An Bord Pleanála

Ref.: PL07.JA0033

Development : Connemara Greenway Project - Clifden to Oughterard, County Galway.

Applicant: Galway Co. Co. 10 Prescribed Bodies: NRA An Taisce Dept. of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht Fáilte Ireland Geological Survey of Ireland

Observers: Kathleen and Diarmuid Desmond W.McG. Hollinger Mary Conneely 20 Joe McNamara Michael Clancy Keith Geoghegan, Glengowla Mines Dr. Matthew Parks, Mining Heritage Trust of Ireland Don and Jean Friel Thomas and Mary Cahill Rosemarie Webb, Oughterard Scout Leaders. Pobail Mam Ean Teo. Galway Cycling Campaign Helen Ferguson 30 Harry Joyce Anne-Marie Kelly Paul Hughes, Abbeyglen Castle Hotel 8 Maire O’Connor, Lough Inagh Lodge Clifden and Connemara Heritage and Historical Society

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 1 of 105

Jamie Young, Killary Adventure Centre Forum, Rural Development Partnership Clifden and District Community Council Gerry MacCloskey, Connemara Safari Irish Hotels Federation Connemara Chamber of Commerce Michael Gibbons Karen Mannion William Leahy 10 Kevin Joyce Tommy O’Toole Oliver Coyne Michael McNamara

Inspector: Conor McGrath SPI

Date of Site Inspection: 1st and 2 nd October & 10 th December, 2012

20 Date of Oral Hearing: 11 th and 12 th December 2012

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 2 of 105

Table of Contents: Section Introduction 1.0 Description of proposed development 2.0 Related Developments 3.0 Prescribed Bodies 4.0 Third Parties 5.0 Policy Context 6.0 Oral Hearing Report 7.0 Assessment 8.0 Legal Issues 8.1 Design Principles 8.2 Impacts on Property 8.3 Flora and Fauna 8.4 Hydrology and Drainage 8.5 Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology 8.6 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 8.7 Human Beings and Material Assets 8.8 Gaeltacht - Language and culture 8.9 Conclusions 9.0 Recommendation 10.0

Appendices: I. Oral Hearing Report II. Environmental Impact Assessment III. Appropriate Assessment

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 3 of 105

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report relates to an application by Galway County Council under S.175 of the Act for approval for the development of a cycle / walking route, predominantly along the line of the disused railway running between Oughterard and Clifden. Thirty-one third party submissions have been received in relation to this application, which include submissions both in support of and opposed to, the proposed development. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement and a Natura Impact Statement. An oral hearing in relation to 10 the application was held in the Clifden Station House Hotel, on December 11-12th 2012.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The Connemara Greenway Project – Clifden to Oughterard proposes to re- develop the disused Galway to Clifden railway line into a walking/cycling track (Greenway) over a distance of 52.4km between Oughterard and Clifden. While a number of deviations from the original railway line are proposed, the proposal 20 seeks to follow the original route of the railway as much as possible. The railway ceased operation in 1935, following which much of the railway lands were sold off. The application proposes that the Greenway will be developed as a permissive trail, with the agreement of landowners. In the event that agreement is not reached with all landowners, Galway Co. Co. have indicated that the use of CPO powers or the establishment of a public right-of-way along the route may be examined at a late stage in order to proceed with the development.

The Greenway is designed for light loading with a 2.5m wide bound / asphalt surface. Where required by landowners, it is proposed that fencing will be 30 provided along the route, with gates and cattle stops where necessary. No bins or picnic tables will be provided in order to minimise litter. While the EIS refers to the availability of welfare facilities every 10km approx. along the route, these are to comprise existing facilities at tourist hubs to be used under agreements with the operators. No new facilities are proposed in this regard.

Sections of the original railway line have previously been incorporated into the N59 National Secondary Road during previous improvement and realignment works along that route. The National Roads Authority plan to further upgrade the N59 between Clifden and Oughterard, which works are to consist mainly of on- 40 line widening. The subject application originally proposed that an 11.47km

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 4 of 105

section of the Greenway between Recess and Bunscanniff would be provided as a shared footway/cycleway running alongside the upgraded N59. During the oral hearing, the applicants proposed revisions to the development, to reduce the extent of such provision and generally route the Greenway away from the national secondary road, utilising existing local roads and extant sections of the railway line. Where the Greenway is to run alongside the N59, 2.5m separation from the carriageway edge will be provided.

The application identifies that seven new or reconstructed bridges will be 10 required along the route, as follows: Bridge Chainage 1. Cloonbeg River Bridge, Ballynahinch 11+700 2. Athry River Bridge, Ballinafad 16+620 3. Bunscannifff Bridge 30+920 4. Letterfore River Bridge (Leam) 40+800 5. Glengowla River Bridge, Glengowla West 46+800 6. Leadmines Bridge, Glengowla East 48+400 7. Oughterard River Bridge 50+200

Bridge structures at Cloonbeg, Glengowla and Oughterard are to be retained and provided with new lightweight steel and timber structures over. The EIS identifies that new bridge structures will be provided at Athry Bridge, Bunscannifff Bridge, Letterfore River Bridge and Leadmines Bridge, comprising the erection of a steel structure with a concrete deck. Bridge design provides for a single gross weight vehicle of 7.5 tonnes.

At the oral hearing it was clarified that where the upgrading of the N59 does not 20 take place, the widening of the bridge at Bunscanniff will be required in order to facilitate the proposed Greenway project, rather than provision of a new bridge. It was also confirmed that the proposed revisions to the route of the Greenway identified during the oral hearing, would give rise to a requirement for a further replacement bridge structure over the Owentooey River at approx. Ch. 24000, east of Recess.

It is indicated that construction works will be carried out over a 24 month period, commencing at Clifden and progressing in an easterly direction toward Oughterard. Overburden to be removed along the route will be used to form 30 embankments. An error in the EIS and NIS was noted and corrected at the oral hearing, whereby the correct figure for overburden removal is approx. 45,900m 3. Seven construction compounds will be provided along the route, comprising

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 5 of 105

material storage areas, short-term staff welfare facilities and parking. These compounds will close on completion of the relevant section of works.

In compliance with Article 120 of the Regulations relating to sub-threshold development, an EIS was prepared for the project having regard to fact that the Clifden to Oughterard route corridor runs through a number of Natura 2000 sites. (Appendix II refers).

The Route 10 Chainage 0 - 3200 The route commences in Clifden at Ardbear Bridge and follows a local secondary road from the town rather than the original railway line. This road runs east / southeast for approx. 3.2km around the southern side of Killymongaun hill. This road serves numerous detached residential properties. Between approx. Ch1500 and Ch2200 the road is unsurfaced. At chainage 3200 the road meets the original grassed alignment of the railway running from southeast to northwest.

Chainage 3200 - 11700 The route turns southeast alongside a detached dwelling and follows the 20 generally intact line of the railway across open bog. A former extraction area at Ch. 3600 is to be used as a site compound. At Gowlane, Ch. 4000, where the route crosses a local road, an alternative route across open bog to the south is identified where the original route passes by a residential property (McNamara). At Ch. 4700 the railway line passes the remains of a disused mine processing works and traverses some associated features. An existing bridge at ch.5600 is to be retained and the route then traverses open landscape before entering forestry at Ch.8500. At Ch.1120 the route becomes overgrown before crossing Cloonbeg Bridge (Identified in the NIAH - regional importance). An alternative route around the Cloonbeg railway bridge and through forestry to the north is 30 indicated on the plans. At the oral hearing it was confirmed that following structural surveys of Cloonbeg Bridge, this alternative route was no longer necessary or proposed.

Chainage 11700 - 15100 The route runs along the R341 for approx. 900m before rejoining the line of the railway on the northern side of the road for approx. 2km. The R341 carriageway is to be relocated to the south to accommodate the 2.5m wide Greenway. Sections of the route in this area were overgrown or waterlogged at time of inspection. At Ch14800 the route is diverted back onto the regional road for 40 approx. 300m, due to the presence of a house on the original railway alignment.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 6 of 105

Chainage 15100 - 17400 At 15100, the route turns east off the R341 and runs along a local access road. After approx. 60m this roadway is joined by and follows the original railway line. The road provides access to a cemetery and residential properties, on the southern side of Lough Nabrucka (Ballinafad Cemetery). The original bridge between Lough Nabrucka and Lough Athry at Chainage 16650 has been removed. On the other side of this river crossing the route runs along embankment and through shallow cuttings to the N59 at chainage 17400. 10 Chainage 17400 – 20000 Crossing the N59, the route runs along an unsurfaced road for approx. 2.6km to the south of Derryclare Lake and the Beanacarra River. This section of the original railway line is intact and provides access for agriculture, forestry, turf cutting and fishing. A house / domestic garage has been constructed on the line at Chainage 2000 (adjacent to the Weir Bridge) and an alternative route north to the N59 (approx. 85m) is identified on the plans.

Chainage 20000 - 31400 20 As part of the original application it was proposed that this 11.47km section of the route, past Recess Village, would be provided as a dedicated cycleway running along the southern side of the N59, which is to be upgraded and realigned. Sections of the original intact railway are evident along this part of the route. In other parts, where the N59 was realigned onto the old railway bed, the old Clifden road is evident and available for use. During the course of the oral hearing, Galway Co. Co. proposed revisions to the Greenway route utilising such possibilities, reducing the extent of provision along the N59 to approx. 5.18km. These revisions to the original proposed route comprise the following: • Ch. 20550 – 21200: While originally proposed to run along the N59 to 30 Recess, it is now proposed to route the Greenway along existing embankments on the northern shore of Glendollagh Lough to Recess. • Ch. 21200 – 22750: Between Recess and Recess school the Greenway will run as a 2.5m cycleway alongside the N59 as proposed in the original application, with 2.5m separation from the carriageway edge, including 0.5m hard shoulder. • Ch. 22750 (Recess school) – 24170: The route will now follow the old railway line east, necessitating one new / replacement bridge crossing over the Owentooey River at Tullywee, CH.24000 approx. • Ch. 24170 – 24270: The Greenway will revert back to run alongside the 40 N59 for approx. 100m to avoid an existing vacant property.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 7 of 105

• Ch. 24270 – 24850: The Greenway will follow the disused railway south through cutting and across embankment to the N59. • Ch. 24850 – 25300: The Greenway will revert to run alongside the N59 for approx. 450m, partly passing along an existing lay-by on the southern side of the road. • Ch. 25300 – 28400: A crossing of the N59 (south to north) will bring the Greenway onto an approx. 3km stretch of the Old Clifden Road at Derryneen. This will be shared with local access traffic. • Ch. 28400 – 29620: The Greenway will remain on the northern side of the 10 N59, provided as a parallel cycleway. • Ch. 29620 – 30620: The Greenway will utilise a stretch of the Old Clifden Road which remains extant on the ground to the north of the N59. This will comprise a dedicated cycleway. • Ch.30620 – 31500: The Greenway will remain on the northern side of the N59, provided as a parallel cycleway as far as the start of the railway cutting at Bunscanniff, Ch. 31500.

Chainage 31500 – 35100 The route leaves the N59 at Bunscannifff and follows the line of the railway 20 through a cutting to the north of the road and along the northern side of Lough Shindilla. This section of the route is intact. In order to avoid an occupied dwelling on the R336 at the eastern end of the lake an alternative route is identified along an agricultural track running northeast, before turning south along the R336. The alignment between the R336 and CH53100, through the old Maam Cross station, is intact. The station is currently disused but appears to be associated with an agricultural suppliers / the adjoining Mart. While the preferred route continues directly east through Maam Cross Station(Identified in the NIAH - regional importance), an alternative route is shown looping around development at Maam Cross and travelling north from the N59 across an area of cut-over bog 30 to re-join the old railway line at Ch. 35450.

Chainage 35450 - 40200 The route follows the old railway line, which is intact and which now comprises a roughly surfaced track used to access peat cutting and forestry, as far as Ch. 39200. From this point the line comprises a grassed track used for agricultural access, as far as the N59. Along this later section, it is crossed by an access to a number of dwellings.

Chainage 40200 – 44500

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 8 of 105

Travelling south across the N59 and along the western and southern side of Lough Bofin, the route is initially overgrown and boggy. At Ch. 40800, the route crosses Letterfore Bridge (Identified in the NIAH - regional importance) and the surface improves to a track and further to a surfaced roadway at approx. Ch. 41600. This roadway serves numerous residential properties.

Ch.44500 - 46200 From 44500, the original railway runs through agricultural lands. A bridge at Ch. 44800 has been removed and requires replacement. The line then runs along 10 the southern side of the N59. An alternative route, addressing access difficulties in this location, is proposed north from Ch. 44500 across the Quiet Man Bridge and east along the N59 to Glengowla via a cycleway to be provided as part of the proposed N59 road upgrade under ABP ref. HA0041.

Ch. 46200 – 51300 From Ch. 46200, the railway line is obstructed by more modern development. An alternative route looping south around these properties is identified, re-joining the line at Ch46550. The route continues east through agricultural lands, to the north of the Owenriff River. The route appears to be generally intact in this area, 20 although overgrown in parts. The line runs through the holding of the Glengowla Mines tourism and visitor facility, wherein it has been incorporated into walking and nature trails. Further east the route runs relatively intact to Oughterard, crossing the river at Ch.50200, where the existing bridge is to be upgraded. The application originally identified alternatives route options around the Glengowla Mines site and along the N59 to Oughterard, however, the proposed N59 upgrade under ref. HA0041 does not make provision for cycle facilities along this section.

30 Note: A section of the N59 at Derrylea, east of Clifden, has recently been upgraded as part of a pilot road upgrade scheme. These works included the provision of a cycleway which is referenced in a number of submissions on the file and at the oral hearing. In sections, this cycleway is separated from the carriageway by a 1m strip / verge, while in other sections is it provided as a completely separate cycle route following sections of the abandoned road line (examples are identified in the accompanying photographs).

40

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 9 of 105

3.0 RELATED DEVELOPMENTS ABP ref. HA0041: N59 Upgrade The Greenway project is related to the proposed upgrade and realignment of the N59 between Oughterard and Clifden. The section between Maam Cross and Oughterard is the subject of a current application for approval and CPO with the Board. This provides for the upgrading of the existing road to a Type 3 Single Carriageway comprising of predominately online widening with some offline sections. Approx. 10.6km (70%) of the upgrade will be online. A 2.5m wide shared footway/ cycle track will be provided on the southern side of 10 the proposed upgraded road between Derryerglinna School and Glengowla West townland, facilitating a connection from Derryerglinna National School to the proposed Connemara Greenway and to the community settlements at Leam and Glengowla. Objectives for the proposed road development identifies in the EIS include: 6. Integrate with existing and proposed tourism, economic and community facilities, e.g. through the provision of Viewing Areas, bus stops, and footways/ cycle tracks that facilitate and connect to the proposed Connemara Greenway and other cycling/ walking infrastructure.

20 4.0 PRESCRIBED BODIES The following written submissions were received from prescribed bodies: 4.1 An Taisce • Endorses the submission of the Galway Cycling Campaign (3 rd party). • Recreational routes should not be positioned directly adjacent to national routes, as proposed for 20% of the route in this case. • This is the most scenic section of the route, with most visitor potential. • Bord Failte and the National Cycling Strategy recognise the need for separation from traffic, particularly on visitor focused, recreational routes. 30 • There are viable alternative route options available to overcome the problems identified with the proposed route. • The proposals should not be approved without being enhanced and an oral hearing may be useful to examine alternatives.

4.2 Dept. of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht Archaeological Observations: • Agree with the recommendations outlined in section 13.5 of the EIS. • Ground disturbance in areas that are undisturbed should be monitored, with provision made for full resolution of any features identified. 40

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 10 of 105

Nature Conservation Observations: • NPWS will not be undertaking water monitoring, as stated in the EIS. This is a matter for the applicants. • All compounds and works areas should be fenced off before works begin. • Site compounds are not identified or mapped in the EIS as stated. • Importation of material should be from source areas approved by NPWS. • More details regarding the spraying of plants should be provided. • The Marsh Fritillary butterfly is more common than thought and its host plant is common in this area. The site should be revisited for this species. 10 • The EIS should make it clear that not all works will take place on the line of the railway and that some development will be on designated lands. • The assessment of off-line sections is not well presented. Impacts on designated sites should be identified, particularly near Oughterard where the threat to Freshwater Pearl Mussel (FPM) is ever-present. • The assessment of impacts on FPM is confusing. A specific report relating to the Greenway project should be presented. • Method statements for each work section with particular reference to FPM sites, should be presented for assessment as part of the EIS. • NPWS must be consulted on these statements and monitoring of works 20 should be undertaken by a suitable ecologist. • While supportive of the development, FPM protection must be given utmost importance during construction and post-construction maintenance and usage.

4.3 Fáilte Ireland • Support the development which will have positive and sustainable tourism impacts. • The development is an example of the sustainable use of landscape, delivering societal and economic benefits and increasing environmental 30 awareness. • The Greenway offers a long-distance route away from the hazards of the main road. • Cycling tourism is a growing and valuable market. • The potential economic benefits have already been demonstrated in studies of the Great Western Greenway in Mayo. • The development will contribute significantly to Irelands stock of green infrastructure.

4.4 NRA

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 11 of 105

• The Authority is funding the upgrading of the N59 between Oughterard and Clifden, comprising mainly on-line widening and some off-line sections. • The EIS, NIS and CPO documentation for the Maam Cross – Oughterard section are due to be prepared in September (2012) for submission to ABP, with the remaining section following soon after. • The scheme will include a 2.5m wide two-way, shared footpath / cycleway on one side of the road at four locations, totalling 16.23km. • An 11.45km section of this shared footpath / cycleway between Recess and Maam Cross will comprise part of the proposed Connemara Greenway (Ch 10 20050 – Ch31500), providing continuity for the Greenway project. • The documentation to be submitted for the N59 upgrade will fully assess the impacts of that scheme and references in the subject application documentation to potential impacts should reflect this. • References on Sheet 1 and 2 to a ” Proposed NRA Cycleroute ” (orange) are not directly related to the Greenway and have been / will be provided as part of the road upgrade. The application should highlight this distinction. • Sheets 14 and 15 refer to “re quested section of additional cycleroute from NRA ” (purple), however, the Authority does not support such an approach. • Crossings of the N59 should be designed so as not to interfere with the 20 safety, capacity and efficiency of the national route.

