO 2 equivalent to 0.14% of Ireland’s 2020 obligations. She also notes that the modelling over-estimates the increase as it fails to account for existing congestion and emissions occurring. I consider that these are reasonable points. However this is a complex matter. I refer the Board to my discussion earlier on the provision of an integrated traffic management scheme for Naas Sallins and to my conclusion that this scheme constitutes an essential part of that objective. If the Board accepts that conclusion and concludes that it benefits sustainable modes of transport, then I also consider that the climate impacts arising do not warrant a refusal of permission.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 59 of 75
In relation to air and climate assessment I consider that the applicant has presented a thorough assessment and I conclude that the development is acceptable in this regard.
Human Beings In terms of the impacts on Human Beings this is considered under Chapter 7 of the EIS under the headings of Journey Characteristics, Community Severance, Amenity and Economic Impacts.
I support the overall conclusion that the development will have a very significant net positive residual impact when considered against these criteria. I note in particular the relief to the traffic and environmental conditions at the heart of Sallins, positive impacts in terms of journey times and in overall terms benefits to community severance.
The major positive economic benefit is in my opinion a key justification for this scheme. No only will the north-west quadrant of Naas benefit from the better road access, which is appropriate to serve the commercial demands of future development, the scheme also provides for a good connection for the first time to the railway station. In the longer term development of further employment in Naas provides the basis for a sustainable community and a reduction in the high levels of commuting to work.
In addition to the above I consider that the provision of better pedestrian and cycle facilities should encourage a modal shift given the short distances involved in trips in and around Naas and Sallins. Support for the scheme from public transport providers is noteworthy.
The applicant notes the potential negative impacts on businesses in Sallins. Equally I suggest that the town’s traders might respond favourably to the less congested centre and I note the planned future environmental scheme for the town centre.
Construction phase impacts on human beings are outlined in the EIS section 7.4.1 and include increases in HGV construction traffic by for example 18% on the Clane Road, a slight to moderate negative impact due to the presence of schools and other community facilities. This would occur for up to 18 months. Another notable impact is the need to use Canal Road to access the area between the railway and the canal for the purpose of constructing the temporary supports for the railway crossing. A 4 month diversion will be in place on Osberstown Road. The Western Distributor Road will see large increase in HGV traffic for the construction phase but due to the nature of the road and absence of community or residential development the impact is imperceptible.
Apart from the construction phase traffic impacts I concur with the applicant’s conclusion that impacts on human beings are positive.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 60 of 75
Soils and Geology The impact on soils and geology was not raised as a particular concern by observers apart from in terms of local issues near the railway line, which I refer to below. The analysis presented by the applicant is that there would be a slight impact on soils and geology and the EIS sets out fairly standard design solutions to address any impacts arising. For completeness in the context of Environmental Impact Assessment I summarise the applicant’s submissions and respond with some comment.
The EIS indicates that the development will required importation of 703,000 m 3 of material and export of 36,000m 3 it is estimated. The net deficit of material from the scheme is described as a slight impact on soils and subsoils along the route. In the operational phase an overall neutral impact was assessed.
In relation to solid geology the applicant notes that bedrock is unlikely to be encountered and that the impacts on hydrogeology are not significant. The radius of influence of the temporary dewatering which will be required has been calculated and shown to be very limited. Contrary to previous evidence in the EIS the applicant clarified at the hearing that the Significance of Impact on groundwater resources is Imperceptible. Similarly water quality impacts were overstated in the EIS and should be described as Imperceptible after mitigation.
Potential impacts on domestic wells if affected will be assessed and, if necessary replaced or re-bored. There is one well within 100m of the scheme which could be impacted. The potential for others being present cannot be eliminated.
In relation to mitigation any seepage from excavations in glacial till will be mitigated by herringbone drains or similar system to maintain slope stability during construction of the railway crossing. In order to minimise importation of materials their re-use within the site will be undertaken as much as possible. Waste shall be disposed of off-site to licenced facilities. In conclusion it is considered that no specific operational measures are required for the soils and subsoils.
In relation to hydrogeology groundwater level monitoring will be put in place 12months before construction and maintained until 24 months after construction. Where necessary a dewatering plan will be developed to indicate the optimal time and rate of abstraction. Other measures to protect water quality are set out in 6.7 of the oral hearing submission . These relate to the construction phase including measures for stockpiles and for control of run-off and to the operational phase, which is a reference primarily to the new attenuation ponds and swales included as part of the scheme.
In relation to the source of building materials the applicant indicated two quarries in the vicinity of Kilmeague which were both deemed to have suitable building materials
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 61 of 75 and to be compliant in terms of planning consent. I consider that this matter has been adequately considered.
Based on the above I consider that the Board can be satisfied that impacts on soils and geology including hydrogeology are not likely to give rise to significant adverse effects. I consider that the various topics have been appropriately considered by the applicant and that the applicant has demonstrated adequate knowledge of the baseline conditions and the consequences of developing the scheme. Mitigation is targeted to address the impacts arising. I do not consider that any further conditions are warranted.
Water Design and impact of scheme The scheme gives rise to the potential for significant effects in terms of water quality impacts at the various crossing points. I consider that construction phase water quality impacts are readily capable of being addressed through best practice in the construction phase.
On a point of detail I refer to the Sallins Link Road culvert, which will comprise precast portal frame units thereby allowing for maintenance of a natural channel bed and minimising working time. I am satisfied that the design of the culvert minimises potential adverse impacts on surface water quality and I note that the IFI has indicated satisfaction with the overall proposal in terms of water quality and fisheries impacts. I have referred earlier to the positioning of piers in the Liffey.
In the operational phase use of interceptor ditches will prevent drainage from road curtilage running onto adjacent lands and vice versa. In places soakways / infiltration drains may be used and in other area combined filter drains will be used. Where groundwater vulnerability is high e.g. in cuttings in gravels in the vicinity of aquifers a closed drainage system will be adopted to eliminate potential pollution hazard.
Throughout the scheme attenuation is proposed in order to prevent increases to peak flow rate of water which might compound flooding any localised flooding. Use of attenuation ponds is considered best practice and ponds will cater for a 1 in 30 year storm event and discharge will be at the greenfield runoff rate. Different standards will apply in areas liable to flooding e.g. the Liffey floodplain will be designed for a 1 in 100 year return period and the pond will be bunded to 500mm above the 1 in 100 year level. Five outfalls with attenuation ponds are proposed. Minimum emergency spill containment of 50m 3 will be provided at all outfall interchanges.
In conclusion in relation to the design and potential impacts of the scheme I consider that the applicant has presented sufficient information and that the Board can conclude that significant adverse impacts are unlikely.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 62 of 75
In response to the detailed submission of observers I note that concern was raised about potential ground water contamination. Mr Lloyd in particular expressed considerable concern relating to 1.5 tonnes of domestic waste which is in situ in a drain in the ownership of Mr Traynor. This is a pre-existing situation going back to 2009, which clearly has nothing to do with the scheme in terms of its origins. In fact a number of the issues raised by Mr Lloyd are unrelated to the scheme and cannot reasonably be addressed as such, as I advised during the hearing.
However, in relation to drainage there is a possible indirect effect of the scheme as overland flow presently collects in the blocked ditch. The scheme proposes an interceptor ditch to collect that flow thus ensuring there will not be flooding of the adjacent properties by the embankment or otherwise. I note that the location of the embankment is stated to be a collection point for water and that the concern relating to potential displacement of that water and the effect on local properties is not unreasonable. However, this is a simple engineering issue which in my opinion has been adequately considered in the design of the scheme including the new surface water channels and the attenuation pond. In the operational phase the flow will run slowly all the way to the Liffey, which should alleviate existing problems as water will be diverted away from the drain which is blocked with domestic waste. The resolution of the waste in situ is a matter for other agencies.