4.5 Geological Survey of Ireland • At scoping stage, GSI identified sites of geological heritage interest along the route, however, the EIS states that there are no geological heritage sites within the study area. • The development will not generally adversely impact on geological heritage sites and has potential to create opportunities for the promotion of geological heritage. 30 • Three specific sites will be / may be impacted by the proposed development. o Glengowla Mine is a geological heritage site, recommended for inclusion as a geological NHA. Despite passing through the mine complex, the EIS states that no impacts are foreseen. o The geological heritage programme seeks to promote as well as to protect such heritage sites, which has been achieved in the case of this show mine. o The Greenway can contribute to the tourism footprint but only if planned in a mutually beneficial way with the mine complex, and not detrimentally routed through it.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 12 of 105

o Oorid Lough quarry, to the north of the N59 (CH30600) is recommended for NHA designation. If works intersect this quarry, its integrity would be affected. Excavation works in the vicinity may expose additional minerology of interest. Routing of the Greenway around the feature would require consultation with GSI. o Processing works associated with Derrylea mine are located adjacent to the proposed Greenway (Ch4800). Re-routing or mitigation measure should be adopted in order to preserve and promote this aspect of mining heritage. 10 • Any proposed works in the vicinity of geological heritage sites should be planned in consultation with GSI to minimise potential impacts. • Copies of any borehole data and site investigation logs and reports should be made available to GSI.

5.0 THIRD PARTIES

5.1 Written Submissions In summarising the written submissions received, I have generally grouped them 20 into those submissions which are opposed to the proposed development and those submissions which are in support of the development.

5.1.1 Objections to the proposed development: 5.1.1.1 Joe McNamara– Owner of lands at Gowlane West (Ch4000- 4330). • The Greenway would pass over his property and within 15’ of his house.

5.1.1.2 W.McG. Hollinger – Owner of Recess Station House and other affected lands. • Impacts on the countryside and flora and fauna have not been adequately 30 addressed. • Intrusions onto private property must comply with European Directives. • Objects to that section of the Greenway on the southern side of Derryclare Lake, between the crossing of the N59 at Ch.17400 and Ch.20000 at Weir Bridge / junction with R344. • The route is opposed by landowners in the area due to interference with animal welfare, management and farm profitability. • The lands have been managed to protect the environment and landscape. The proposed development will impact negatively on these aspects. • Cycle and recreation access should not be at the expense of wild areas.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 13 of 105

• A more cost-effective route on the N59, along north-western shores of Glendollagh and Athry Lakes should be followed to limit disruption to the vicinity of the road corridor and to benefit commercial operators in the area.

5.1.1.3 Kathleen and Diarmuid Desmond Owners of lands at Bunscaniff (Ch.31280 – 33190). • The route will result in severance of agricultural / grazing lands. • The development will restrict tractor access to lands and use of the line for winter shelter. 10 • There are no guarantees regarding the future maintenance of the route with responsibility potentially falling on landowners. • The route should run alongside the N59 which also passes through the same scenic landscape. • The proposal would unnecessarily replicate the cycle path which is to be provided as part of the upgrading of the N59. • The EIS and NIS do not consider interference with the natural beauty of the area or impact on valuable traditional use of the land. • There are more attractive walking opportunities in the area in an unspoilt environment. 20 5.1.1.4 Don and Jean Friel Owners of lands at Letterfore (Ch. 40050 - 40780) • The greenway may give rise to trespass causing a nuisance. • People may suffer injury or damage on their lands whilst trespassing or otherwise, for which the observers could be held liable. • Impact on access to their land and adjoining lakes. • The EIS fails to acknowledge the observers interests in the lands adjoining the route.

5.1.1.5 Thomas and Mary Cahill Owners of lands at Leam Bridge (Ch.44500 – 30 44900). • There is no consent to access the observer’s lands or build a new bridge. • The railway passes 88 feet from their house. There is a cattle crush located on the line and one farm building adjacent to it, with livestock in the field it passes through. • The lands were purchased from the railway company many years ago at a price.

5.1.6 Mary Conneely – Owner of lands at Glengowla (Ch46800 - 47200). • Severance of grazing lands and restriction of access to the Owenriff River for 40 watering likestock.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 14 of 105

• Interference with farm management and livestock movement. • Lack of supervision or monitoring of lands accessible from the Greenway, with potential for increased trespass onto lands. • Provision of a cycle-path along the N59 makes this proposal unnecessary, which road upgrade works also affect the observers lands. • Increased fire risk from discarded cigarettes / fires in the area. • Adjacent lands comprise part of an SAC.

5.1.1.7 Michael Clancy Owner of lands at Glengowla East (Ch.47550 - 47790) 10 • Development would divide this farmand and devalue the lands. • Potential for anti-social behaviour due to proximity to Oughterard. • The family dwelling house is not identified on submitted plans. • The railway lands were purchased in 1939. • Severance of free-running pastures to the Owenriff River to the south and fishing along its banks. • Objects to the development and does not consent to a right-of-way. • The Greenway should take the route of the N59.

5.1.1.8 Keith Geoghegan - Operator of Glengowla Mines (Ch.47980 – 49440) 20 • Observer is supportive of the proposal and willing to allow it to cross his lands, but only by a mutually agreed route. • Consent for the proposed route has not been obtained. • The railway lands, bought in 1940, have not been a public route for a long time and they now comprise part of the Glengowla Mine tourist attraction. • The mine opened in 1998 and provides a unique and important tourist attraction and educational facility. • The route crosses through the heart of the 19 th C mine site and related attractions, causing operational difficulties. The line is used as part of a network of walks which has involved reconstruction of a railway bridge. 30 • There are plans for the further development and expansion of this tourism facility. Severance of the property would impact on existing and proposed activities and would result in the loss of existing walks. • Operation of the greenway will present security and health and safety issues due to potential unauthorised access and anti-social behaviour. The EIS does not address impacts on operations at the Mine. • Fencing to address security concerns would have significant severance and visual amenity impacts. • There may be issues for the operation of a seismic station on the site.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 15 of 105

• Mine spoil at the track is a useful educational and information tool would be at risk of loss. • The function of the “alternative route” (blue) along the Old Bog Road identified on Map 15 of the EIS is unclear. This appears to end at the N59 with no continuation thereafter. • This alternative would still bring the public too close to the site and passes a rented cottage in his ownership, creating problems of severance, security and insurance. • The EIS contains little reference to consultation with landowners, although 10 the application can be made without such consent. • Mr. Geoghegan proposes an alternative route across the eastern portion of his lands to the N59. • Access to the railway could be regained via a public right of way to the west of the observers lands or alternatively further west (Chainage 46200). • Permission should be granted but with the re-routing proposed by Mr. Geoghan. • Accompanying correspondence from the Institute of Advanced Studies indicates that this site was selected for the location of a seismic station due to the absence of serious cultural noise in the vicinity. Increased noise in the 20 vicinity would ruin data generated and security is paramount in the location of the station in the area.

5.1.1.9 Dr. Martin Critchley and Dr. Matthew Parks, Mining Heritage Trust of Ireland • Reservations are expressed regarding potential impacts on mining heritage at Glengowla Mine and at other mining sites along the route. • The railway was constructed after closure of the Glengowla mine and intersects an area of industrial archaeological potential, including water leats from Lough Atteun. 30 • Derrylea mine lies approx. 5km east of Clifden. South of the mine and adjacent to the railway are the extensive remains of processing works linked to Derryglea mine by a causeway. • These sites are not referenced in the EIS. Their function is unclear and requires further investigation. • The development would provide unrestricted access to these sites and mitigation is required to prevent both intentional and unintentional damage. • The EIS fails to analyse impacts on Glengowla Mine, whose continued preservation depends on the commercial viability of the visitor operation and other related activities on the lands.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 16 of 105

• Monitoring of development vis mining and industrial heritage should be undertaken. • The route should be diverted around Glengowla mine and measures should be put in place to protect works at Derrylea.

5.1.1.10 Galway Cycling Campaign • The Greenway could be a world class offering for recreational walkers and cyclists and the proposal generally aligns with the campaign’s ambitions. 10 • Bord Failte promote the development of traffic-free recreational routes. • While the proposed off-road sections of the proposed greenway seem well- conceived, over 20% of the route is not traffic-free and will be incorporated into the N59, including the most scenic section of the route. • An off-line route should be found and the EIS fails to consider alternatives in this regard. • The most problematic section extends from (Ch. 20050) at the N59 / R344 junction, to (ch. 31500) Bunscanriff, west of Maam Cross. • There is also a problem from Derryerglinna (Ch. 44800) to Glengowla West (Ch. 46200). 20 • The submission identifies eight sections of alternative traffic-free / lightly- trafficked route off the N59, which have not been identified or assessed in the EIS. • The EIS does not compare or contrast impacts of the “Requested Section of Additional cycle route from NRA”, west of Oughterard and this should not be offered as an alternative to the railway alignment. • There are alternatives to on-road design. The only place where there is a need to incorporate the route into the N59 is between Joyce’s Shop in Recess and Recess Village, and only if no route south of the lake is viable. • The EIS does not assess the effect of proximity to high-speed traffic on users 30 of the Greenway, particularly in terms of noise and vibration impacts. No alternatives are assessed in this regard. • Maximum displacement from the N59 is required to satisfy the needs of target users. • The provision of the Greenway alongside the N59 may create confusion and conflict given the requirements of different categories of cyclist. A Greenway is not suitable for sports cyclists, who would more suitably remain on the N59. • Inadequate detail on junction design is provided. Given the volumes of users expected, the Greenway may be expected to have priority in some instances. 40 • The proposed width may be inadequate, particularly for bikes pulling trailers.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 17 of 105

• The scheme should be rejected in its current format.

5.1.2 Observers in Support of the Development Written submissions generally in support of the development have been received from the following parties: • Rosemarie Webb, for Oughterard Scout Leaders • Pobail Mam Ean Teo. • Helen Ferguson. • Harry Joyce. 10 • Anne-Marie Kelly. • Clifden and Connemara Heritage and Historical Society. • Jamie Young, Killary adventure Centre • Forum, Rural Development Partnership • Clifden and District Community Council. • Gerry MacCloskey, Connemara Safari. • Irish Hotels Federation. • Connemara Chamber of Commerce. • Paul Hughes, Abbeyglen Castle Hotel • Maire O’Connor, Lough Inagh Lodge 20 Submissions generally highlight the economic, tourism and amenity benefits of the proposed development, including improved health and safety for recreational cyclists and walkers. Compliance with development plan policies is also highlighted.

5.2 Submissions Received At The Oral Hearing A number of the above listed third parties made further supplementary submissions at the oral hearing. In addition to the above, a number of new 30 observers made submissions at the oral hearing, as follows:

5.2.1 Michael Gibbons queried the archaeological impacts on the integrity of the line, which he referred to as a national monument. Conservation works have the potential to damage such structures and on-site supervision is required.

5.2.2 Tommy O’Toole indicated that the Greenway will impact on the existing use of the railway for the exercising of horses.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 18 of 105

5.2.3 Oliver Coyne made submissions in support of Mr. Keith Geoghegan, Glengowla Mine and queried the potential for passing trade due to proximity to Oughterard.

5.2.4 Kevin Joyce generally supports the development but raised concerns about impacts on access to existing shops at Recess. The proposed layout is premature pending the determination of the N59 upgrade in this area.

10 5.2.5 Karen Mannion made a submission on behalf of students of Cashel National School in support of the development.

5.2.6 William Leahy, operates a trail riding business which uses sections of the old railway line. He also owns land, east and west of Maam Cross and south of the N59 at Athry Ch. 17400. The development will destroy his long-established tourism business, which brings visitors and investment to the area. Cycling and house trails do not go together and insurance will not be possible for such operations.

20 5.2.7 Michael McNamara made a submission in support of tourism development but noted that roads bring tourists to an area, and this is where money should be spent. Concerns were expressed regarding emergency access along the route. This development will impact on the individual landowners, in order to benefit others, and concerns were raised with regard to the potential for conflict within the community arising from this proposal. The benefits of the development have not yet been proven.

6.0 POLICY CONTEXT 30 6.1 GALWAY COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2009-2015 Section 4: Economic development and tourism

Policy ED20: Positively support and promote sustainable tourism infrastructure development related to the enhancement of the county’s tourism profile, with facilities such as those related to …… walking and pony trekking routes…….. and other sporting facilities; and ensure that all such developments are built to a high environmental standard to protect the county’s most significant tourism asset – its 40 natural environment and landscape.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 19 of 105

8.5.1 Recreation And Amenity Policies Policy CS22: Where possible, combine with developers and local communities in the provision and improvement of recreational facilities. Policy CS23: Support cycling and walking groups in promoting their disciplines and developing routes and facilities. Policy CS28: The Council will seek to protect the alignment of the Clifden Railway Line as a cycle and walk way. Policy CS30: Support and help promote national programmes to develop 10 walking and cycle routes including the Irish Trails Strategy and the Cycle Strategy for the Western Region.

Chapter 9 Heritage, Landscape and Environmental Management Policy HL32: It shall be the policy of Galway County Council to ensure that development in Galway and the provision of services take into account the relevant Management Plans (if any) for SACs and SPAs in the county. Policy HL33: Have regard to any impacts developments may have on or near existing and proposed, Natural Heritage Areas, Special Protection 20 Areas and Special Areas of Conservation, Nature Reserves, Ramsar Sites, Wildfowl Sanctuaries, Conamara National Park and any other designated sites including any future designations.

Natural Water Systems Policies Policy HL70: Implement water protection measures to prevent any deterioration of ‘good status’ waters, and to restore substandard waters to ‘good status’.

The plan ascribes a landscape value rating of High or Outstanding to lands along 30 the route of the proposed Greenway, being of High, Special or Unique landscape sensitivity.

6.2 Oughterard Local Area Plan 2006-2012 2.11 Tourism Oughterard is renowned for tourism and it ranks as the town’s biggest industry. Hill walking/hiking is an important tourist attraction, particularly in the Maumturk Mountains and the Twelve Pins to the northwest of the town. As a further walking route, it is proposed that section of the former Galway – Clifden railway

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 20 of 105

line that lies within the town boundary be developed in the context of a future Galway-Clifden walking route.

3.12 Enterprise, Industry & Tourism It is the policy of the Council to: 3.12.1 Continue to develop Oughterard as a tourist destination in the context of cultural and recreational tourism and its importance to the local economy. 3.12.3 Co-operate with Ireland West Tourism, the local community and other stakeholders in the development of sustainable tourism products. 10 3.12.7 Support the development of walkways embracing the heritage of Oughterard and its hinterland in an environmentally sensitive and appropriate manner. 3.12.9 Facilitate the development of tourism infrastructure that is beneficial to the local economy and complimentary to the local built and natural environment.

It is the objective of the Council to: EIT5 Provide good, clearly defined walkways around the town including the section of the old Galway to Clifden Railway, to be accompanied by clear 20 signage and an accompanying booklet/guide.

The old railway line, within the plan boundary, is zoned for Recreation and Amenity purposes.

6.3 Clifden Local Area Plan 2009 - 2015 3.5 Transportation Policy 3.5.22: Encourage the provision of safe cycle ways and parking facilities for bicycles in Clifden, where appropriate. 30 3.12 Enterprise, Industry & Tourism Policy 3.12.7: Continue to develop Clifden as a tourist destination in the context of cultural and recreational tourism and its importance to the local economy. Realise the tourist potential of Clifden’s rich heritage in an environmentally sensitive and sustainable manner.

Objective EIT7: Provide good clearly defined walkways around the town including the section of the old Railway line (see Urban Design Framework), to be accompanied by clear artistic innovative minimalist signage and

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 21 of 105

accompanying booklet/guide. Improve popular walking from an amenity and safety point-of-view, and provide new routes along agreed lines of choice.

3.14 Recreation and Amenity Objective RA4: Develop, where funds permit, recreation and tourism facilities such as footpaths, picnic sites, viewing sites in special amenity areas and amenity walks. Objective RA9: Continue to investigate the potential for walkway development and walkway improvement from an amenity and public health 10 perspective

The proposed Greenway runs southeast from Ardbea Bridge. Adjoining lands are zoned for residential and agriculture purposes.

6.4 Gaeltacht Local Area Plan 2008-2014 2.1.5 Tourism The Gaeltacht has a unique tourism product in that it links a rich language and culture with scenic landscapes and an unpolluted underdeveloped marine 20 environment. Gaelsaoire, the tourism division of Udaras na Gaeltachta estimated that approx. 30 million euros was generated in tourism revenue in the Galway Gaeltacht in 2000. Galway City and County Tourism Committee, in its framework document, advocates a strategy of increasing the length of stay per visitor from an average of three nights to the national average of seven nights. This has to be balanced against the capacity of any location or venue to cater for visitor loading without diminishing its ethos or environment.

The Strategic Plan for Waterbased Tourism in Galway promotes the revival of South Connamara fisheries, linking angling tourists with other visitors who have 30 particular interests in outdoor pursuits such as walking, canoeing, pony trekking, eco-tours etc.

Analysis of census data from 1996 to 2006 indicates that the population declined in Electoral Divisions where the percentage of people speaking Irish on a daily basis is 80% or more, whereas the significant increase in population surrounding the city related to a Gaeltacht area where the percentage of people speaking Irish daily is little more than the national average.

Goals identified in Section 3.1.1 Strategy, include

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 22 of 105

• That Muintir na Gaeltachta can continue to exist and thrive as a distinctive cultural community with access to quality infrastructure and sustainable jobs and services. • That the indigenous resources of the Gaeltacht be developed in a way that will benefit all of the community and have respect for the natural environment.

3.3 Strategic Development Principles include: Roads and Transport: 10 • Develop, extend and maintain walking routes. Economic Development: • Support to be given to the development of the regions indigenous resources and to the employment opportunities arising therefrom. • Particular consideration to be given to the economic development of the areas of the Gaeltacht which have suffered population decline and which lack job opportunities

The plan identifies five areas of which two are traversed by the proposed Greenway: 20 District A: Iorras Aithneach/Camas/Ros Muc: This is the District of South West Conamara. Community objectives for employment include the development of tourism facilities such as walking routes. District B: Duiche Sheoigheach: This District comprises most of North Conamara, stretching from Cong to Leenane and northwards from the N59 National Secondary Road to the County Mayo border. The economy of the area is a mix of hill sheep farming, tourism, with the emphasis on angling tourism, forestry and timber products and manufacturing industry.

30 6.5 Regional Planning Guidelines for the West 2010-2022 CHAPTER 3: Economic Development Strategy 3.5 Planning and Economic Development – Priority Policies and Objectives (e) Tourism: The tourism sector will continue to be a key part of the economy of the West Region. The sector and its supporting agencies should develop the potential of the key strengths of the unique tourist products available in the region. The development in the long-term of a major tourist attraction would greatly benefit the region.