On a further issue Mr Lloyd raised concerns regarding the duration of the project and the potential for impacts on water quality in his well. By easement Mr Lloyd stated that he is obliged to supply water to the adjoining house while Mr Garvey has his own well. Regarding this matter in general he identified an opportunity to connect the three septic tanks to the sewer, noting that there is a main sewer at Mr Traynor’s. However Ms McCarthy’s evidence clearly demonstrated that the connection to the pressurised sewers is not an option and that accommodation is being made for future sewers to be placed through the embankment, should that situation arise. Again, I consider that any deficiencies with the existing water supply or wastewater disposal, provided it is not exacerbated by the scheme, which I conclude it is not, is a matter beyond the scope of the scheme.
Regarding the provision of piped water (or other services 2) to the canal cottages Ms McCarthy noted that services will not be provided as part of the scheme.
I conclude that the development subject to mitigation, which I consider is adequately addressed, does not give rise to significant adverse impacts on water quality or quantity.
2 Once the road has planning the ESB and Bord Gais may decide to use the corridor and to date none have expressed an interest. Ducts are provided along the line of the route and if they are needed they are in situ.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 63 of 75
Agronomy and Material Assets The scheme directly affects eleven farms which includes one dairy and one stud enterprise. In overall terms the applicant indicates that there will be a moderately negative impact on agriculture due to land take, land separation and disturbance. A total of 35.9 hectares is to be acquired, of which 8.7 is zoned for uses other than agriculture. Five of the eleven farms will suffer fragmentation and seven of the eleven farms are described as being significantly or profoundly impacted prior to mitigation. After mitigation one is deemed to be significantly impacted. For detailed information on this issue I refer the Board to Appendix 6.1 of Volume 4 of the EIS which identifies the individual residual farm impacts and to Figure 4.12 which references the location of the individual holdings.
Of the farms which are deemed to be subject to profound mitigation the three listed (102, 103 and 104) incur loss of access and permanent disturbance, angulation and other effects. Short-term loss of shelter and construction phase impacts including temporary loss of services are likely. In response to these impacts standard mitigation measures are proposed and these include provision of a farm underpass at farm 102 and 103 and at farm 104 maintenance of access along the towpath.
It is noteworthy that with the exception of two landowners all have withdrawn objectives and I am satisfied that reasonable accommodation has been made to address the impacts on agronomy. The two holdings in relation to which there are active objections at the time of writing are Mr Traynor’s holding (marked in white on Figure 4.12 and located to the east of Plot 117) and Mr McCarthy’s holding at Clane Road , plot 118.
I note Mr McCarthy’s request for access to his lands from the roundabout. The removal of his gate and its replacement with a similar gate to the south of the proposed roundabout is appropriate in my opinion. I concur with Ms McCarthy’s position outlined to the hearing that to install a fourth arm onto this roundabout without a plan for the overall lands would not be appropriate. That additional arm is not warranted for the operation of the existing enterprise. Ms McCarthy commented that access for commercial purposes might be best taken from another location. Mr McCarthy’s intention to lodge an application for development of the subject lands is noted. In relation to the scheme before the Board I note that provision has been made in the design of the roundabout to take a fourth arm if and when that is appropriate and that is sufficient in my opinion. I reject Mr McCarthy’s request for direct access to the roundabout as part of this scheme.
In relation to Mr Traynor’s greyhound enterprise there are a number of issues of concern including noise disruption to animals, which I have previously referenced. The scheme is also stated to interfere with potential development of lands as it will result in a larger building line setback. The building line applying for a regional road (the new Bypass) was indicated by Mr McGrath to be 31m and would not involve a
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 64 of 75 greater setback of buildings than currently applies. On the matter of the location of the attenuation pond and potential insurance liability or other impacts arising, there is no evidence to support this claim.