Policy EDP16: Support and promote innovative development, marketing and 40 support all types of activity holidays and activity events in the West

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 23 of 105

Region including walking routes development, cycling routes development and water based activities subject to relevant environmental assessment including Habitats Directive Assessment (where appropriate) of all tourism plans and projects, in order to minimise environmental impact.

3.6 Rural Enterprise Development Policy EDP62: Support the sustainable development of rural tourism trails through joint marketing co-operation with emphasis on the marine, 10 landscape, heritage and leisure.

Objective EDO19: Promote special interest tourism activities such as adventure sports, sports events, out-door pursuit tourism holidays ………….. and the establishment of walking and cycling routes within the region and place emphasis on their contribution to healthy and active lifestyles subject to relevant environmental assessment including Habitats Directive Assessment (where appropriate) of all tourism plans and projects, in order to minimise environmental impact. 20 5.1 Transport Infrastructure: Policies IP20: Promote the Region as a premier destination for cycling and walking. This should take account of visual impacts and other environmental considerations IP22: Support the establishment of a network of interlinked cycle ways within the context of a West Regional Trails Strategy. This should take account of visual impacts and other environmental considerations. IP23: Pedestrian and cycling routes must be designed to minimise impact on habitats and species and should not adversely impact on the conservation 30 objectives or site integrity of SAC, SPA or other ecologically sensitive sites. Impacts on the conservation objectives or site integrity of Natura 2000 sites will be avoided through Habitats Directive Assessment of all proposed routes including those established within the context of the West Regional Trails Strategy. IP24: Support measures to identify the potential for sustainable cycling tourism and the need for support measures to develop this niche market.

Objective IO33: Support the provision of designated rural cycle networks especially for visitors and recreational cycling and develop a 40 network of walkway/cycleway through the region which includes

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 24 of 105

green routes. This must take account of potential impacts on the environment and be guided by Habitats Directive Assessment, where appropriate.

CHAPTER 7: Social Infrastructure & Community Development Strategy Policy SCP13: Support and assist in promoting national programmes to develop walking and cycle routes including the ‘Irish Trails Strategy’ and the ‘Cycle Strategy for the Western Region’ 1. Plans proposing the development of such routes must be subject to 10 Habitats Directive Assessment, where appropriate

6.6 A Strategy For The Development Of Irish Cycle Tourism (Fáilte Ireland 2007) The strategy notes the need to create some world-class traffic-free routes to cater particularly for touring cyclists leaving the cities to discover the countryside. Currently, they are required to use busy R and N-roads for, perhaps 5-10km, where vehicular speeds are high and conditions for cycling are very poor. Recommendations are made for the creation, of half a dozen or so routes, of high 20 quality traffic free sections to enable cyclists of all abilities to leave built-up areas and by-pass busy dangerous roads. Cyclists, particularly less experienced and young cyclists, like to be away from traffic whenever possible as this enables them to enjoy the sounds and sights of the countryside without the noise and other distraction of cycling in traffic. Greenways are always shared with pedestrians and sometimes with horses. Disused railway lines are plentiful in Ireland and these can provide excellent greenways. Strategic greenways will become tourist attractions in their own rights, as is the case throughout Europe. The strategy identifies Clifden as a potential cycling hub town. 30 Generally due to high traffic levels and high speeds we wish to avoid cycling on N or R-roads. On unavoidable sections, it may be desirable to provide wide, well- surfaced, hard shoulders – these can provide a safe, wide, corridor for cyclists out of the path of faster moving vehicles. In some cases, it may be desirable to construct a well-designed length of cycle track alongside the R or N roads. These tracks should be separated from traffic by a 1.0m grass strip margin.

1 This comprises part of the 2007 publication “A Strategy For The Development Of Irish Cycle Tourism (Fáilte Ireland).

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 25 of 105

6.7 National Cycle Policy Framework 2009-2020 (Dept. of Transport) The mission is to create a strong cycling culture in Ireland. The vision is that all cities, towns, villages and rural areas will be bicycle friendly. At the highest level, all planning should consider the needs of cyclists. This should be articulated in all National, Regional, Local and sub-local plans. Transportation infrastructural designs need to be cycling friendly, meaning that routes taken by cyclists are safe, direct, coherent, attractive and comfortable. While the identified measures are focused mainly on the urban environment, overall objectives include: Objective 3: Provide designated rural cycle networks (building on Fáilte Ireland’s 10 Strategy to Develop Irish Cycling Tourism) especially for visitors and recreational cycling. Objective 5: Ensure that all of the surfaces used by cyclists are maintained to a high standard and are well lit. Objective 6: Ensure that all cycling networks - both urban and rural - are signposted to an agreed standard.

6.8 National Cycle Network Scoping Study August 2010 (Dept. of Transport and NRA) 20 The development of a national network of both rural and urban cycle routes is a specific objective of the National Cycling Policy Framework. There is an identified need to deliver high quality cycle routes on a nationwide basis so as to encourage cycling for transport, leisure, recreation and tourism to ensure the development of a culture of cycling in Ireland. The delivery of interurban routes, in the form of a National Cycle Network would be in addition to the recognised need for the provision of safe cycling routes within urban settlements and the delivery of safe routes to schools.

The Terms of Reference for the scoping study include: 30 • The length of the network that is off road or of greenway standard should be maximised with the aim of minimising the interaction with motorised vehicles. The network should use existing cycle routes if appropriate. Special attention should be given to the opportunities of using both the disused rail network and canal / river tow-path networks as cycling / walking routes • Previous work and expertise in the area, such as the Fáilte Ireland strategy for the development of cycling tourism in Ireland, should be considered

The three main cyclist users groups are commuters, leisure cyclists and tourist cyclists. Leisure cyclists are mainly summer and weekend cyclists on day trips 40 and would include families with children. The tourist visitor can be broken down

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 26 of 105

into two distinct groups (i) longer distance cyclists who may cycle up to 100km per day, and (ii) visitors who cycle between 30 - 50km per day, often based in hub towns. The second group of visitor is much more significant in terms of numbers and revenue. The vast majority of users want to remain on routes that run through attractive landscapes and towns where they can avail of local services.

Criteria for route corridor options were chosen and the output was a map representing the proposed corridors for a National Cycle Network, (including a 10 connection between Dublin - Galway City - Clifden.

6.9 NRA IAN 03/12 This Interim Advice Note relates to the provision, and design of, cyclist and pedestrian facilities on Type 2 and Type 3 single carriageway National Roads in rural areas. The note contains the following definitions: Cycle Lane: - A separate part of the carriageway for use by cyclists. The cycle lane forms part of the roadway and it is located within the contiguous road surface. It is not a cycleway and therefore generally not for the exclusive use of 20 cyclists. These facilities do not cater for pedestrians. Cycleway - A facility dedicated for the sole use of cyclists and, if permitted, pedestrians located within the road corridor. Cycle Trail: - A facility dedicated for the sole use of cyclists and, if permitted, pedestrians located outside of the road corridor.

2.6 The National Cycle Network will be approximately 2000km in length, consisting of on-road cycleways, off-road cycleways and cycle trails which make use of existing dedicated cycle paths, canal tow paths and disused railway lines. All of these routes will be free from motorised traffic. 30 2.7 Other cycling and pedestrian facilities along new and improved Type 2 and Type 3 National Roads will complement the National Cycle Network by providing additional links to connect to the adjoining hinterland in each region.

3.1 There is a statutory requirement for all-purpose roads to cater for cyclists and pedestrians as well as for motorised vehicles. New road projects should therefore include provisions for cyclists and pedestrians. There a number of ways to do this ranging from shared use of the carriageway to cycle lanes and dedicated cycleways within the road corridor. In some circumstances cyclists and pedestrians may be better accommodated away from the main traffic route, such 40 as where an older section of road has been bypassed. In such circumstances

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 27 of 105

clear directional signs will be required to ensure that cyclists and pedestrians are aware of the correct route to follow.

3.2 A successful cycling and walking facility is dependent on the following factors; • Segregation from high-speed motorised traffic • route continuity, particularly at road crossings; • riding surface comfort, including maintenance; • convenience; • route attractiveness 10 • safety

Selection of Facility Type 4.6 If the 85th percentile traffic speed is greater than 65 km/h and the mainline traffic volumes are over 1000 vehicles per day then an off-road cycleway or cycle trail is appropriate. 4.8 Off-road cycleways remove cyclists from busy traffic conditions and provide a higher degree of comfort when compared to on-road cycleways. They are particularly appropriate in the rural environment where there are few interruptions due to accesses and junctions. 20 5.11 On two-way cycleways where cyclists need to pass each other 0.5m should ideally be allowed between the dynamic envelope of each cyclist, giving a desirable minimum width of 2.5m for two-way cycleways. Section 5.27 identifies the required segregation verge width between a two-way off-road cycleway and the carriageway as being 2m (1m absolute minimum).

Foundations for Cycleway Pavements 8.11 Many cycleways will be constructed on poor ground. For reasons of economy it is desirable to avoid the need to excavate soft ground beneath a 30 lightweight cycleway, which will not give rise to significant settlement in operation. 8.12 Trials have shown that it is possible to construct a floating cycleway to a high quality standard across very soft ground using a suitable foundation layer with geotextile and stone fill sandwich construction.

7.0 ORAL HEARING

An oral hearing in relation to the proposed development was held in The Station House Hotel, Clifden, on 11 and 12 th December 2012. Appendix 1 to this report 40 contains a brief outline of the proceedings. The entire proceedings of the oral

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 28 of 105

hearing were recorded and the associated recordings are appended herewith. This report otherwise makes reference to submissions made at the hearing.

8.0 ASSESSMENT

8.1 Legal Issues This is an application by Galway County Council under Section 175 and Section 177AE of the Act, for the development of a Greenway cycle / walking route 10 between Clifden and Oughterard, where the route is to run predominantly along the line of the disused Galway – Clifden railway. The railway operated between 1895 and 1935. Upon its closure, the railway lands were sold off and much of the route is now in private ownership.

The submitted application indicated that it was the intention to develop the project on the basis of a permissive trail. It was not the intention to compulsorily acquire lands and only where agreements with the relevant landowners were not possible was it deemed necessary to construct the Greenway offline. It is clear from submissions on the file that the consent of all affected landowners 20 to the development has not been obtained to date. Notwithstanding comments of Galway Co. Co. at the oral hearing, it would appear alternatives to the crossing of objector’s lands are really only available in two cases (Joe McNamara and Thomas and Mary Cahill). Other previously identified alternative routes along the N59 no longer appear to comprise viable options.

The ability to implement the scheme was queried at further information stage and discussed at the oral hearing. Galway County Council indicate that the ownership of the lands or consent of the landowners is not a requirement for an application for approval under S.175 and that minor deviations to the route have 30 been considered where landowner agreement has not been obtained. In the event that agreement is not reached with all landowners, it is stated to be the intention to proceed with the development and that the use of CPO powers or the establishment of a public right-of-way along the route may be examined in this regard.

There is no compulsory purchase element to the application before the Board and accordingly, the development as proposed can only be progressed with the agreement of the landowners affected. In this regard, notwithstanding the comments of Mr. Dowds for Mr. Keith Geoghegan at the oral hearing, I do not 40 consider that further public notification is required in this case. In the case where

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 29 of 105

agreement with landowners is reached, issues such as severance, fencing, crossings etc. would be subject to accommodation works. Where no agreement was reached and the compulsory purchase of lands was later proposed, this would comprise a separate statutory process outside the remit of this report.

At further information stage the planning authority were also requested to clarify the status of works between Ch.20500 and Ch.31500 along the N59 and whether such works comprise part of this application or part of a separate application for approval for road upgrade works. It has been confirmed that the Greenway will 10 be constructed independently of the N59 upgrade works and this is supported by the submission of the NRA to the oral hearing, as read into the record by a representative of Galway Co. Co. Notwithstanding this, it is suggested that if future upgrading works of the N59 are to be carried out during construction period of the Greenway, they could be carried out together 2.

In compliance with Article 120 of the Regulations relating to sub-threshold development, an EIS was prepared for the project having regard to fact that Connemara Greenway Project – Clifden to Oughterard route corridor runs through a number of Natura 2000 sites. On the basis of all of the information 20 submitted in relation to this file, and submissions made to the oral hearing, I conclude that the proposed development, in overall terms, is in compliance with Articles 94 and 111 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001-2012. Appendix II to this report refers. An NIS was submitted with the application in and Appendix III to this report contains an appropriate assessment in respect of the development.

8.2 Land Use and Development Principle The development is identified as a community based project, which is modelled 30 on the success of the Great Western Greenway in Mayo. The development is supported in principle by local and regional policy objectives, and in particular by national objectives for the establishment of a national cycle network, as outlined above.

The attractiveness of Greenway routes is their dedicated use by cyclists and walkers predominantly at a remove from vehicular traffic. Regular or prolonged interaction with main roads significantly erodes the attractiveness and the overall

2 I note that the National Secondary Roads Needs Study (March 2011) identifies the N59 Clifden - Maam Cross, road up-grade scheme as a priority 2 project, regarded as a longer-term improvement. In the shorter- term, only localised improvements to such roads are advised by the study.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 30 of 105

purpose of the route. Disused railway lines are recognised as providing a suitable, and often economical, corridor for such developments and in this regard it is important that the integrity of the original railway route be maintained as far as possible.

There is broad community support for the proposed development and the potential amenity and economic benefits are accepted. There are, however, likely to be direct impacts on individuals whose lands are affected by the development. In this regard, I note that the application proposes that the 10 Greenway would be established with the agreement of landowners. Where established on such permissive basis, the concerns of individual landowners can be addressed by accommodation works. In principle therefore, the development as proposed in the application before the Board, is regarded as being acceptable in principle and in accordance with relevant policy objectives.

8.3 DESIGN PRINCIPLES 8.3.1 Routing The proposed Greenway seeks to follow the route of the disused railway to the 20 greatest extent possible. Third party submissions differ with regard to whether the Greenway should be routed along the N59 or whether interaction with main roads should be minimised. In this regard, I note that the Fáilte Ireland Cycling Strategy sets out the rationale for development of this nature and consider that in general, routing the Greenway away from busy main roads would achieve greater compliance with those rationale. This is generally supported by the provisions of the NRA Interim Advice Note IAN 03/12.

The design and route selection for the Greenway is partly dependent on the nature of the target users. The sports or long-distance cyclist, more inclined to 30 follow the most direct route and remain on main roads is not the target market in this case, which is more likely to attract the leisure / family and tourism market.

Having regard to the existing alignment of the N59 along the original railway line in places and the constraints of topography and land ownership, there are clearly sections where parallel routing along the N59 will be unavoidable. The extent of such provision in the original application, comprising a single stretch of approx. 11.5km, was extensive, however. The length and continuous nature of such proposals would seriously erode the character and rationale behind the Greenway concept, are therefore regarded as sub-optimum. These concerns

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 31 of 105

were the primary focus of submissions by An Taisce and the Galway Cycling Campaign.

The revisions to the route proposed by Galway Co. Co. at the oral hearing significantly address such concerns reducing overall cycleway provision along the N59 to approx. 5.18km. Along such sections, which would not be continuous, it is proposed that the cycleway would be separated from the carriageway edge by a 0.5m hard shoulder and a 2m wide verge. The proposed revisions to the Greenway route generally comprise Alternatives no. 1, 3 and 4 as identified by 10 the Galway Cycling Campaign. Alternatives no. 2, 5 6 and 7 were not accepted by Galway County Council on the basis of lack of connectivity on the ground, topography / excessive gradients and environmental and habitat constraints.

The EIS states that the original railway alignment was the primary route considered, while alternatives included the do-nothing scenario and alternative routes. Those alternative routes are generally limited in extent and area, however. I do not consider that the EIS adequately identifies or describes the alternatives route options available. At the oral hearing, however, the applicants described a number of other alternatives route options which were examined in 20 order to avoid routing along the N59. It was also the case that alternative surface treatments were considered by the design team, although these alternatives are not identified in the EIS.

Conclusion: The achievement of an ambitious development such as this can be difficult given the numerous interested parties. Having regard to the history of the railway line and the N59, and the current legal status of the lands, the objective of a dedicated trail, entirely separate from roads or vehicular traffic, may not be an practically achievable. While striving to achieve such design standards, 30 compromise will be necessary in places in order to achieve the overall objective of an attractive and safe walking and cycling route based on the old railway line. While experience here and elsewhere indicates that future changes and realignments to the route will be possible or necessary over time as circumstances change, the objective should be to achieve the highest standards from the start. Subject to the implementation of the revisions to the route proposed during the oral hearing, it is considered that the development would be acceptable in principle and would achieve the broad objectives of the Greenway concept. Further revisions to the development may be appropriate, however, where 40 conflicts arise with operations on individual properties.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 32 of 105

8.3.2 Surface Treatment and Design The application proposes that the Greenway will be finished with a bound / asphalt surface. This is in comparison with the surface used on the Great Western Greenway for example where a grit surface is used. At the oral hearing, Galway Co. Co. confirmed that the choice of surface material was based on quality, on-going maintenance and associated costs. This would be in accordance with the findings of a UK document entitled “Cycle Path Surface 10 Options Technical Information Note No. 8” (Sustrans January 2012). This document identifies the default surface treatment as a bound surface and indicates that alternative surface treatments should only be considered where the standard options are not suitable. Self-binding surfaces tend not to work very well in certain areas, including those where erosion is likely and areas with difficult drainage or where water is present. The life-cycle of self-binding surfaces tends to be significantly shorter than for bound surfaces, although self- binding surfaces can be easily repaired and are slightly cheaper to install than bituminous surfaces. Annual maintenance requirements for unbound surfaces are generally higher than for bound surfaces. 20 Given the topography of the area, the proposed Greenway is not likely to comprise a highly prominent feature in the landscape, while opening up significant new views to users. Asphalt surface is likely to weather such that its initial conspicuous black surface colour will not endure in the medium / long term. I consider that the proposed surface treatment is acceptable and will not have a significant negative effect on the landscape and amenities of the area.

8.4 IMPACTS ON PROPERTY 30 I refer to the proposal within this application that the Greenway would be established with the agreement of landowners. In general, and subject to such agreement, it is not considered that the principle of a Greenway is incompatible with agricultural activities. Measures to accommodate such activities and use of lands can be agreed and appropriately designed and have been demonstrated in other locations to be practical. In other locations, adjacent to residential properties or through commercial properties, the project may give rise to particular impacts. I address the specific concerns of a number of the landowners below:

40 8.4.1 Joe McNamara, Gowlane West

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 33 of 105

The issue is presented as one of consent and proximity to the objector’s property (Ch. 4000 - 4300), where the route crosses a local road, heading southeast. The original railway line runs immediately adjacent to the third party dwelling and out buildings and is used as the driveway to the property. The concerns expressed in the submissions are not unreasonable and an alternative route to the southwest is identified in the application. This follows a faint track over an area of cut-over bog and at the oral hearing the applicants indicated that there was no practical obstacle to this alternative.