The case was made by Mr Dore that Mr Traynor’s material assets were inadequately considered in the EIS. In any case there is now ample evidence before the Board. On balance I agree with the applicant’s position that there would be the same material asset after the scheme. I consider that there is very limited evidence for potential for indirect impacts relating to noise, there will be no impact on any development potential that may exist and I do not consider that the attenuation pond which is to be positioned at the opposite side of the road would adversely affect the use or amenity of the lands.
In conclusion I consider that the impacts on agriculture and material assets do not warrant revision to the scheme and are acceptable subject to the proposed mitigation which for most owners includes financial recompense.
I separately address under the Motorway Order / Compulsory Purchase Order the need to acquire lands and rights.
Waste In relation to waste I consider that the applicant’s submissions sufficiently address the general procedures required and the likely impacts arising. An issue which arose at the hearing in relation to the demolition of the overbridge at the location of the proposed interchange was adequately resolved in my view. In response to Mr Sweetman Ms McCarthy stated that they know the structure is composed of very light beams, which can be easily removed. Mr Sweetman noted that it has not been assessed in terms of noise or methodology and further the EOP states that it will be assessed in terms of noise etc. Mr McGrath indicated that when the detailed methodology is presented by the contractor it will be again assessed. I consider that the applicant indicated through knowledge of the structure that this matter had been already assessed adequately. The applicant had also considered the matter of disposal of tarmac, though it was not determined yet whether or not it would be considered to be toxic.
I do not consider that there are any issues related to waste which require further consideration by the Board and I am satisfied that the impacts arising can be adequately mitigated as proposed.
Cumulative impacts The significant cumulative impact arising in relation to the concurrent application for the Naas to Newbridge Bypass Upgrade relates to traffic. As the Do Minimum for this application assumes that the Naas to Newbridge scheme is in place the cumulative impact is assessed. Similarly the assessment of cumulative impacts on
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 65 of 75 related topics such as noise and air quality impacts is undertaken through incorporation of the other scheme data into the baseline. A worst case scenario assumed for the construction phase is based on concurrent construction of the two schemes, including in terms of assessment of construction phase traffic, air and noise. Each individual expert’s presentation to the hearing addressed the issues of cumulative impacts to the extent that they were relevant. The two teams are also stated to have worked together and I consider that this is evident from the information presented and I note also the attendance at both hearings of key witnesses from the two teams of consultants.
Chapter 20 of the EIS and sets out other aspects of the consideration of cumulative impacts as well as interactions. It notes the potential for cumulative impacts in terms of the traffic modelling and hydrology. The modelling for traffic has assumed build out of the north-west quadrant, while Mr Desmond has indicated some concerns relating to the assessment which I have previously discussed. Hydrology and discharge to Osberstown Pond by both developments has been addressed.
I conclude that the matter of cumulative impacts has been properly assessed by the applicant, that the cumulative effects which might give rise to concern relate to concurrent construction of the two road schemes (noise, traffic, air and water quality impacts in particular). The potential impacts are sufficiently referenced and the applicant has demonstrated that no significant adverse effects arise are likely to arise after mitigation.
Adequacy of the EIS The particular quality of the EIS was complimented in general by observers. The applicant also responded proactively to issues raised by submission of supplementary information at the hearing, notably in relation to visual impacts and hydrogeology.
Motorway Scheme and Compulsory Purchase Order Kildare County Council has made orders with respect to the making of a motorway scheme and the compulsory acquisition of lands.
The proposed road development has been demonstrated above to be in accordance with the adopted policy provisions for the area and the new interchange, the main route of the Bypass, the associated link roads and other works are concluded to be necessary works which are reasonable in the context of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. This section addresses whether or not the land take proposed is reasonably required in order to undertake the scheme and in the foregoing I address in particular the comments of observers whose lands are subject of the CPO, where such observations have not been withdrawn. I also offer general comment on the lands and rights being acquired under the motorway
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 66 of 75 scheme and compulsory purchase order in relation to the need for such rights and lands to be acquired.
The design of the proposed Osberstown Interchange and the Sallins Bypass follows the standard requirements set by the NRA. I am satisfied that the step-down from the motorway to a dual carriageway is appropriate and that the single carriageway elements are designed to accommodate the future traffic levels arising, including from the development of lands within Sallins.
In relation to the outstanding objection to the compulsory purchase order, that of Mr Seamus McCarthy relates not specifically to the acquisition of lands but to the arrangements for access, which I have previously considered in detail.
There are no remaining objections to the motorway scheme.
I have reservations only about one of the plots which is to be acquired in terms of the need for its acquisition and that is the property of Mrs Elizabeth Ward who has withdrawn her objection. This property was discussed at the hearing. The need for the acquisition according to Ms McCarthy relates to the injury to the amenity of that house through the removal of garden and to the serious issues in relation to the provision of proper sightlines in the future, if the house is retained. I am satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that the acquisition of the house is necessary. In relation to Mrs Ward’s request in her written observation regarding the future condition of the property and the timing of the purchase, these are not matters for the Board in my opinion.
I conclude that the Board can be satisfied that the lands outlined in red and coloured blue and grey are necessary for the scheme. I recommend that the scheme be approved. I consider that the land take is reasonable and proportional to the stated purpose to provide the road development. I am satisfied that the process and procedures undertaken by Kildare County Council have been fair and reasonable. I consider that the proposed acquisition of the lands would be in the public interest and the common good and would be consistent with the policies and objectives of the Kildare County Development Plan.
Appropraite assessment The applicant’s finding of ‘no significant effects’ was presented in a Habitats Directive Screening report submitted with the application. Below I consider the content of that report and other submissions by the applicant. I note the comments of DAHG and respond to this issue also.
The applicant at the outset in the hearing noted an error in the original description of the distance of the scheme to Pollardstown Fen SAC, which was clarified to be 11.4km. Mouds Bog SAC is over 7km from the scheme. Both of these European Sites are groundwater dependant habitats. Within a 10km radius also are
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 67 of 75
Ballynafagh Bog and Ballynafagh Lake and at a distance of 10km are Poulaphouca Reservoir SPA, Reed Bog SAC and Rye Water Valley SAC.
In relation to potential impacts arising during the construction phase the screening report presented refers to the potential for displacement and disturbance of fauna as a result of vegetation removal in the construction phase. However as noted in section 2.3.1 of the report none of these species which might potentially be affected are listed as qualifying interests for the European Sites in question and are thus not relevant for the purposes of Habitats Directive Assessment. I concur with this conclusion and consider that further consideration of this potential impact arising from the scheme is not warranted.
In relation to the impact on the hydrological or hydrogeological environment and potential consequences for Pollardstown Fen as noted by DAHG or other water dependent ecosystem, this matter was further addressed in the submissions to the hearing. The development does require some cuts. The evidence presented supported the applicant’s original submission that there would be no potential for alternation of groundwater hydrology other than at a very local level. The dewatering arising was described in evidence presented by Ms Fleming and Ms Buckley. Table 4 of the evidence shows a radius of influence of 93m at most. The applicant also noted the distance of the scheme from the Curragh Aquifer (2.4km). I consider that the conclusion that the scheme will have no effect on water levels or volumes in the Curragh Aquifer is demonstrated as is the conclusion that there would be no impact whatsoever on the hydrological regime in Pollardstown Fen or Mouds Bog.
The screening report addresses the possibility of deterioration in water quality affecting the downstream SAC. However, this is discounted on the basis that the SAC qualifying interests cannot be impacted as they are effectively upstream of any pollution incident that might occur. I consider that this is a reasonable conclusion.
In the operation phase the elevated NO x emissions are not deemed significant in terms of the potential for impact on habitats or species. I consider that this is a reasonable conclusion.