10 8.4.2 W. McG. Hollinger . The subject lands are located at Recess Station Ch.20200 and a section of lands to the west of Weir Bridge at Ch19850 – 19925. The objection in this case is based on the preservation of the landscape and wildlife of these lands and interference with farm management. Between Ch. 17400 and 20000, the railway route is largely intact and comprises a highly scenic section of the proposed Greenway. The route follows an unsurfaced forestry, bog and agricultural access road. I understand that the route is used frequently by walkers, whether or not with the express consent of landowners. I note that the lands are not intensively farmed, comprising rough 20 grazing, with forestry, turbury and fishing activity. I do not consider that, subject to appropriate management, the construction or operation of the greenway would negatively impact on the conservation or management of the lands, particularly given the nature of the existing track. The lands comprise part of the Natura 2000 network and the submissions of NPWS are relevant in this regard. Significant impacts are not anticipated. Routing along the N59 as suggested by the third party would be contrary to the overall objective of proposed development and is not supported by the NRA. An alternative option is to route the Greenway along the N59 for approx. 2km to the eastern shore of Lough Athry, before turning south along a local road which runs 30 around the lake and eventually regains the railway route at Athry Bridge (Ch.16600). This would not be a favourable route, however, having regard to routing along the N59 and gradients on the local access road.

8.4.3 Kathleen and Diarmuid Desmond (Ch. 31280 – 33190) The railway route is largely intact along this section and options to avoid this section of the route are very limited. Alternative options alongside the N59 on the southern side of Lough Shindilla are discontinuous and are uncertain given proposed upgrade of the N59. Such an option would not be more favourable than the proposed northerly route which can be regarded as an important and 40 highly scenic section of the route, running along the foot of the mountains. It is

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 34 of 105

understood that the proposed upgrade of the N59 does not include the provision of a cycleway in this area and duplication of provision would not therefore arise. The lands adjacent to the railway comprise mainly wet heath and cut-over bog. The extent of severance occurring would not be significant and fencing would not necessarily be required, thereby minimising restrictions on cattle movements. Agricultural access along the greenway could be easily facilitated, without compromising the route. The railway cutting at Ch.31600 is relatively narrow over a distance of approx. 280m and may not easily accommodate opposing tractor and cycle traffic. Having regard to the relative intensity of such uses, 10 however, I do not consider that this would materially affect either agricultural activities or use of the Greenway in this location. On-going maintenance would be the responsibility of Galway Co. Co.

8.4.4 Don and Jean Friel (Ch.40050 – 40780) The submission refers to lands at Letterfore, at the western end of Lough Bofinne, south of the N59. There is no identified alternative route in this location. Concerns are expressed regarding severance of lands and the potential for trespass. The lands adjacent to the railway bed at this location comprise blanket and cutover bog and are not intensively farmed. The extent of severance arising 20 would be limited. Similarly, having regard to the prevailing ground conditions, potential trespass is limited and could be adequately addressed, in my opinion, by fencing and signage, subject to landowner agreement. It is proposed that owners and occupiers of private property crossed by the Greenway will be indemnified against any negligence claims for accident, damage or injury sustained while on private property.

8.4.5 Thomas and Mary Cahill (Ch. 44500 – 44900) The railway is relatively intact at this location although the development would require a new bridge at the eastern end of the landholding. Concerns raised 30 relate to proximity to their dwelling and interference with farm activities and structures. Some of these concerns could be addressed through fencing and signage, although there would be some impact on agricultural structures and facilities on the lands. At this location, the plans show an alternative route north across Leam / Quiet Man Bridge to the N59, and east along the national route as far as Glengowla West via an on-line cycleway to be provided as part of the N59 upgrade. While the original railway route is preferable, where agreement with the landowners is not obtained, I consider that this alternative route is a reasonable and viable option, having regard to the original alignment of the railway alongside the N59 at Ch.45100 – 46000 approx. 40

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 35 of 105

8.4.6 Mary Conneely, Glengowla (Ch.46800 – 47000) The issues raised relate to severance and management of land, and trespass arising from the proposed Greenway. These lands comprise rough grazing and I note that access to the river bank is generally restricted by vegetation and fencing. Avoidance of these lands would require routing along the N59, which would not be favourable and does not comprise part of the upgrade proposals contained in application ref. HA0041. No alternative to the crossing of these lands has been identified by Galway Co. Co. It is proposed by the applicants that fencing and provision of gates would adequately address landowners concerns. 10 8.4.7 Michael Clancy (Ch.47550 – 47790) This submission raises issues of severance of farm lands and trespass. I note that in this area the railway generally runs along field boundaries and that the number of crossings of the line is limited. The extent of severance arising would therefore be restricted. There is no alternative route identified in this location.

8.4.8 Keith Geoghan, Glengowla Mines (Ch.47980 – 49440) The issues raised relate to interference with this existing tourist and educational facility and its future expansion on these lands. The route of the railway runs 20 through this tourism site, immediately adjacent to some of the original mine features and associated visitor buildings. The railway is used as part of the nature walks around the site. The proposed Greenway would, in principle, appear to be compatible with the heritage tourism use at this site and I note that the operator is not opposed to the development in principle. The issue is one of the specific routing of the Greenway rather than the principle of the development. It has not been suggested that the Greenway development would give rise to direct physical impacts on the mine complex / geology. The issues raised by Mr. Geoghegan with regard to security and interference with operations at this site are not 30 considered to be unreasonable. Similarly, the concerns expressed with regard to impacts on the commercial operation of the site are in principle supported by the submissions of the GSI in relation to the protection and promotion of geological heritage. I do not consider that the proposed cycle route would give rise to any greater disturbance to seismic recording equipment than other visitors to this mine facility, who would otherwise mainly arrive by car / bus.

I would draw a distinction between the impacts of a Greenway development on agricultural lands and impacts on a paid entry / ticketed commercial tourist facility. While adherence to the original railway route would generally be the 40 optimum solution for this project, the impact on and practical operation with

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 36 of 105

Glengowla Mines could, in my view be relatively significant. These impacts were not considered in the EIS and the consideration of alternatives in this regard was limited. As noted above, while the development could be compatible with a tourism operation of this nature, aspects of the existing operation would be compromised and a change to the existing business model may be required.

At the oral hearing Galway Co. Co. advised that the alternative route along the N59 identified in the original application (coloured blue) is no longer available. The landowner has proposed an alternative route option, which connects to the 10 N59 from the eastern end of his lands, travelling west along the N59 to Glengowla Bridge before turning south along a local road, to finally connect with the railway alignment via an old right of way. The extent of works required to achieve this alternative are not clear, and it would add to the length of the Greenway. Both alternative route options would require the routing of cycle traffic along the N59 which is not provided for in the N59 upgrade proposals under application ref. HA0041. This is identified by the applicants as the principle constraint on such alternative route option.

The plans submitted under HA0041 indicate that east of Glengowla Bridge the 20 existing N59 road line will be shifted slightly to the north with a section of the existing road pavement retained intact. A minimum 2m grass verge, wider in parts, will be provided along both sides of the N59, north of the old road pavement. It would appear therefore that within the landtake identified in application ref. HA0041, there would be adequate space to accommodate a cycleway on the southern side of the upgraded N59. This would, therefore, appear to be a physically viable alternative option, if less preferable to maintenance of the original railway line. It does not appear that such alternative was assessed in any detail by the applicants in this case. I note that at date of writing this road upgrade scheme has not been approved. 30 Such alternative route option would cross an area of cut-over bog, between Ch.49400 and the N59, parallel to a watercourse, the impact of which would require further assessment. The route along the N59 to Glengowla Bridge would also traverse part of Lough Corrib cSAC, within the envelope of the N59 upgrade.

8.4.9 Tommy O’Toole, Glengowla The Greenway development will likely not be compatible with the existing stated use of the railway line for the exercising of horses, although it is possible that the use of the Greenway for horse riding may be facilitated. It is proposed that the Greenway will be developed with the agreement of landowners and 40 accommodation works may be possible to address impacts in this regard.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 37 of 105

8.4.10 William Leahy I refer to section 8.8 of this report, Human Beings and Material Assets, in relation to impacts on the operation of a horse trekking operation, which utilises sections of the disused railway line.

8.4.11 Kevin Joyce The submission of Kevin Joyce with regard to impacts on shops at Recess is more directly related to the proposed upgrade of the N59. It is not considered 10 that the Greenway development will impact on these facilities, or access thereto, and may result in increased custom to such shops. I note that no application for approval for the upgrading of this section of the N59 (Clifden – Maam Cross) has been lodged to date.

8.5 FLORA AND FAUNA The proposed Greenway extends for a distance of 52.4km and traverses an area of environmental sensitivity, as evidenced by the coverage of the Natura 2000 network in the area. An NIS was submitted as part of the application and 20 Appendix 2 to this report contains an Appropriate Assessment of the development. National and European sites of particular relevance to this development are identified as follows: • Lough Corrib cSAC/pNHA and SPA. • Maumturk Mountains cSAC/pNHA. • Twelve Bens/Garraun Complex cSAC/pNHA. • Connemara Bog Complex cSAC/pNHA and SPA.

The proposed Greenway generally follows the route of the old railway line passing through varying habitats. Over half of the proposed route is already 30 used for regular access purposes, in the form of public roads, agricultural tracks and forestry roads. Elsewhere, the railway line is described as being covered in either dry calcareous or neutral grassland, or improved grassland, or scrub, depending on the level of maintenance on the track. In a number of locations, the greenway is routed off the original railway alignment onto undisturbed ground, however, these sections are limited in extent. Works most likely to cause significant impacts will occur in areas offline from the main railway track and in areas of track which have been re-colonised with semi-natural vegetation.

Restricting the route to disturbed ground / artificial surfaces is the principle 40 mitigation measure arising in this case, whereby direct loss of / impacts on

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 38 of 105

sensitive habitats are largely avoided. Land-take along the route will relate to habitats of low ecological value and the EIS predicts that impacts on Annex I habitats are unlikely. In many sections, the works required would not comprise a significant alteration in the baseline environment.

The adoption of a number of alternative off-line route options could result in the loss of cut-over bog in three locations (Gowlane Ch. 4000 and Maam Cross Ch. 35000 and 35450). These areas do not contain Annex I habitats / qualifying interests of the Natura sites and mitigation in line with published NRA guidance is 10 proposed.

While direct impacts on species diversity and loss of feeding habitat for local animal populations will be minimal, indirect impacts may extend beyond the works proposed, particularly where the works are to be carried out in, or adjacent to, watercourses and / or water dependent habitats. Such works may result in changes in hydrological conditions, which have the potential to ‘dry out’ or degrade small areas of adjacent wetland habitats such as Blanket Bog, Wet Heath and Wet Grassland. Changes in soil conditions may lead to changes in or loss of floristic habitat. Species potentially affected include aquatic ecosystem 20 dependent species and terrestrial species, such as the bat species. Mitigation measures including the lining and blocking of drains are proposed in order to address the potential for such hydrological impacts.

The potential impact on water quality and aquatic species and habitats is the primary impact of concern in this case. The EIS notes that there are potential indirect impacts on European and National designated sites, as all of the watercourses and drainage ditches are hydrologically linked to these sites. A large-scale spillage of a pollutant or siltation would have an impact on the aquatic environment of the receiving waterbodies and aquatic species. Potential impacts 30 on watercourses in the study area, if unmitigated, have the potential to alter the integrity of the water bodies, and the designated sites wherein or within whose catchment they lie.

At further information stage, the NPWS raised particular concerns regarding the assessment of impacts of the proposed development on the Freshwater Pearl Mussel (FPM). The applicants were requested to submit Method Statements for each work section making particular reference to FPM sites, identifying specific protection measures to obviate downstream impacts. The response identifies the river catchments wherein FPM are found and pearl 40 mussel locations along the Greenway route. FPM occur within the Owenmore

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 39 of 105

catchment between Ch. 24000 at Recess Church and Ch.30900 at Oorid Lough and within the Owenriff Catchment between Ch. 40300 at Bunakill and Ch. 48800 at Gengowla East. Given the length of the route, the further information response sets out an over-arching Method Statement for the construction stage. Works sections within the FPM catchments are identified and additional control measures are described. The Method Statement describes, in particular, the mitigation, control, monitoring and emergency measures in relation to erosion and sediment control. Identified measures for the protection of watercourses include: 10 • Employment of a suitably qualified Ecologist to supervise works at watercrossings, and to provide site inductions for all personnel. • None of the seven bridges will have footings within the river channel; therefore no in-stream works will be required. • The timing of the works must be specified and agreed with the IFI in relation to fish migration and spawning periods.

At the oral hearing, NPWS indicated their satisfaction with the extent of surveys undertaken and undertook to agree final works method statements for the proposed development with the developers. It was recommended that a 20 freshwater ecologist, with suitable and wide ranging experience, be engaged in order to draft these statements and supervise works. Subject to such measures, it was indicated that adverse impacts on species and habitats of interest would be avoided.

Temporary disturbance during construction is identified in respect of bird species including Kingfisher, Merlin, Golden Plover and BoCCI Bird Species. Such disturbance is not generally considered to be significant. The EIS notes that roosts for three bat species are known in the general area, however, no known roosts occur within the route corridor, with the exception of 30 Ardbear Bridge in Clifden. No signs of Lesser Horseshoe Bat were observed and no suitable roost / hibernation sites therefor were noted in in the vicinity of the proposed works. Impacts on other bat species may arise from loss of bat roosts and loss of foraging habitats. Lighting during night-works may cause some temporary disruption of local bat populations’ flight paths, while pollution of watercourses may also result in knock-on impacts to bats. Replacement of bridges and new structures may provide new roosting opportunities. As the proposed works occur on the current disused rail line, there will be no permanent disruption of bat commuting routes. Standard mitigation measures are identified and no significant negative impacts are anticipated. 40

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 40 of 105

Following the request for further information, further surveys for Marsh Fritillary Butterfly were undertaken by the applicants, however, no signs of the species larval webs were identified. At the oral hearing, representatives of NPWS noted the man-made nature of the railway bed and that the food source of the species (Devil’s Bit Scabious) occurs in the environs of the track rather than on the track itself. This plant species is relatively common throughout the country and its presence does not imply presence of the butterfly species. NPWS advise that in the event of the species being identified, it would not preclude the proposed development. It was recommended that further targeted surveys be undertaken 10 in August of next year.

Conclusion Avoidance is the principle means of mitigation of impacts in this case. Where impacts on habitats are identified, the extent of disturbance is considered to be limited and not significant. The principle area of concern arises in relation to impacts on watercourses, where adjacent works have the potential to impact on aquatic habitats and species. All watercourses in the area are linked to the Natura Network and are of high sensitivity. Specific mitigation measures for the protection of water quality are identified in application documentation including 20 the agreement of Works Method Statements with NPWS. The EIS identifies mitigation measures to obviate significant negative impacts on terrestrial habitats, flora and fauna as a result of the proposed Greenway development. The residual impacts of the proposed Greenway are identified as the direct loss of some early successional habitats which are not of high ecological value.

The Natura Impact Statement submitted with the application concludes that with the implementation of best practice and when the recommended mitigation measures are taken into consideration, the project will not have a significant effect either individually or in combination with other plans or projects on the 30 conservation objectives of any of the Natura 2000 sites under consideration. NPWS have advised that the following the further information response and subject to the final agreement of the works method statements, significant adverse impacts on species and habitats of conservation interest are unlikely.

8.6 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE : The EIS notes that the development affects six river catchments within the Western River Basin District, namely the Owenglin, Derryehorraun, Owenmore, Screebe, Owenree and Owenriff. The Greenway route crosses 45 waterbodies, 40 which generally flow south, while there are 25 no. lakes immediately adjacent to

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 41 of 105

the route. Water quality in the area is identified as generally unpolluted and watercourses are predominantly of good or high status with objectives to protect such status. The EIS notes that due to the poor productivity of underlying aquifers, significant groundwater - surface water interaction is unlikely. The EIS identifies potential impacts including: • Increased run-off resulting in flooding. • Flooding due to blockages of surface water flow-paths or channels due to the collapse of temporary stockpiles or the transport of silt from the site. • Siltation of surrounding watercourses. 10 • Potential scouring or stagnation of drainage channels due to changes in flows, or waterlogging of upstream lands. • Increased hardstanding may reduce infiltration and groundwater recharge. • Any blockage to normal flow rates in the adjacent stream channels could reduce downstream flow rates, which could impact on aquatic ecology. • Removal of vegetation, increasing infiltration and reducing run-off to streams.

The EIS identifies general construction mitigation measures to address the above impacts, including measures to address silt run-off and maintain existing surface 20 water flow paths. At operational stage mitigation measures include the maintenance of existing drains and watercourses and the maintenance of existing surface water flow paths. The EIS advises that the development will not give rise to any increased flood risk. Works method statements for the route were prepared at further information stage, with particular attention given to impacts on Freshwater Pearl Mussel. At the oral hearing, NPWS undertook to engage with the developers to finalise these method statements and otherwise raised no objection to the development. Subject to the implementation of identified mitigation measures it is not considered that significant hydrological impacts are likely to arise in this case. 30

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 42 of 105

8.7 SOILS, GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY While large sections of the disused railway line are now used as a roads or tracks connecting agricultural lands, much of the line is also covered in topsoil, which in wetter areas has been colonised by hydrophilic plants. The majority of the earthwork impacts arising relate to the movement of topsoil. The EIS notes that the removal of overburden will not give rise to an increase in aquifer vulnerability. Given the limited works corridor, significant impacts on the existing groundwater regime, which is generally unproductive except for local zones, are described as unlikely. 10 Potential impacts identified in the EIS include the following: • Release of sediment and deposition downstream. Existing drains running adjacent to the track will be opened up to take surface waters from the proposed Greenway. • Disturbance of soils adjacent to the proposed track, the majority of which are thin Blanket Peat deposits. Where the soil cannot be returned to a similar quality this would constitute a ‘Permanent Negative Impact’ • The importation of aggregate will have a moderate negative impact. • The retention of excavated material to create embankments along the proposed route would have minimal impacts. 20 • Impacts on the residential seedbank under the railway line will be “Imperceptible”. • The replacement of the existing topsoil and track surface with the proposed cycle and pedestrian path and the storage of soils may lead to a change in the soil properties including compaction and soil sealing. • Contamination of soils from fuel spillages and the disposal of contaminated waste during construction.