In overall terms I consider that the Board can be satisfied that the development would not give rise to significant effects on European Sites in the vicinity having regard to their conservation objectives. The submission of DAHG noted the requirement for certainty in relation to potential for dewatering of Pollardstown Fen which I consider is achieved.
Legal and related matters Mr Lloyd referred to issues relating to waste licences. He referred to the need for equity and injurious effects on those who are outside the CPO. Negative equity resulting should be measured and the absence of same this is a flawed process. During the hearing he referred to deals being made including the provision of an
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 68 of 75 underpass to a corporation, while a home owner seeking sewage and water is left almost landlocked in an almost famine cottage.
Mr McGrath in response to Mr Lloyd commented with respect to the statutory consent under the waste management acts, which will not be required. In relation to consent under the Arterial Drainage Act this will be applied for by means of a separate statutory process after decision. In relation to A82 of the PDR these deal with the list of prescribed bodies and that is its only significance. Compensation payable to persons affected by the CPO will be made. I agree with Mr McGrath that the issues raised by Mr Lloyd are in part not a matter for the hearing and I have considered some of his other concern in some detail.
I note the arguments set out in relation to project splitting. Having regard to the two EIS’s presented, and to the consideration in both of the interactions and cumulative impacts, project splitting does not arise.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION My conclusions below relate to the specific road development which is before the Board but are not unrelated to the concurrent application for the Naas to Newbridge Bypass Upgrade. I reiterate my view that the schemes need to be considered jointly.
I conclude that the additional interchange at Osberstown is necessary infrastructure in the context of the growth of the Naas and the development of linkages with other towns in region. Through the provision of direct motorway access to the zoned industrial lands in this general area the interchange complies with a range of planning policies. In particular the new interchange is mentioned specifically in the county development plan.
The OISB would be provide relief to Newhall Interchange but only in the short-term and its construction would not solve the capacity issues along the mainline, which are discussed in detail under HA0045.
The prior operation of the upgrade to the mainline is required if this OISB is to be permitted and in the interest of clarity this should be addressed by condition. This fact is a justification for the concurrent Naas to Newbridge Bypass Upgrade, which otherwise is required mainly to resolve a peak hour congestion problem arising from high levels of commuting to work by car as well as dealing with other capacity constraints.
Control of traffic through demand management and the recommended condition presented under HA0045 will protect the capacity of the current scheme also.
In the interim scenario, if the road development is constructed in two phases, there is a less urgent requirement for the Naas to Newbridge Upgrade Scheme.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 69 of 75
If the Board considers that demand management on the concurrent application cannot be addressed by condition and that the M7 widening is contrary to Smarter Travel, and should be refused for such reasons, then the option of construction of the interim scenario might be considered.
The Sallins Bypass will benefit the town centre as well as regional connectivity and will facilitate increased use of sustainable modes of transport in relation to which the Council is presently pursing some Part 8 schemes.
The justification for the overall scheme and the benefits arising are greatly undermined if the Bypass is delayed and I recommend that the entire road development be constructed in a single phase.
I recommend that permission be granted for the reasons and considerations and subject to the conditions below.
RECOMMENDATION – MOTORWAY SCHEME (09.MA0013)
I consider that the land take is reasonable and proportional to the stated purpose of the provision of a new interchange and bypass. I am satisfied that the process and procedures undertaken by Kildare County Council have been fair and reasonable and it has demonstrated the need for the lands and that all the lands being acquired are both necessary and suitable. I consider that the proposed acquisition of the lands would be in the public interest and the common good and would be consistent with the policies and objectives of the Kildare County Development Plan.
I therefore recommend the scheme be approved.
DECISION
APPROVE the motorway scheme for the reasons and considerations set out in Schedule 1 subject to the modifications set out in Schedule 2.