Slight imperceptible impacts are predicted and mitigation measures include pollution control and preservation of soil properties. The route has largely been 30 restricted to the existing disused railway line or along existing roads or tracks and the design minimises topsoil removal. A maximum excavation of 0.5m topsoil will be required, with total overburden removal identified as 45,900m 3. The design incorporates geogrids or woven geotextiles at the base of a thickened granular capping below the cycle lane pavement to increase stability and reduce settlement. Impacts on soil structure will be minimised through the reduction in movement and compaction of soils, and controls on soil storage. The online upgrade of the existing railway will reduce the extent of soil sealing. Compliance with best practice guidelines will minimise potential for accidental soil and groundwater 40 contamination

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 43 of 105

The original EIS failed to identify items or areas of geological heritage interest in the study area. Amendments to the statement submitted at the oral hearing identify geological heritage sites previously advised by GSI at scoping stage, however, no actual assessment of potential impacts on such sites has been undertaken. These matters were the subject of discussion at the oral hearing. With regard to the quarry at Lough Oorid (Ch. 34500), the restriction of the Greenway to the bed of the Old Clifden Road as proposed during the course of the oral hearing, should not result in any significant excavation or impacts on this 10 site of geological interest. In response to a specific question at the oral hearing, Dr. Matthew Parks indicated that where the Greenway was restricted to the existing track / railway route at the Derrylea processing site (Ch. 4800) significant impacts are not likely to arise. The EIS states that no impacts on the Glengowla Mines were foreseen, however, no assessment of such impacts is contained in the document. While it was indicated at the hearing that structural impacts on the mine appear unlikely, no assessment of impacts on this commercial operation was carried out. Such potential impacts were raised as an issue by the Geological Survey of Ireland 20 and heritage interest groups.

8.8 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE No specific features of archaeological potential were identified in the EIS along the proposed route. The closest feature is a possible 18 th c. burial ground 30m from the route at Killymongaun, east of Clifden. Built heritage in the area is dominated by Victorian architecture associated with the construction of the railway, including stations and numerous bridges and culverts.

30 The proposed Greenway development will not impact on recorded archaeological sites located within the receiving environment. The original construction of the railway is likely to have removed any previously existing archaeological resource and the EIS describes the likelihood of a further direct impact as low. At certain locations the proposed route will travel ‘offline’ from the existing roads and railway (in the townlands of Gowlan West, Garroman, Lurgan and Glengowla West), wherein disturbance of previously unrecorded archaeological features or deposits may arise. I refer also to the comments above with regard to impacts on the mine processing works at Ch. 4800.

40 The EIS identifies specific mitigation measures in relation to archaeology and

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 44 of 105

architectural features. Particularly those associated with the railway. All ground disturbance is to be monitored by a suitably qualified archaeologist. Drainage culverts and existing railway bridges will be retained and incorporated into the scheme. Where this is not possible a full record of such features will be undertaken prior to the commencement of works. Inappropriate repairs to retained drainage culverts along the path of the railway may result in a direct significant impact and where necessary, repairs should replicate building materials, finishing and style. Existing railway bridges to be retained should be subject to appropriate 10 restoration. The removal of any iron girder frames from the bridges will result in a direct significant negative impact on the structures. A full record and survey of structures is to be completed prior to any alteration. Replacement span structures should replicate the character of the existing railway bridge architecture, in consultation with a conservation architect or historic buildings advisor. The use of wooden decking spans at bridges that have already had their iron frames removed will result in a direct moderate negative impact on the character of the structure.

The path of the railway, formed by embankment or cut, is itself a feature of 20 heritage importance. The development of the greenway may result in a direct negative impact on the feature due to potential re-grading of the embankment. While the EIS recommends that the railway embankment/cut be left intact, should regrading be required, such sections are to be subject to topographical survey in order to fully record the feature.

It is not anticipated that development will impact negatively on the archaeological, cultural or architectural heritage resource. The scheme will open up the landscape, and its industrial archaeology and architecture, to the public resulting in a greater awareness and appreciation of the resource. The EIS therefore 30 predicts an overall direct moderate positive impact. Were the development not to proceed there would be gradual dereliction of the railway, resulting in the collapse of bridges and culverts and degrading of the features. At the oral hearing submissions were heard with regard to the protection of the heritage resources along the route of the railway. While I note the content of these submissions, having regard to the content of the EIS and the submission of the Dept. of Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht, I do not consider that the development would unduly impact on features of interest and consider further that the development would contribute to the on-going maintenance, conservation and appreciation thereof. 40

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 45 of 105

8.9 HUMAN BEINGS AND MATERIAL ASSETS . The proposed development is identified as a community driven project and has the potential to deliver positive impacts for the local human environment in terms of tourism, amenity, and for the local economy. The development is considered to accord with local, regional and national policies for development in this area.

The EIS does not consider operational impacts on adjacent residential amenities, however, much of the route is relatively remote from such properties and 10 alternative routes are identified where the route passes immediately adjacent to such properties. Experience elsewhere suggests that Greenway developments can operate in close proximity to residential properties without undue impacts.

The EIS acknowledges the potential for minor temporary disturbance to local farmers and noise sensitive receptors during construction. The route is generally relatively remote from residential properties and significant impacts in this regard are not otherwise anticipated. It is intended that the disused railway route will remain in private ownership and will operate as a permissive trail rather than as a public right of way. I have already commented on this issue above. Galway 20 County Council state that owners and occupiers of private property crossed by the way will be indemnified against any negligence claims by a recreational user for accident, damage or injury sustained while walking on private property.

The EIS acknowledges that a reduction in the connectivity of workable lands for agricultural purposes may occur. Mitigation measures to address such severance impacts include the provision of cattle stops / crossings, gates and fencing. While such impacts are acknowledged, I do not in principle regard such Greenway development as being incompatible with agricultural activity, particularly where such activity is undertaken at a relatively low intensity. 30 While the EIS notes that there is one commercial operation along the route of the Greenway, no examination of the relationship with Glengowla Mine or potential impacts thereon has been undertaken in the EIS.

Submissions were received at the oral hearing from Mr. William Leahy, with regard to the impact of the proposed Greenway on an existing horse trail / trekking business in this area. It is understood that the observer is the owner of certain lands at Maam Cross and adjacent to Athry Lough and that use is made of sections of the original railway route as part of guided treks in the region.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 46 of 105

In principle, Greenway projects are not incompatible with use by horses, subject to appropriate design. I note that a technical information note has been produced in the UK by Sustrans in this regard 3. The proposed Greenway may not match the existing undeveloped nature of the route experienced by horse trekking clients, however, the route would be open to a wider range of users than is currently the case. It is not the role of the planning system to protect commercial interests and consider that subject to the agreement of affected landowners, the development can be regarded as a positive piece of tourism and transport infrastructure. 10 The revised Greenway will involve four crossings of the N59 over the approx. 52km route and I note the submissions of the NRA in this regard. Road alignment and sightlines at these locations are generally acceptable, with the exception of the crossing at Weir Bridge, Ch. 20050 approx. At the oral hearing, Galway Co. Co. indicated that this section of the road will be subject to a reduced (50kph) limit and the provision of appropriate warning signage. Where provided alongside the N59, the Greenway will be separated from the carriageway edge by a minimum 2m wide verge and 0.5m hard shoulder. At the oral hearing, it was identified that separation between the Greenway and the 20 carriageway on the R341 would be reduced to 0.5m and that a physical barrier would be installed along this section. These measures are considered to be reasonable and I regard the proposed development as acceptable in terms of the safety and convenience of both road users and users of the proposed Greenway.

8.10 GAELTACHT - LANGUAGE AND CULTURE The proposed Greenway passes through areas of the Connemara Gaeltacht at three locations along the route. No written submissions in Irish were received by the Board. Parties to the oral hearing were given the opportunity to make 30 submissions in Irish, however, no such submissions were made and parties were agreeable to the hearing being heard through English. I consider that the provisions of S.135(8) of the Act were satisfied in this regard.

The submitted EIS makes no reference to the location of the development within the Gaeltacht area nor does it assess impacts on the culture and language of the Gaeltacht. A Language Impact Statement has been produced in respect of the proposed upgrading of the N59 (ABP ref. HA0041). This notes that a road development will be deemed to have a negative impact on a language community when the social factors which sustain the use of a minority language

3 Horses on the National Cycle Network: Technical Information Note No. 28. www.sustrans.org.uk

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 47 of 105

will be undermined or weakened. It identifies the following impacts as damaging to a linguistic minority: 1. A dispersal of population. 2. An introduction of new residents and social participants who would have the potential to weaken existing minority language networks and institutions. 3. A disruption to existing social networks (e.g. local road closure and increased travel time). 4. The physical dissection or fragmentation of natural community catchment areas by a new road development. 10 The significance or severity of such a negative impact is determined by the size of the population affected and the proportion of the affected population that is actively Irish-speaking. Impacts may be localised, adjacent to the proposed development, or wider regional impacts. Where a development improves a Gaeltacht community’s access to employment, goods and services, such a development is likely to have a positive impact on a rural community’s sustainability. A study carried out in 2007, “ The Comprehensive Linguistic Study of the Use of Irish in the Gaeltacht ”, analysed every Gaeltacht electoral division and identified 20 three distinct language communities: Category A: Areas in which the most vibrant use of Irish language as a community and family language can be found. Category B: Areas in which the Irish language remains in everyday use to a certain extent, but limited to certain age-groups, institutions or recognised networks. Category C: Areas in which language shift is almost complete and the use of Irish as a community language is very limited, mainly to institutional settings and to particular social networks in the older age cohorts.

30 In this case, the proposed Connemara Greenway passes through the Gaeltacht at three locations, totalling approx. 14km out of the entire route: Area 1 : Ch. 18600 (Garroman) – Ch. 24100 (Caher / Derryneen) Area 2 : Ch. 27650 (Cloonoppeen Bridge, Shanakeela – 30900 (Bunscannifff) Area 3 : Ch. 40800 (Lough Bofinne) – 45600 (Lough Agraffard)

Areas 1 and 2 have been generally identified as Category C districts, wherein the route generally follows the route of the N59. Off-line sections are generally sparsely populated. Area 3, between Loch na Bó Finne and the N59 and Léim Thiar to the southwest, is associated with the electoral division of Cill Chuimín 40 and is identified as a Category A Gaeltacht area. The Language Impact

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 48 of 105

Statement prepared in respect of the N59, notes that the townlands of Léim Thoir and Léim Thiar are separated by a mountain area from the stronger Irish- language community and social networks to the south. Residents in these townlands are therefore more likely to participate in the social networks of Category C areas to the north. The route passes along the northern edge / boundary of this Gaeltacht area and significant negative impacts are not considered to be likely.

The development is a tourism / leisure related project. Such projects have the 10 potential to impact both positively and negatively on the language and culture of an area. The introduction of a largely English speaking group to the area can erode the language, however, I note that tourism is already a significant use in this area and that the proposed development will complement and support this use. The Local Area Plan for the Gaeltacht generally promotes tourism development in the area and such sustainable tourism projects have the potential to provide long-term economic opportunities, facilitating the retention of the existing permanent population. The greenway will not result in fragmentation or severance of Gaeltacht areas and the project will not disrupt social or community networks or institutions. The 20 potential negative impacts on the language and culture of the area can be mitigated by sustaining the rural population of the area. In consideration of the status of the areas traversed by the development, it is considered that signage and instructions along the route should reflect the linguistic and cultural heritage of the area.

9.0 CONCLUSIONS

The development of a Greenway along the old railway line between Clifden and 30 Oughterard has the potential to provide a significant piece of tourism infrastructure with wider community and economic benefits. I note the significant role which tourism has to play in this region and previous reports highlighting the economic benefits of the Mayo Great Western Greenway to that area 4. The submissions of Fáilte Ireland are of interest in this regard. The development is considered to be in accordance with local, regional and national policy. In principle, I consider development of the nature proposed to be a worthwhile and positive objective.

4 “Great Western Greenway – Economic Impact Case Study” Fáilte Ireland Oct. 2011

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 49 of 105

I consider that the revisions to the route of the Greenway proposed by the applicants at the oral hearing will significantly improve the overall quality and value of the proposed Greenway over that originally proposed, and recommend that such revisions be accepted by the Board.

The nature of such development is that there will be direct impacts on individual landowners along the route, however. While some landowners are in support of the development, others are opposed to it. The application as lodged with the Board relates to the development of the Greenway as a permissive trail and as 10 such can only proceed with the agreement of landowners. Notwithstanding this, Galway Co. Co. have indicated that where consensus is not reached with landowners, other measures including the compulsory purchase of lands or creation of a public right of way along the route may be examined. Such measures would be the subject of a separate process and are beyond the remit of this report.

I do not regard such Greenway development as being incompatible with agricultural activity subject to appropriate accommodation works being provided in agreement with landowners. There are examples of such facilities operating 20 successfully both here and abroad. I consider, however, that the development may not be similarly compatible with the operation of existing ticketed tourism / heritage sites, such as that at Glengowla Mine, whose existing commercial operation may be at least partly compromised by the Greenway. An alternative route in this location may therefore merit further detailed examination. I have already commented on such possibilities. As this currently application before the Board contains no proposals for the compulsory purchase of lands or establishment of a public right of way, and development can only proceed with the agreement of landowners, the Board may not consider that the examination of such alternatives is warranted in this case. 30 The proposed development traverses an area of environmental sensitivity. In the main, the route follows that of the original railway line / existing tracks and roads, which significantly reduces potential environmental impacts. I conclude that subject to the identified mitigation measures and appropriate conditions, the development will not have adverse impacts on the integrity of any European Site. Similarly, likely ecological impacts outside such areas are not regarded as significant. I note the submissions from the NPWS on the file and at the oral hearing in this regard.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 50 of 105

I consider the proposed Greenway project to be a worthwhile development, with significant potential amenity and economic benefits for the area. I note the level of local support for the proposal in principle, saving the difficulties of individual landowners. It is not considered that the development will negatively impact on the language or culture of the Gaeltacht. The development has the potential to connect into a wider network of similar trails in the future. I therefore recommend that the development be approved subject to the conditions set out below.

10 12.0 RECOMMENDATION

Having regard to the foregoing I recommend that the proposed development be approved for the reasons and considerations and subject to the conditions, set out below:

Reasons and Considerations:

Having regard to: (a) The nature and extent of the proposed development as set out in the 20 application and the proposal to establish the Greenway as a permissive trail; (b) the history of the route and the pattern of development occurring on and in the vicinity thereof; (c) the policies and objectives of the Development Plan for the area and regional and national policies for the establishment of a cycleway network; (d) the environmental impact statement submitted in support of the application, including the mitigation measures set out therein; (e) the information submitted in relation to potential impacts on habitats, flora and fauna including the “Natura Impact Assessment”; 30 (f) and having considered the submissions made in relation to the application and at the oral hearing,

It is considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions set out below, the proposed development, (i) would not result in significant adverse effects on the environment, would not have a significant effect on the Natura 2000 Network or sites of ecological interest and would not have a significant impact on any protected species; (ii) would not seriously injure the visual amenities of the area; (iii) would not interfere to any significant extent with existing land uses in the 40 area;

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 51 of 105

(iv) would be acceptable in terms of traffic safety and convenience; (v) would be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Conditions:

1. The development shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the plans and particulars, including the Natura Impact Statement, the Environmental Impact Statement and other associated documentation, 10 lodged with An Bord Pleanála on 18th of May, 2012, the further particulars lodged on 26th of October 2012, and details submitted to the Board at the Oral Hearing on 11th and 12th of December 2012, except as may otherwise be required in order to comply with the following conditions. Where such conditions require details to be agreed, the developer shall agree such details in writing prior to commencement of development and the development shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the agreed particulars.

Reason : In the interest of clarity. 20

2. (a) The mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Statement and Natura Impact Statement, and other amended particulars submitted with the planning application and the further particulars lodged on 26th October, and at the oral hearing on 11th and 12th December 2012, shall be implemented in full by the developer, except as may otherwise be required in order to comply with the following conditions.

(b) The developer shall engage the services of a project ecologist for the 30 duration of the construction period. A protocol shall be drawn up with the National Parks and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht to establish inspection and monitoring procedures and be agreed with the planning authority. In default of agreement, the details shall be referred to An Bord Pleanala for determination.

Reason : In the interest of clarity and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

40 3. The route of the Greenway, between chainage 20020 and chainage 31500, shall be amended to incorporate the revisions proposed by Galway County Council at the oral hearing on the 11 th and 12 th of December 2012.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 52 of 105

Reason : In the interests of clarify and in order to improve the Greenway experience by maximising separation between users and vehicular traffic on the N59, national secondary road.

4. Prior to the commencement of development on the site, detailed works method statements for each section of the route of the proposed Greenway shall be agreed in writing with the National Parks and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. Such method 10 statements shall be prepared by a suitably qualified ecologist and shall identify where ecological supervision of works on-site is to be undertaken. All development works shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of such statements.

Reason : In order to minimise impact of construction activity on species and habitats of conservation interest.

5. Further targeted surveys along the route of the Greenway shall be carried out 20 in August 2013 for the presence of the Marsh Fritillary Butterfly, in accordance with the requirements of the National Parks and Wildlife Services. Construction activity in areas of habitat suitable for these species shall be undertaken in accordance with the requirements, and under the supervision of, the project ecologist.

Reason : In order to minimise the impact of construction activity on species and habitats of conservation interest.

30 6. The sources of all aggregate to be used in the proposed development shall be subject to the prior approval of the National Parks and Wildlife Services.

Reason : In the interests of the conservation and protection of habitats and species of conservation interest.

7. ARCH C The developer shall facilitate the preservation, recording and protection of archaeological materials or features that may exist within the site. In this 40 regard, the developer shall -

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 53 of 105

(a) notify the planning authority in writing at least four weeks prior to the commencement of any site operation (including hydrological and geotechnical investigations) relating to the proposed development,

(b) employ a suitably-qualified archaeologist who shall monitor all site investigations and other excavation works, and

(c) provide arrangements, acceptable to the planning authority, for the 10 recording and for the removal of any archaeological material which the authority considers appropriate to remove.

In default of agreement on any of these requirements, the matter shall be referred to An Bord Pleanála for determination.

Reason : In order to conserve the archaeological heritage of the site and to secure the preservation and protection of any remains that may exist within the site.

20 8. All works occurring within the vicinity of sites and features of Geological Heritage Interest, as identified in Table 9.7 of the EIS submitted to the Board on 11/12/2012 and 12/12/2012 shall be carried out in consultation with, and in accordance with the requirements of, the Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI). Any borehole data or site investigation logs arising from the proposed development shall be submitted to the GSI.