SCHEDULE 1
REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
Having considered the objections made to the motorway scheme, the report of the person who conducted the oral hearing into the objections, the purpose of the motorway scheme and also having regard to:
(a) the need to improve access to zoned lands in Naas and to improve connectivity between the local, regional and national road network
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 70 of 75
(b) the reduced congestion on the local and regional road network (c) the community need, public interest served and overall benefits, including benefits to the Primary Growth Centre and to public transport to be achieved from use of the acquired lands, and (d) the provisions of the Kildare County Development Plan and Sallins Local Area Plan and the policies and objectives stated therein, which specifically identify the proposed road development (e) the proportionate design response to the identified need, it is considered that, subject to the modifications to the scheme as set out in the Schedule below, the acquisition by the local authority of the lands in question, and the extinguishment of public and private rights of way, as set out in the motorway scheme and on the deposited maps, are necessary for the purpose stated, and that the objections cannot be sustained having regard to the said necessity.
SCHEDULE 2
The motorway scheme shall be modified as described in the proposed changes to the schedule submitted to An Bord Pleanala at the oral hearing on the 3rd day of June 2014.
Reason : To take account of updated information in respect of land ownership and other matters.
RECOMMENDATION – COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER (09.KA0031)
I consider that the land take is reasonable and proportional to the stated purpose of the provision of a new interchange and bypass. I am satisfied that the process and procedures undertaken by Kildare County Council have been fair and reasonable and it has demonstrated the need for the lands and that all the lands being acquired are both necessary and suitable. I consider that the proposed acquisition of the lands would be in the public interest and the common good and would be consistent with the policies and objectives of the Kildare County Development Plan.
I therefore recommend the compulsory purchase order be confirmed.
DECISION
CONFIRM the compulsory purchase order for the reasons and considerations set out in Schedule 1 subject to the modifications set out in Schedule 2.
SCHEDULE 1
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 71 of 75
REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
Having considered the objections made to the compulsory purchase order, the report of the person who conducted the oral hearing into the objections, the purpose of the compulsory purchase order and also having regard to:
(a) the need to improve access to zoned lands in Naas and to improve connectivity between the local, regional and national road network (b) the reduced congestion on the local and regional road network (c) the community need, public interest served and overall benefits, including benefits to the Primary Growth Centre and to public transport to be achieved from use of the acquired lands, and (d) the provisions of the Kildare County Development Plan and the Sallins Local Area Plan and the policies and objectives stated therein, which specifically identify the proposed road development (e) the proportionate design response to the identified need, it is considered that, subject to the modifications to the order as set out in the Schedule below, the acquisition by the local authority of the lands in question, and the extinguishment of public and private rights of way, as set out in the compulsory purchase order and on the deposited maps, are necessary for the purpose stated, and that the objections cannot be sustained having regard to the said necessity.
SCHEDULE 2
The compulsory purchase order shall be modified as described in the proposed changes to the schedule submitted to An Bord Pleanala at the oral hearing on the 3 rd day of June 2014.
Reason : To take account of updated information in respect of land ownership and other matters.
RECOMMENDATION PROPOSED ROAD DEVELOPMENT (09.HA0046)
I consider that the need for the proposed development has been adequately demonstrated and that the applicant has provided sufficient justification for the development proposed.
I consider that the scheme constitutes a reasonable approach to the improvement of the road hierarchy, the provision of a bypass for Sallins and the provision of better access to zoned lands in Naas.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 72 of 75
The EIS supplemented by the information provided at the oral hearing is sufficient to allow for a full environmental impact assessment of the predicted impacts subject to modification by the conditions below.
The Stage 1 screening for appropriate assessment was acceptable and a finding of ‘no significant effects’ can be supported.
I submit that the proposed development would reasonably accord with the national, regional and local planning policy, subject to the recommended conditions below.
The development subject to the identified mitigation and environmental commitments, would not have a significant impact on the environment.
I therefore recommend that the proposed development be approved for the reasons and considerations set out in Schedule 1 subject to conditions set out in Schedule 2.
SCHEDULE 1
REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS Having regard to:
(a) the provisions of the European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1989 – 1999 (as amended), and the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations, 2011,
(b) the policies of the Government as set out in the document Smarter Travel – A Sustainable Transport Future 2009-2020,
(c) the policies and objectives of the Kildare County Development Plan including objective RP2 to facilitate provision of an additional interchange along the M7 and RP16 to improve and re-align where necessary the regional roads
(d) the policies and objectives of the Sallins Local Area Plan including objective TR 3 (iv) to seek the construction of a new road from the Clane Road to the Naas Road and TR 3 (v) to seek the construction of a new road from the Main Street to the Bypass
(e) the submissions on file, including the environmental impact statement and associated documentation and the submissions made in connection with the application at the oral hearing and the range of mitigation measures set out in the documentation received.
It is considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions set out below, the proposed road development would not have significant negative effects on the
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 73 of 75
community in the vicinity, would not give rise to a risk of pollution, would not have a significant effect on the environment of any designated Natura 2000 site or site of ecological interest, would not have a significant impact on any protected species, would not have a detrimental impact on archaeological and architectural heritage including Osberstown House, would not give rise to detrimental visual or landscape impacts, and would not seriously injure the amenities of the area or of property in the vicinity. It is considered that the proposed road development would be in the interests of the common good and would be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
SCHEDULE 2
CONDITIONS
1. The proposed development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans, drawings and documentation submitted with the application, as amended by the information submitted to An Bord Pleanála at the oral hearing on June 3 rd , June 4 th and June 6 th 2014, including the environmental impact statement and supporting documentation, except as may be otherwise required in order to comply with the condition set out below.
Reason: In the interest of clarity.
2. All mitigation measures and commitments set out in the environmental impact statement and the ‘Final Schedule of Commitments’ submitted to the oral hearing on the 6 th day of June shall be implemented as part of the proposed road development.
Reason: In the interest of clarity and to mitigate the environmental effects of the proposed road development and to protect the amenities of the area and of property in the vicinity.
3. The Osberstown Interchange and the Sallins Bypass including the link roads shall be developed as a single scheme. The interim scheme shall not be progressed.
Reason: To maximise the environmental benefits arising from the road development including optimising the promotion of sustainable transport through improvement of access to the railway station and reducing congestion in the centre of Sallins town.
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 74 of 75
4. The design of the proposed Sallins Link Road shall be modified, in compliance with the requirements of the ‘ Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets ’ (2013) to take account of the increased place context value of the adjacent lands from west to east, as determined by the land use zoning objectives applying thereto. In particular, the revised design should revisit the road width, and the nature of pedestrian and cyclist facilities (segregated versus integrated), the removal of proposed grass verges, having regard to the changing place context value along the full length of the proposed link road between the proposed R407 Sallins Bypass and Clane Road (existing R407). Reason : In order to comply with the requirements of the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (2013), in the interest of pedestrian and cyclist safety and in the interest of proper planning and sustainable development
5. (a) Large street-side tree planting shall be provided along the proposed Distributor Link road approaching the junction with the Western Distributor Road (between ch.0+100 and the junction). The planting shall be undertaken prior to commissioning of the proposed Distributor Link Road. (b) The roundabout junction between the proposed Distributor Link Road and the Western Distributor Road: (i) shall be replaced with a signal controlled traffic cross junction with provision for pedestrian and cycle facilities, or; (ii) the existing roundabout junction shall be retrofitted to be more compact and / or pedestrian and cycle friendly, in compliance with the requirements of the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (2013). Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (2013), in the interest of pedestrian and cyclist safety and in the interest of proper planning and sustainable development.
Mairead Kenny
Senior Planning Inspector
14 th August 2014
HA0046 / MA0013 / KA0031 An Bord Pleanála Page 75 of 75