Reason : In order to ensure the protection of sites of Geological Interest

30 9. All signage and notices to be erected along the route of the Greenway within the Connemara Gaeltacht shall be bilingual.

Reason : In the interests of protecting cultural and linguistic heritage.

Conor McGrath 40 Inspectorate

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 54 of 105

APPENDIX I: ORAL HEARING – OUTLINE REPORT

An Bord Pleanala Ref. JA0033

Development: Connemara Greenway Project - Clifden to Oughterard, County Galway.

Venue: The Station House Hotel, Clifden.

10 Dates: 11 & 12 th December 2012.

Participants: Galway County Council: Esmond Keane Barrister Liam Gavin Senior Engineer Paula Kearney, Associate RPS Environmental Consultant Rory Timlin B.E. Valerie Loughnane-Moran Senior Executive Planner

20 Prescribed Bodies : Failte Ireland, Paddy Matthews Dept. Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Denis Strong An Taisce, James Nix Geological Survey of Ireland, Dr. Matthew Parks

Observers: Kathleen and Diarmuid Desmond W.McG. Hollinger Michael Clancy Mary Conneely Keith Geoghegan, Glengowla Mines 30 Joe McNamara Mary & Joseph Cahill Dr. Matthew Parks, Mining Heritage Trust of Ireland Shane Foran, Paul Dunne, Galway Cycling Campaign Dominic O’Moráin, Lough Inagh Lodge and Irish Hotels Federation Brendan O’Malley, Pobal Mám Ean Teo Jamie Young, Killary Adventure Centre Helen Ferguson Harry Joyce

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 55 of 105

Clifden and Connemara Heritage and Historical Society Chris Shanahan, Connemara Chamber of Commerce Gerry McCloskey Karen Mannion, Cashel National School. Michael Gibbons Oliver Coyne Tommy O’ Toole Kevin Joyce 10 William Leahy Michael McNamara

Documents submitted to the Board at the Hearing:

11/12/2012: Galway County Council : • Liam Gavin, Brief of Evidence: Overview, Human Beings & Material Assets • Paula Kearney, Brief of Evidence, Environmental Aspects • Valerie Loughnane-Moran, Brief of Evidence • EIS Errata document and Map 9.3 (B&W A4) Prescribed Bodies : Paddy Matthews Failte Ireland, Brief of Evidence

Observers : Stephen Dowd, Extract from letter send to landowner at preliminary design stage. Michael Gibbons, written statement. Galway Cycling Campaign: Map of suggested alternatives.

12/12/2012 Galway County Council : • EIS Errata document including a colour copy of map 9.3 (A3) • Revised EIS Appendix C: Habitat Maps • Route Banner Drawing MGE0269/ DG0014-01 Rev 01 Prescribed Bodies : An Taisce: Written submission NRA: Submission read into the record by Galway County Council.

Observers : William Leahy: Third party correspondence regarding impacts on trail riding operation. Keith Geoghegan: Copy of letter of support from Mr. Peter Eggleston.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 56 of 105

Notes: This document is a brief outline of the proceedings. The entire proceedings of the oral hearing were recorded and the associated recordings are attached to this report. The assessment in my main report makes reference to details submitted in evidence at the Oral Hearing.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 57 of 105

1.0 Introduction. The hearing opened at 10.30am on December 11 th . At the outset, I outlined the nature of the development and the purpose of the hearing, and set out the order of the proceedings. In accordance with S.135(8) of the Act, comments were requested on the form of proceedings, having regard to the routing of the proposed Greenway through a number of townlands within the Connemara Gaeltacht. Parties were agreeable to the hearing being conducted through English. Four new observers identified themselves at the initial stages of hearing, namely 10 Oliver Coyne, Tommy O’Toole, Michael Gibbons and Karen Mannion. Three further observers identified themselves and made submissions to the hearing on Day 2, namely Kevin Joyce and William Leahy and Michael McNamara.

2.0 Applicants Submissions: Mr. Esmonde Keane introduced the development, describing its origins as a community project and the aim to develop the Greenway primarily on a consensual basis. Mr. Keane identified that the applicants were agreeable to amending the route to take into account some of the alternatives suggested by 20 observers, in particular those of the Galway Cycling Campaign. A number of other suggested options were not viable due to habitats and other constraints. The suggested amendments would result in the provision of one additional replacement bridge structure along the route. It was indicated that following completion of a section of works, the relevant construction compounds would be removed. Once complete, on-going maintenance could be served by existing Co. Co. compounds at Clifden, Maam Cross and Oughterard

Mr. Keane identified this as an application for approval under Section 173(3) and not a planning application. The consent of the affected landowners is not 30 required for approval. The preference of the applicants is that the trail be established on a permissive basis but that if consensus with landowners cannot be reached then Galway Co. Co. would examine the use of CPO powers or the establishment of a public right-of-way along the route.

Mr. Keane introduced three witnesses, namely Liam Gavin, Senior Engineer GCC, Paula Kearney RPS and Valeria Loughnane-Moran Senior Executive Planner GCC. An EIS Errata Sheet was submitted to the hearing. The principle corrections identified include the following: • Correction to section 6.3.4 of the EIS, describing bridges to be replaced 40 and / or renewed as part of the development.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 58 of 105

• A new section 9.3.4 is introduced acknowledging the presence of sites of geological heritage along the route. This was accompanied by a new table, Table 9.7 and a new map, Figure 9.3. • Section 15.4.2.1 of the EIS was amended to make reference to the potential use of CPO powers or establishment of a public right of way along the route where permissive access is not obtainable. • The chainage reference for site compound no. 5, specified in the response to further information, is corrected to read Ch.32100-32200.

10 Mr. Liam Gavin outlined the background to the development and the benefits thereof. The chapter of the Human Beings and Material Assets section of the EIS was outlined. Written statements for both of these submissions were received. While the stated preference of the applicants is to follow the line of the disused railway, Mr. Gavin outlined the route choices along the route, identifying where alternative route options were considered or proposed. I note the following points in particular: • Ch. 4000 - An alternative route around the property of Joe McNamara is identified and the applicants confirmed that there is no particular constraint on the use of this alternative. 20 • Ch. 11150 – An alternative route around Cloonbeg Bridge was identified. Subsequent surveys of the bridge confirm that that the bridge structure is stable and that the alternative route is not therefore necessary or now proposed. • Ch. 20000 - An short alternative is necessary at this location to avoid a garage structure built on the line. The Greenway will cross to the southern side of the N59 at this point. • Alternatives no. 1 and 3 of the Galway Cycling Campaign were accepted by Galway County Council, comprising the original railway embankments west of Recess and the use of the old Derryneen Road. The other alternatives 30 suggested by the Campaign were determined as not viable. • There was no viable alternative to the crossing of the Desmond lands at Bunscanniff Ch. 31500 – 33200. • At Maam Cross the preference is to remain on the railway and the identified alternatives are not proposed at this time. • There is no alternative to the use of the lands of Don and Jean Friel at Bunnakill Ch. 40700 but fencing will address access issues. • At Ch. 44500, there is an option to cross Quite Man Bridge and travel along the N59, however, the preference is to remain on the railway.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 59 of 105

• Ch. 46200 there is a need to route around houses built on the line. Following completion of the N59 upgrade a section of the old / existing road will be available for use. • At Ch. 46800 - 47800 there is no alternative to crossing the lands of Mary Conneely and Michael Clancy. Farm access across the Greenway can be provided. • Ch. 47800 – 49400 – There is no alternative to crossing the lands of Keith Geoghegan / Glengowla Mines. The identified alternative 27-28 is now no longer available. The alternatives proposed by Mr. Geoghegan have no 10 connection to the N59 and would increase the distance along the Greenway. • Ch.51300 – A shared surface will lead from the end of the Greenway to Oughterard town centre. Car parking is available at the church at the western end of the town and in the car park at the eastern end of the town. • The at-grade provision along the R341 at Ballinahinch will comprise a 2.5m cycletrack along the northern side of the road between Ch. 11800 and 12700 and along the southern side of the road between Ch. 14840 and 15150. The track will be separated by a 0.5m divide from the regional road carriageway, which will be shifted into the verge to the south to accommodate it.

20 Ms. Paula Kearney (RPS) submitted a written statement with regard to the environmental aspects of the development. This outlined the content of the EIS, specifically: • Policy, Planning and legislation. • Consultation. • Study Area • Project Description. • Alternatives and Site Justification. • Hydrology and Drainage. • Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology. 30 • Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology. • Air Quality and Climate. • Noise and Vibration. • Archaeology, Architectural and Cultural Heritage. • Landscape and Visual. • Human Beings and Material Assets. • Impact interactions and Cumulative Impacts. • Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures. • Natura Impact Statement

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 60 of 105

Sections of this statement were taken as read.

Brief of evidence from Valerie Loughnane – Moran, outlining the policy context for the proposed development, was taken as read.

3.0 Questioning of Applicants Following the conclusion of submissions by Galway County Council, other parties were given the opportunity to put questions to the applicants: 10 Questions from Mr. Stephen Dowds for Mr. Keith Geoghegan : Mr. Dowds queried the change in the nature of the application, which now included provision for the CPO of lands, and whether further public notice would be required given this change. An extract from an early landowner consultation document was submitted in this regard. In response to questions, Mr. Gavin indicated that the alternative route proposed by Mr. Geoghegan was not viable as the N59 road upgrade scheme made no provision for a cycletrack. The status of the proposed alternative route through the adjoining lands to the west was also queried. 20 Mr. Gavin indicated his belief that the proposed Greenway would be of benefit to the operation of the Glengowla Mines tourist attraction. Mr. Dowds queried the assessment of the EIS with regard to Glengowla Mine. Ms. Paula Kearney indicated that there would be no physical impacts on the mine due to the integrity of the original railway line. It was suggested that fencing and crossing points along the line would address concerns of safety and operational impacts. Wardens will be employed along the line to address the behaviour of users.

Michael Clancy indicated that there was no consent to the proposed development crossing his lands. 30 Mary Conneely queried the operation of gates along the Greenway and impacts on livestock movement and agricultural activities.

Mary and Joseph Cahill queried the cost of the project, indicating that such monies should be spent on the N59. The ability to guarantee security along the line was queried.

In response to questions from Diarmuid Desmond , Mr. Gavin indicated that provision of a cyclepath along the N59 west of Maam Cross was not proposed as 40 part of the road upgrade scheme. Mr. Desmond queried access along the

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 61 of 105

Greenway for existing agricultural activities and impacts on existing grazing by cattle. It was queried whether there would be sufficient space for tractor access along the Greenway while in use by cyclists, given the narrowness of the cutting at Bunscanniff.

Mr. Michael Gibbons queried the archaeological impacts on the integrity of the line, which is a national monument. Conservation works have the potential to damage such structures and on-site supervision is required.

10 Oliver Coyne queried the benefits of passing trade to Glengowla Mine due to its close proximity to the start of the Greenway at Oughterard.

Tommy O’Toole queried the impact on the existing use of the line for exercising horses.

4.0 Observers Submissions Mary Conneely (landowner): Objects to the proposed Greenway development. 20 Michael Clancy (landowner): This is an emotive issue. Objects to the development crossing his land. The suggested alternative route south from the N59 at Glengowla, suggested by Keith Geoghegan, would pass in very close proximity to the dwelling on his lands. A cycle route along the N59 would comprise a more elevated and scenic route option.

Mary and Joseph Cahill (landowner): Object to the development on the basis of proximity to their dwelling, and potential for anti-social behaviour and security impacts. There are windows looking onto the line from their house and the line is 30 used to access their lands. The lands were purchased originally to prevent such developments occurring.

Diarmuid Desmond : Submissions to the Board do not reflect the extent of opposition to the proposed development. The position of the many landowners who have not consented to the development to date is unclear and the proposed use of CPO powers would change matters in this regard.

In response, Mr. Gavin noted that of the 80 no. affected landowners, 30 have entered permissive agreements, 13 have verbal agreement (Consent to

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 62 of 105

application signed). Eight submissions were made to the Board and there are on-going discussions with 29 no. landowners.

Tommy O’Toole: Greenway will impact on the existing use of the railway for the exercising of horses.

Pobal Mám Ean Teo, Brendan O’Malley : Identified the community based origin of the project and the manner in which it has been progressed to date. The potential community benefits were outlined and letters of political support 10 received were referenced. He is a landowner himself and the Greenway passes through his lands. While there will be impacts on these lands, he is in support of the development.

Clifden Heritage and Historical Society, Shane Joyce : Endorse Brendan O’Malley’s submission with regard to potential benefits to the area. Concerns were raised regarding the assessment of impacts on historic structures and cutting / embankment.

Jamie Young : Development will be of benefit to the entire area. The N59 is 20 not safe for cycling and an off-line route should be sought. Tourists do not like the N59 for cycling.

Chris Shanahan, Clifden Chamber of Commerce: Highlighted the tourist potential of the development with associated economic benefits.

Karen Mannion, Cashel National School : Submissions on behalf of students and the school in support of the development.

30 5.0 Prescribed Bodies Matthew Parks for Geological Survey of Ireland and the Mining Heritage Trust of Ireland : Geological heritage matters have been overlooked in the process to date. The development offers potential to promote geological heritage. Consultation with GSI is required in areas of potential. Glengowla is a site of importance and a key factor in the consideration of the development. The EIS fails to adequately identify sites of industrial heritage. Previously commissioned reports by Galway County Council on works at Derrylea have been ignored. Glengowla Mine is the biggest tourist attraction on the route, and 40 is significant from both a geological and from a mining heritage point of view. It

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 63 of 105

has an educational role and it is well recognised in the mining heritage community. If it’s viability is compromised, this heritage site will be vulnerable and become neglected. This would impact on the overall success and PR profile of the Greenway. Permissive development should be the key.

In response to a question by the inspector, Mr Parks indicated that where the Greenway remained on the existing route / railway bed, impacts on the processing works at Derrylea (Ch.4800) are not likely. There is potential for damage to the site through increased access but potential also exists for the 10 promotion of geological heritage.

Mr. James Nix on behalf of An Taisce: In lieu of a submission, Mr. Nix put a number of queries to Galway Co. Co., in particular, the potential for the use of a section of the Old Clifden Road on the northern side of the N59 between Cloonoopeen and Bunscanniff, at approx., Ch. 29620 – Ch30600, east of where alternative 4 joins the N59. If this was viable, it was queried whether the Greenway could remain on the northern side of the N59 along this section. Galway Co. Co. indicate that the Greenway was originally to be provided on the more scenic / southern side of the N59. Mr. Nix requested 20 that drawings be submitted identifying how such alternatives could be incorporated into the development. The inspector requested that Galway County Council re-examine this section for potential incorporation into the Greenway route and revert back to the hearing the following day.

Submission by Mr. Paddy Matthews, Fáilte Ireland Written statement submitted generally in support of the development. The preference would be to remain off-line although the 11.4km section east of Recess is otherwise acceptable. The changes to the route proposed by the 30 applicants at the hearing in this regard are welcomed. On the R341 a hatched line separation between traffic and cyclists is less preferable to provision of physical separation barrier. This could be subject to condition. Galway Co. Co. indicated their agreement to such provision.

Questions to Mr. Matthews : Mr. Shane Foran of Galway Cycling Campaign queried the satisfaction of Fáilte Ireland with the extent of on-line provision along the N59 and whether this was in fact in line with published policy documents. There is potential for a negative perception of users where there is an obvious alternative available, such as the 40 disused railway line.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 64 of 105

Mr. Dowds queried whether there had been any CPO of lands along the route of the Mayo Greenway, which it was previously indicated was to be established on a permissive basis. Mr. Matthews indicated that there was some re-routing along roads where there was no agreement. Mr. Esmonde Keane advised that there was no CPO along that route. Mr. Matthews also confirmed that there is potential for cumulative tourism impacts / benefits between the subject development and the Mayo Greenway.

10 Clarification was provided by the applicants that the 2.5m separation between the cyclepath and the N59 carriageway edge would comprise 0.5m hard shoulder and 2m verge.

Proceedings on Day 1 concluded at 6.05pm, on 11 th December 2012.

6.0 DAY 2 The second day of the proceedings commenced at 10am on 12 December 2012. Before proceedings commenced, the applicants submitted revised and corrected 20 copies of Appendix 2 Habitats Maps Errata (Figure 10.1 – 10.15 of EIS and 4.1 – 4.15 of NIS), following a request from the Inspector on Day 1 of the hearing.

7.0 Observers Submissions: Further third party submissions were heard, as follows:

Dominic O’Moráin - Lough Inagh Lodge and the Irish Hotels Federation. Supports the Greenway development as an important piece of tourism infrastructure for this region. The hotel industry supports 550-600 jobs in season. 30 Proper communication between stakeholders is required.

Kevin Joyce , Recess, in support of the development but concerned about the impact of the development on access to existing shops at Recess. The proposed layout is premature pending the determination of the N59 upgrade in this area, which will impact on those businesses.

Michael McNamara made a submission in support of tourism development but noted that roads bring tourists to an area, and that is where money should be spent. Concerns were expressed regarding emergency access along the route. 40 This development will impact on the individual landowner, in order to benefit

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 65 of 105

others. Concerns were raised with regard to the potential for conflict within the community arising from this proposal. The benefits of the development have not yet been proven.

Mr. Shane Foran, Galway Cycling Campaign, commented that local Mountain Rescue and emergency services had been training to deal with emergency events on the Greenway should it proceed.

8.0 Submission from Denis Strong, NPWS: 10 Following the further information response, the Dept. are satisfied with the extent of survey for FPM along the route and further studies are not required. While the submitted method statements have not been reviewed as yet, the NPWS will engage with the developer in order to develop and finalise these construction method statements. There will be a requirement for the engagement of a freshwater ecologist, with expertise in construction and also good general knowledge and experience. The method statements would need to incorporate suitable levels of flexibility and that while they should relate to the FPM, they should also address other important species including salmonids, otter, bird species etc. While water crossings were the most sensitive locations along the 20 route, the extent of supervision by a freshwater ecologist would be identified by the method statements. Subject to the identified method statements and mitigation measures, adverse impacts on species of interests and their habitats would be avoided. Mitigation occurs at the level of construction method statement.

With regard to the Marsh Fritillary butterfly, the Dept. noted the extent of surveys undertaken. It was noted that it would be useful if a further targeted survey could be undertaken in August of next year. In response to a specific question from the Inspector, Mr. Strong indicated that the railway is a man-made structure and if 30 the species turns up, the food source occurs in the environs of the track rather than on the track itself. The presence of the food source does not imply the presence of the butterfly species. In the event of the species being identified, it would not be a “showstopper” and would not present a difficulty. Paula Kearney noted that surveys of the area where the food plant occurs, between August and September 2011 and August and October 2012 did not encounter larval webs.

40

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 66 of 105

9.0 Submission by the NRA: A statement from the Authority was read into the record by M. Timmins of Galway Co. Co. and a copy of the written statement was handed in to the Board. This statement confirmed that the N59 road upgrade schemes are separate from, but complimentary to, the proposed Greenway scheme.

10.0 Observer’s Submissions : Mr. Keith Geoghegan, Glengowla Mine. Mr. Geoghegan outlined the history of the mine and the manner in which it has 10 been developed and restored by himself and his family since its opening in 1989. The existing features on the site were identified and described, including existing nature walks along the route of the railway through the lands. The owner’s future plans for the development and use of the mine and associated lands were also outlined. A letter of support from Mr. Peter Eggleston, Mining Historian, was submitted to the hearing. Mr. Geoghegan is in favour of the Greenway in principle, but is opposed to the development in the manner currently proposed. The issues of concern relate to severance and incompatibility of such a route with a paid / ticketed tourism attraction. Some commercial aspects of the operation, including walks along the 20 railway would be obviated by the Greenway. There is potential for anti-social behaviour / security concerns arising from the uncontrolled nature of access along the Greenway route through his site. The development may impact on the availability of insurance for his development. The measures proposed to mitigate such concerns, comprising fencing and gates, would be impractical and detrimental to the amenities of the area and of this facility. There was no reference in previous discussions with Galway Co. Co. to the potential use of CPO powers to provide this amenity route. All previous indications were that the route would be achieved by agreement. It is not clear whether all landowners were advised of the current position of the County Council with regard to CPO 30 and further public notification may therefore be required. It had originally been indicated that access was to be provided on the basis of 5-yearly agreements, which was later amended to 6-month agreements.

An alternative option to reach the N59 along the northeastern boundary of the Geoghegan property was suggested to the Council but not included in the application. This would have necessitated a section of cycleway along the N59 before running south along a local road at Glengowla Bridge, adjacent to the lands of Mr. Michael Clancy. It is suggested that the CPO for the N59 upgrade should be amended to provide for a cycleway along this section to Glengowla 40 Bridge. Mr. Geoghegan is still available to discuss alternative route options.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 67 of 105

The EIS fails to adequately describe or assess Glengowla Mine tourist site or the impacts of the proposed development thereon. The mine site was not visited by the EIS authors and there was no assessment of impacts on the commercial aspects of the development. Security impacts are of great concern to Mr. Geoghegan. Fencing measures proposed would have visual impacts and would be impractical. It has been over 80 years since the railway closed, which route was never a public right of way. Alternative route options were not adequately assessed. It is not clear whether all affected landowners were advised or 10 otherwise aware of the proposed use of CPO powers to achieve the development.

Questions to Keith Geoghegan / Stephen Dowd . The following matters were discussed in questioning: • Esmonde Keane suggested the possibility of providing fencing and gates in agreement with the landowner, while maintaining the connectivity of the lands. This could include signage indicating the private commercial nature of the Glengowla mine lands. • Mr. Geoghegan rejected proposals for extensive fencing which would be 20 contrary to the visual amenities of the farm and industrial heritage of the site. • It was confirmed that it is after-hours security and anti-social behaviour which is of particular concern. There has been previous experience of the ineffectiveness of signage in this regard. • The railway post-dated and disrupted the original mine workings. • Mr. Geoghegan indicated that he wasn’t interested in commercial operations beyond industrial heritage and that he wouldn’t necessarily engage commercially with the Greenway. • Galway Co. Co. indicated that the proposed alternative route along the eastern boundary of the site raises the potential for impacts on FPM and that 30 this route also crosses an active wetland. • Mr. Geoghegan suggested a floating roadway or a raised boardwalk across such lands but also that there was no objection to movement further into his lands away from the adjacent stream. • Ms. Kearney identified this as revegetated cut-over bog and disturbance would raise concerns regarding impacts on FPM requiring further assessment. • The section along the N59 could be initially accommodated within the Geoghegan lands but would require further encroachment into adjacent lands, which are outside the current CPO application for the N59 upgrade. A 40 CPO application cannot be amended.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 68 of 105

• Travelling south from Glengowla Bridge along a public road, it is not clear that there is a connection to the railway.

11.0 Proceedings adjourned for lunch at 12.50pm and recommenced at 2pm. On recommencement, the Inspector put a number of questions to Galway County Council, with the following responses: • Parking and access facilities along the route will comprise parking at the church in Oughterard and at the eastern end of the town. In Clifden, parking 10 will be available to the rear of the Station House Hotel. • The EIS had referred to a requirement for a new bridge at Bunscanniff / Ch.30920, however, what would be required for the Greenway is a widening of the bridge rather than a new structure. Upgrading of the N59 would necessitate a new bridge. • The choice of surface finish was based on quality and on-going maintenance requirements and associated costs. • The EIS (section 6.5) and NIS (2.2.29) contained a discrepancy in relation to the volumes of overburden to be removed along the route. Both documents were in error and the correct figure for the volume of overburden removal 20 should read 45,900m 3. • The physical barrier between the cycleway and carriageway along the R34,1 previously referred to, will be provided if required by the Board. • No specific provision for the Greenway was made along the R336 and N59 at the alternative indicated at Maam Cross. This alternative is not desirable and does not form part of the proposal, however, such provision along the N59 section would likely reflect other sections of the N59 upgrade.

12.0 Observer’s Submissions : William Leahy: 30 Mr. Leahy operates a trail riding business which uses sections of the old railway line. He also owns three plots of land, east and west of Maam Cross and south of the N59 at Athry Ch. 17400. The development will destroy his long established tourism business, which brings visitors and economic benefits to the area. Cycling and horse trails do not go together and insurance will not be possible for such operations.

13.0 Submission of Galway Cycling Campaign (Shane Foran): Paul Dunne, lecturer in tourism GMIT, raised concerns about parallel routing of 40 the Greenway along the N59 and the impact on the user experience. Reviews of

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 69 of 105

the Greenway would not be positive. In response to this submission, Mr. Matthews (Fáilte Ireland) indicated that his comments were based on previous experience.

Mr. Esmonde Keane outlined the proposed revisions to the Greenway route, with particular regard to the 11.4km section alongside the N59 between Recess and Bunscanniff. These revisions proposed by Galway County Council comprise the following: • Ch. 20550 – 21200: While originally proposed to run along the N59 to 10 Recess, it is now proposed to route the Greenway along existing embankments on the northern shore of Glendollagh Lough, east of recess Station (Hollinger dwelling). • Ch. 21200 – 22750: Between Recess and Recess school the Greenway will run as a 2.5m cycleway alongside the N59 as proposed in the original application, with 2.5m separation from the carriageway edge, including 0.5m hard shoulder. • Ch. 22750 (Recess school) – 24170: The route will now follow the old railway line, necessitating one new / replacement bridge crossing over the Owentooey River. 20 • Ch. 24170 – 24270: The Greenway will revert back parallel to the N59 for approx. 100m to avoid a (vacant) structure. • Ch. 24270 – 24850: The Greenway will follow the disused railway south through cutting and across embankment to the N59. • Ch. 24850 – 25300: The Greenway will revert to run alongside the N59 for approx. 450m, passing along an existing lay-by on the southern side of the road. • Ch. 25300 – 28400: A crossing of the N59 (south to north) will bring the Greenway onto an approx. 3km stretch of the Old Clifden Road at Derryneen. This will be shared with local access traffic. 30 • Ch. 28400 – 29620: The Greenway will remain on the northern side of the N59, provided as a parallel cycleway. • Ch. 29620 – 30620: The Greenway will utilise a stretch of the Old Clifden Road which remains extant on the ground to the north of the N59 as a dedicated cycleway. This is the section of road queried in the submission of Mr. Nix, for An Taisce. • Ch.30620 – 31500: The Greenway will remain on the northern side of the N59, provided as a parallel cyclepath as far as the start of the railway cutting at Bunscannif, Ch. 31500.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 70 of 105

These amendments reduce the extent of the Greenway running as a cycleway along the N59 to approx. 5.18km. Mr. Dunne confirmed that routing into Recess along the N59 is appropriate, benefitting businesses in the area.

In response to a question from the Inspector, Galway County Council confirmed that the road crossing at Ch.20050 / Weir Bridge will occur in an area to be subject to a reduced speed limit (50kph) and appropriate signage will be provided at this point. It was also suggested by Mr. Foran that a crossing at the junction with the Inagh Valley would be appropriate. 10 East of Recess Mr. Foran suggested vertical as well as horizontal separation of the Greenway from the N59 carriageway, where it is to be provided alongside. This was not the preference of the applicants, on safety grounds as well as increased construction impacts.

In response to a question from the inspector, Mr. Gavin confirmed that the proposed revisions to the route would not compromise or be compromised by the proposed N59 upgrade. The cycle path can be relocated to the northern side of the road.

20 Mr. Foran made reference to NRA Interim Advice Note which refers to construction across soft ground and in sensitive areas. Applicants referred to difficulties in this regard for emergency vehicles and for farm access along the route as well as environmental impacts.

Questions were put to Paula Kearney (RPS) with regard to the failure to assess traffic noise impacts on users of the greenway / cycleway. PK was not aware of how such could be modelled.

PK confirmed that Alternative 5 of the Galway Cycling Campaign, to the south of 30 Lough Oorid, was examined but rejected on environmental grounds. The suggested northern alternative (Alternative 6) was examined but discounted on the basis of environmental impacts, evidenced by the presence of a moss which indicates that the lands were essentially undisturbed. Mr. Foran noted that such examination of alternatives was not outlined in the EIS.

Mr. Foran queried the possibility of a grade separated road crossing of the N59 at Bunnakill (Ch. 40200), given the different requirements of Greeenway users from normal traffic. This possibility was discussed, noting the separate application for approval for the upgrade of the N59. The applicants noted that only one of the 40 proposed crossings of the N59 by the Greenway, at Weir Bridge, will be subject

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 71 of 105

to deficient sightlines. At this point, the N59 will therefore be subject to a reduced speed limit. Other crossings will be subject to appropriate signage, gates etc.

Mr. Foran queried the need for such extensive level of provision along the R341, which may require rock-breaking with potential impacts on nearby structures of architectural interest. It was suggested that a lower level of provision might be acceptable in this location to avoid such impacts. Galway Co. Co. expressed satisfaction that the limited rock-breaking required would not impact on 10 Ballinahinch Station.

Mr. Foran read a statement from Galway Cycling Club which commented that the needs of sports cyclists are not the same as leisure cyclists and would not be catered for by the Greenway.

14.0 Closing Statements: Before hearing closing statements, Mr. Keane clarified that contrary to previous observers statements to the hearing, the railway bed is not a recorded 20 monument.

In response to a question from the Inspector, Mr. Keane suggested that the resistance of the NRA to the provision of a cycleway alongside the N59 in the Glengowla area was due to environmental constraints in this area.

Mr. Kevin Joyce reiterated concerns regarding the impact of the Greenway and the N59 upgrade on shops at Recess. Proper road crossing proposals are required. The existing N59 is dangerous and requires improvement.

30 Mr. William Leahy noted the lack of consultation and the general bad feeling in the community arising from the development, and the potential impact on existing tourism income in this area from his operation. Letters of support of his position were submitted.

Mr. Stephen Dowds for Keith Geoghegan reiterated that the railway was never a public right of way. The development will give rise to severance impacts on his business and that fencing proposals are not acceptable. Inadequate details have been submitted on which to base a decision and alternatives were not given adequate consideration in the application. 40

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 72 of 105

The statement of An Taisce was read into the record by a representative of the Galway Cycling Campaign. The statement noted that the requested redesign of the N85 in Kerry was a precedent for this case. There are alternative options available which will avoid routing along the N59. A drawing of the revisions should be submitted in this regard. The development has potential community and economic benefits. Fencing may be unproductive and appropriate railings could be provided in places.

Shane Foran, Galway Cycling Campaign , described the Greenway as a key 10 piece of tourism and cycling infrastructure, which will form part of a national and European network of trails. The decision of the Bard on the N86 in Kerry creates a precedent for the treatment of such development alongside national routes. The revisions suggested by the applicants are welcomed, while the need for certain sections alongside the N59 is reaslised. In such sections segregation and separation of cyclists and traffic, through either vertical or horizontal displacement, should be promoted to create the feel of the old railway or old road. Grade separated crossings should be examined. There is a need for community buy-in for such project to be a success. The constructive nature of the hearing was commended. 20 Mr. Esmonde Keane for Galway Co. Co ., outlined the origins of the project and the potential benefits. The development will be a sustainable form of tourism. In limited circumstances, the use of CPO powers or creation of a public right of way may be considered, which is outside of this process. The Board decision does not prejudice any such CPO process. The planning authority still consider that the development will be of benefit to Glengowla Mine and that no severance will arise beyond existing rail crossings. While fencing can be provided in agreement, security fencing is not anticipated as being necessary. The distance of the Mine site from Oughterard will address 30 security concerns. Alternative route options have been considered but constraints exist. The alternative route around the mine site will be subject to environmental constraints, pass third party properties and will involve a longer route. The Greenway development is of importance for tourism in the area and will respect the heritage of the railway line. Overall, routing off the N59 has been sought and revisions to the development have been proposed in this regard. NPWS confirm that flexible method statements will address concerns arising. A balance is required between development such as that proposed in this case, and other existing users, including horse trekking. 40

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 73 of 105

Prior to closing the hearing, the applicants submitted a revised copy of Errata Map 9.3 in A3 colour format.

The hearing closed at 5pm on December 12 th .

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 74 of 105

APPENDIX II: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

1.0 Compliance with the requirements of Articles 94 and 111 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended

In compliance with Article 120 of the Regulations relating to sub-threshold development, an EIS was prepared for the project having regard to fact that Connemara Greenway Project – Clifden to Oughterard route corridor runs 10 through a number of Natura 2000 sites. On the basis of all of the information submitted in relation to this file, and on submissions made to the oral hearing, I conclude that the proposed development, in overall terms, is in compliance with Articles 94 and 111 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001-2012.

It is my submission to the Board that the proposed development, in overall terms, is in compliance with Articles 94 and 111 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended. To this extent I observe: • The information supplied to the Board on the file and at the oral hearing contains the information specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 of the 20 Regulations. In this regard it: - Describes the proposal, including the site and the nature and extent of development; - Describes the measures envisaged to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects; - Provides the data necessary to identify and assess the main effects the project is likely to have on the environment; - The main alternatives examined and the main reasons for the choices have been identified, taking into account the effects on the environment.

30 • The EIS, and supplementary information, contains the relevant information specified in paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 of the Regulations, including: - a description of the physical characteristics of the project and its land use requirements; - the main characteristics of the construction process to be pursued; - the emissions arising; - a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposal; - a description of the likely significant effects on the environment resulting from the development’s existence, the development’s use of natural

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 75 of 105

resources, the emission of pollutants and creation of nuisances, and a description of the forecasting methods used; and - indicates difficulties encountered in compiling the information.

• There is an adequate summary of the EIS in non-technical language.

Alternatives Alternatives were considered over the course of the application and at the oral 10 hearing. Issues considered principally included the need for the development and the routing thereof, as well as the design of the development proposed.

2.0 Identification of the likely significant direct and indirect effects of the project on the environment The submitted EIS and my assessment preceding this part of my report focus on the significant direct and indirect effects arising from the proposed development. I propose herein to identify solely the main likely effects under a range of headings as follows: 20 Water: Hydrology and Drainage • Water quality • Habitat impacts. • Impact on existing water system / drainage. • Flooding • Reduced infiltration and recharge.

Soils & Geology and Hydrogeology • Sediment release. 30 • Removal of blanket bog • Import of aggregates. • Change to soil characteristics.

Flora & Fauna • Effects on Natura 2000 sites. • Impacts on on-site habitats • Species impact

Air Quality and Climate 40 • Dust

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 76 of 105

• Noise and vibration disturbance. • Climate.

Archaeology, Architectural and Cultural Heritage • Disturbance of archaeology • Removal or alternation of industrial archaeology / architecture.

Landscape and Visual Impact • Construction impacts. 10 • Operational impacts.

Human Beings and Material Assets • Amenity. • Economic and social. • Disturbance and severance. • Effect on legal interest. • Roads. • Impacts on language and culture.

20 3.0 Description of the likely effects identified The likely effects arising from the development proceeding are anticipated to include the following: Water: Hydrology and Drainage • Water quality: Run-off of silt or other pollutants, changes in runoff volumes; impacting on water chemistry for fish; affecting water quality for fisheries. • Habitat Impacts: Alterations to the hydrological regime indirectly affecting important habitats. Siltation or pollutants undermining the important habitats of watercourses and oligotrophic waters. 30 • Impact on existing water system / drainage: Disruption of / impacts on flows to existing drainage channels, with potential scouring or stagnation, or waterlogging of upstream lands • Flooding: Increased flood risk due to increased run-off and blockages of drains / channels. • Reduced infiltration and recharge: Increased hard surface reducing recharge area.

Soils & Geology and Hydrogeology • Sediment release: Erosion and discharges with ecological and water quality 40 impacts due to deposition downstream.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 77 of 105

• Removal of blanket bog: Loss of important habitat, drainage effects on the habitat and the natural water system. • Import of aggregates: Potential for introduction of invasive species and changes to water chemisty. • Change to soil characteristics: Permanent soil sealing, storage of soils can lead to impacts on soil structure. Contamination of soils from fuel spills and construction waste.

Flora & Fauna 10 • Effects on Natura 2000 sites: Direct land take. Indirect impacts on qualifying species and habitats due to siltation or pollution of watercourses. Impacts on the natural water system at the construction stage due to drainage and peat disturbance; removal of the site as part of the overall natural habitat prevailing within the wider area. • Impacts on on-site habitats: Land take. Indirect impacts due to changes to the hydrological regime. Fragmentation. • Species impact: Loss / fragmentation of habitats. Impacts on water quality affecting aquatic species. Disturbance or loss of bat roost sites. Temporary construction disturbance of birds / bats. Loss or felling of trees an natural 20 vegetation. Potential distribution of invasive species.

Air Quality and Climate • Dust: Disturbance of habitats during construction activities and from compounds. Impacts on residential amenity. • Noise and vibration: Disturbance of wildlife and humans during construction. • Climate: Potential reduction in carbon emissions from increased cycling rates.

Archaeology, Architectural and Cultural Heritage 30 • Disturbance of archaeology: Disturbance of unknown features particularly in off-line sections. Potential identification of new features. • Removal or alteration of industrial archaeology / architecture: Damage to bridges / culverts. Re-grading of embankments. Potential for conservation and on-going maintenance of retained industrial archaeological and architectural heritage.

Landscape and Visual Impact • Construction impacts: Vegetation clearance. Machinery movement and compounds. Repair of disused and decaying elements.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 78 of 105

• Operational impacts: Distortion of the natural landscape character. Surface changes. Beneficial impacts on landscape appreciation. New views and vistas.

Human Beings and Material Assets • Amenity: Increased walking and cycling facilities. • Economic and social: Boost to tourist and visitor numbers with resulting economic and employment benefits. • Disturbance and severance: Severance of agricultural lands. Disturbance 10 of farming activities and of sensitive receptors during construction. Longer- term severance impacts on farm lands. • Effect on legal interest: Changes in the use of lands. Possible ownership changes. • Roads: Increased cycle traffic on sections of roads in the wider area. Construction traffic on adjoining road network. • Impacts on residential properties: Disturbance due to new movement patterns. Disturbance due to construction traffic movements. • Impacts on language and culture: Erosion of Irish language. Creation of new employment opportunities. 20

4.0 Interactions The principle interactions occur between Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology, Hydrology and Drainage, Soils, Archaeology, Architectural and Cultural Heritage and the Human environment. • Terrestrial Ecology: Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality, Hydrology and Drainage, Soils, Hydrogeology & Geology, Human Beings and Material Assets. • Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality: Terrestrial Ecology, Hydrology and 30 Drainage, Soils, Hydrogeology & Geology, Human Beings and Material Assets • Hydrology and Drainage: Terrestrial Ecology, Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality, Soils, Hydrogeology & Geology, Human Beings and Material Assets • Soils, Hydrogeology & Geology: Terrestrial Ecology, Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality, Soils, Hydrogeology & Geology, Human Beings and Material Assets. • Air Quality and Climate: Terrestrial Ecology, Human Beings and Material Assets, • Noise and Vibration: Terrestrial Ecology, Human Beings and Material 40 Assets

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 79 of 105

• Archaeology, Architectural and Cultural Heritage: Human Beings and Material Assets. • Landscape and Visual Impact: Human Beings and Material Assets, Archaeology, Architectural and Cultural Heritage • Human Beings and Material Assets: Potential for impacts on human beings have interactions with all other elements of the environment • Traffic: Human Beings and Material Assets

The potential for cumulative impacts with the upgrade of the N59, in the absence 10 of mitigation, is identified

5.0 Assessment of the likely significant effects identified, having regard to the mitigation measures The assessment section of the report set out above considers the range of relevant likely significant effects with due regard given to the mitigation measures proposed to be applied with the proposed development proceeding. The most relevant mitigation measures proposed to be employed are therefore identified below to address the significant impacts arising from the proposed development. 20 Water • Water quality: Adherence to original railway route / roads as far as possible. Implementation of works method statement and ecological supervision. Seeding of temporary stockpiles to prevent collapse. Silt fences along perimeter. Reseeding of exposed surfaces. Maintenance of a grassed buffer between site and drains. Provision of filter drains along perimeter of the greenway to increase groundwater recharge. • Impacts on habitats: Adherence to original railway route / roads as far as possible. Implementation of works method statement and ecological 30 supervision. Minimising runoff volumes, drainage design and control. Avoid direct discharge to any surface water body. Lining and sealing of drains to minimise indirect hydrological effects. • Disruption of existing water system / drainage: Regular breaks in temporary stockpiles to maintain overland flows. Maintain existing flowpaths by maintaining culvert crossings. Drain run-off through existing drains to reduce potential waterlogging . • Flooding: Provide regular breaks in temporary stockpiles to maintain overland flows. Maintain existing flowpaths by maintenance of culvert crossings. Drain run-off through existing drains to reduce potential waterlogging. Existing 40 interceptor ditches will attenuate increased run-off.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 80 of 105

• Reduced infiltration and recharge: Provision of filter drains along perimeter of the greenway to increase groundwater recharge. Best practice at construction stage and adherence to relevant guidelines.

Soils & Geology and Hydrogeology • Sediment release: Routing along the original disturbed ground / railway route where possible and implementation of works method statement. The design requires minimal removal of topsoil, incorporating geogrids / textiles to increase stability and locally reduce differential settlements. Best practice at 10 construction stage and adherence to relevant guidelines. • Removal of blanket bog: Routing along the original disturbed ground / railway route where possible. • Import of aggregates: Source aggregate locally and advise NPWS of sources. • Change to soil characteristics: Soil sealing impacts are minimised through the online upgrade of the existing railway. Specified max height of storage heaps. Adherence to relevant construction guidelines. Reduction in movement and compaction of soils.

20 Flora & Fauna • Effects on Natura 2000 sites: Adherence to standard construction practices. Implementation of works method statement and ecological supervision. Timing of in-stream works. Protection of watercourses through drainage design and application of silt controls and buffer zones. Maintenance of a grassed buffer between site and drains. Provide filter drains along perimeter of the greenway to increase groundwater recharge. Drainage design including stream diversion works. • Impacts on on-site habitats: Adherence to original railway route / roads as far as possible. Implementation of works method statement and adherence 30 to standard construction practices. Drainage design including stream diversion works. • Species impact: Adherence to original railway route / roads as far as possible. Protection of watercourses through drainage design and application of buffer zones. Timing and temporary nature of construction activities. Physical and chemical controls of identified species and implementation of a biosecurity method statement.

Air Quality and Climate

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 81 of 105

• Dust: Implementation of works method statement. Separation of compounds from sensitive receptors. Minimised stockpiling of materials within sensitive areas. Nature and short duration of construction works. • Noise and vibration: Separation from sensitive receptors and low population density, temporary nature of construction, standard construction mitigation and extent of construction area. • Climate: None required.

Archaeology, Architectural and Cultural Heritage 10 • Disturbance of archaeology: Avoidance of known sites and features. Archaeological monitoring of ground disturbance. • Removal of industrial archaeology / architecture: Retention of existing culverts and bridges. Design of new bridges, incorporating existing bridge structures. Appropriate design of repairs and replacement features. Increased awareness and appreciation of this resource and the protection of the railway from further decay. Recording of all features which are to be altered / removed.

Landscape and Visual Impact 20 • Construction impacts: Temporary duration and extent of works. Restriction to original railway line and existing roads / tracks as far as possible. • Operational impacts: Reinstatement of the original rail line. Low level of works. Repair of disused and decaying elements.

Human Beings and Material Assets • Amenity: None required. • Economic and Social: None required. • Disturbance and severance: Landowner agreement. Reinstatement of adjacent lands. Installation of fencing, gates and livestock crossings where 30 necessary. • Effect on legal interest: Permissive trail with no right-of-way established. Some purchase of affected lands possible. • Roads: Avoidance of main roads. Separated cycleway provided where the greenway interacts with main roads. • Impacts on residential properties: Separation from receptors and orientation thereof. Low-level of works arising. Short-term nature of construction works. • Impact on language and culture: Increased employment and maintenance of resident population. 40

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 82 of 105

6.0 Conclusions regarding the acceptability or otherwise of the likely residual effects identified The assessment section of the report addresses the likely significant effects of the proposed development, relating primarily to ecology / flora and fauna, water quality and soils. The acceptability of the likely residual effects of the development are identified therein.

10

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 83 of 105

APPENDIX III: APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT

1. INTRODUCTION Appropriate Assessment Screening was undertaken which concluded that the scale and magnitude of impacts on Natura 2000 sites were uncertain and that there may be significant impacts arising from the proposed Greenway thereon. It was recommended that a full Appropriate Assessment be carried out in order to determine the impacts of the proposed on the aforementioned Natura 2000 sites, 10 in accordance with Article 6(3) of the EU Habitats Directive.

The purpose of Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment is to establish whether there will be adverse effects on the integrity of a Natura 2000 Site, having regard to the conservation objectives of the site.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Connemara Greenway Project – Clifden to Oughterard proposes to re- develop the dismantled Galway to Clifden railway line into a walking/cycling track 20 (Greenway) over a distance of 52.4km. The proposed Greenway generally follows the route of the original railway but deviates at a number of points which add approximately 3km to the original railway route.

Sections of the original railway line were incorporated into the N59 National Secondary Road during previous improvement and realignment works on that route. The National Roads Authority plan to further upgrade the N59 between Clifden and Oughterard, which works are to consist predominantly of on-line widening with some off-line sections. The application originally proposed that an 11.47km section of the Greenway would comprise a segregated 2.5m wide 30 shared footway/cycleway along the N59 between Recess and Bunscanniff. Revisions to these proposal were proposed by the applicants during the course of the oral hearing in order to reduce the extent of provision alongside the N59. The Greenway accordingly was rerouted along sections of adjacent local roads and along other intact sections of the railway line.

The Greenway is designed for light loading with an asphalt surface. Where required by landowners, it is proposed that fencing will be provided along the route, with gates and cattle stops where necessary to enable farmers to move livestock in a safe manner for both stock and Greenway users. No bins or picnic 40 tables will be provided in order to minimise litter. While the EIS refers to the

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 84 of 105

availability of welfare facilities every 10km approx. along the route, these are to comprise existing facilities at tourist hubs to be used under agreements with the operators. No new facilities are proposed in the application. The EIS identifies that seven new or reconstructed bridges will be required along the route, ranging in span from 6m to 15m, as follows:

Bridge Span Chainage 1 Cloonbeg River Bridge 2 No. 50 Foot Spans 11+700 2 Athry River Bridge 1 No. 20 Foot Span 16+620 3 Bunscanniff Bridge 1 No. 23 Foot Span 30+920 4 Letterfore River Bridge 1 No. 20 Foot Span 40+800 5 Glengowla River Bridge 1 No. 40 Foot Span 46+800 6 Leadmines Bridge 1 No. 20 Foot Span 48+400 7 Oughterard River Bridge 1 No. 40 Foot Span 50+200

Arising from the proposed revisions to the route, an additional replacement bridge structure will be required at Ch.23950 Tullywee. It was also clarified at the 10 hearing that where upgrading of the N59 does not take place, the widening rather than replacement of Bunscanniff Bridge, would be required in order to facilitate the Greenway development.

It is proposed to erect a lightweight steel and timber structures over the existing structures which are to be retained at Cloonbeg River Bridge, Glengowla River Bridge and the Oughterard River Bridge. New bridge structures will otherwise comprise the erection of a steel structure with a concrete deck, providing for a single gross weight vehicle of 7.5 tonnes.

20 It is indicated that construction works will be carried out over a 24 month period, commencing at Clifden and progressing in an easterly direction. Approx. 45,900m3 of overburden will be removed which will be used to form embankments. Seven construction compounds will be provided along the route, comprising material storage areas, short-term staff welfare facilities and parking. These compounds will close on completion of the relevant section of works.

The EIS predicts that the proposed Greenway Project will cater for approximately 160,000 cyclists and walkers per annum. There will be on-going Greenway maintenance after the initial track clearing, formation and development, including 30 annual weed spraying of the Greenway surface and preventative measures to ensure the eradication of noxious and nuisance weeds.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 85 of 105

3.0 Relevance to Management of the SAC Site The development is not directly connected with or necessary for the management of the SAC.

4.0 Natura Impact Statement 4.1 Description of receiving environment The Greenway traverses a varied landscape, comprising extensive areas of bog, scrub, forestry, bog woodland, mountains, rivers and lakes, improved grassland 10 and farmland. There is extensive coverage of the landscape by sites within the Natura Network.

A high percentage of the disused railway line is now used as a roadway or track connecting residential properties and agricultural lands. Other sections of the railway line are now covered in topsoil, described as being often covered in either dry calcareous or neutral grassland, or improved grassland, or scrub, depending on the level of maintenance on the track. The proposed Greenway crosses 45 No. surface waterbodies from small drains to reasonably large rivers and lakes. Existing water crossing structures will be largely retained, with some 20 modifications and / or replacement. Watercourses generally rise to the north of the road flowing southwards with a few exceptions. The road project passes through six principal river catchments as follows: • Owenglin flowing to Clifden Bay • Derryehorraun flowing to Clifden Bay • Owenmore flowing to Cloonile Bay • Screebe flowing to Camus Bay • Owenree flowing to Lough Corrib • Owenriff flowing to Lough Corrib

30 25 No. lakes/ponds are located immediately adjacent (upstream and downstream) of the proposed Greenway alignment. The bedrock underlying the majority of the study area is classified as a ‘Poor Aquifer’. Outside Oughterard, there is a small area classified as ‘Regionally Important Aquifer – Karstified’, ‘Locally Important Aquifer (moderately productive only in local zones)’ and ‘Locally Important Aquifer (generally moderately productive). There are no groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems identified within this groundwater body. The Clifden Marbles groundwater body is classified as having Good Status under the WFD. Vulnerability across the study area varies between low and extreme. 40

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 86 of 105

4.2 NATURA 2000 Sites The Natura Impact Statement considers the following Natura sites: • Lough Corrib cSAC (Site Code: 000297), • Lough Corrib SPA (Site Code: 004042), • Maumturk Mountains cSAC (Site Code: 002008), • Twelve Bens/Garraun Complex cSAC (Site Code: 002031), • Connemara Bog Complex cSAC (Site Code: 002034), and • Connemara Bog Complex SPA (Site Code: 004181).

10 Conservation Management Plans have not yet been prepared for these sites, whose qualifying interests are summarised below:

Habitats Lough Maumturk Twelve Bens / Connemara Corrib Mountains Garraun Complex Bog Complex cSAC cSAC cSAC / pNHA cSAC / pNHA 3140 Hard oligo- * mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp. 3110 Oligotrophic waters * * * * containing very few minerals of sandy plains (Littorelletalia uniflorae) 7110 Active raised bogs * * 91A0 Old sessile oak * * * woods with Ilex and Blechnum in British Isles 6410 Molinia meadows on * * calcareous, peaty or clavey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) 7230 Alkaline fens * 7210 Calcareous fens with * Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae* 8240 Limestone * pavements* 6210 Semi-natural dry * grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco Brometalia)(*important

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 87 of 105

orchid sites)* 91D0 Bog woodland * * 3260 Water courses of * * plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho- Batrachion vegetation 7220 Petrifying springs * with tufa formation (Cratoneurion) * 7120 Degraded raised * bogs still capable of natural regeneration 7150 Depressions on peat * * * * substrates of the Rhynchosporion 4060 Alpine and Boreal * * heaths 8210 Calcareous rocky * slopes with chasmophytic vegetation 8110 Siliceous scree of * the montane to snow levels (Androsacetalia alpinae and Galeopsietalia ladani) 8220 Siliceous rocky * * slopes with chasmophytic vegetation 7130 Blanket bog (*active * * * only) 4010 Northern Atlantic wet * * heaths with Erica tetralix 3160 Natural dystrophic * lakes and ponds 4030 European dry heaths * 7230 Alkaline fens * 1150 Coastal lagoons * 7140 Transition mires and * quaking bogs

Qualifying Annex II Species Species Lough Maumturk Twelve Bens / Connemara

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 88 of 105

Corrib Mountains Garraun Complex Bog Complex cSAC cSAC cSAC / pNHA cSAC / pNHA 1095 Sea Lamprey * 1106 Atlantic Salmon * * * * 1096 Brook Lamprey * 1303 Lesser Horseshoe * Bat 1355 Otter * * * 1092 Freshwater Crayfish * 1029 Freshwater Pearl * * Mussel 1833 Slender Naiad * * * * 1393 Shining Sickle Moss * 1065 Marsh Fritillary *

Annex I Bird Species Bird Species Lough Corrib Connemara Bog Complex SPA SPA A193 Common Tern * A194 Arctic Tern * A395 Greenland White-fronted Goose * * A140 Golden Plover * * A038 Whooper Swan * A098 Merlin *

Regularly Occurring Migratory Birds 16 2 Not Listed On Annex I

The NIS notes that the NPWS Rare and Protected Species Database identifies twenty-eight rare and protected species within the grid squares wherein the Greenway is proposed. There are survey records of Marsh Fritillary in one grid square and there has been a sighting of this species near Maam Cross. The Marsh Fritillary (Annex II species), whose food plant is Devil’s Bit Scabious, has become endangered due to the destruction of its boggy habitat. Follow up 10 surveys carried out at further information stage did not identify signs of the species. A survey of rare and protected plant species identified Slender Cottongrass near Maam Cross, while Bog-Hair Grass is likely to occur within the study area. Bog orchid may also occur within the area. Eight species of Annex I birds were recorded as breeding within the study area, comprising Hen Harrier, Golden Plover, Chough, Merlin, Corncrake, Sandwich Tern, Common Tern and Arctic Tern. It is unlikely that Chough or Artic Tern

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 89 of 105

occur within the study area, as it is too far inland. Eight bird species included on the BoCCI red list have also been recorded, namely Common Scoter, Golden Plover, Lapwing, Yellowhammer, Black-headed Gull, Corncrake, Curlew, Redshank and Red Grouse.

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF HABITATS AND SPECIES OF CONSERVATION INTEREST WITHIN STUDY AREA 5.1 Study Area 10 The NIS identifies twenty-four Annex I Habitats and ten Annex II species as the relevant qualifying interests for the identified Natura 2000 sites. Six Annex I bird species are qualifying interests of Lough Corrib and Connemara Bog Complex SPA’s. Habitats contained in the NIS study area are identified below. Those habitats comprising, or with potential links to, Annex I Habitats or which can potentially support Annex II species, which are qualifying interests of the Natura 2000 sites, are highlighted in bold.

HABITAT TYPE REF POTENTIAL LINKS TO QUALIFYING CODe INTEREST ANNEX I HABITATS OR ANNEX II SPECIES IN STUDY AREA Acid Oligotrophic Lakes FL2 Habitats: ‘Oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals of the sandy plains (3110)’ Species: Otter, FWPM, Slender Naiad Mesotrophic Lakes FL4 Habitats:None Species: Otter, FWPM, Slender Naiad, Salmon Eroding/Upland Rivers FW1 Habitats:None Species: Otter, FWPM, Salmon Depositing Lowland River FW2 Habitats:None Species: Otter, FWPM, Slender Naiad, Salmon Drainage Ditches FW4 Habitats: None, Species: Otter Reed and Large Sedge Swamps FS1 Improved Agricultural Grassland GA1 Amenity Grassland GA2 Habitats: None, Species: None Dry Calcareous & Neutral Grassland GS1 Dry Meadows & Grassy Verges GS2 Dry Humid Acid Grassland GS3 Wet Grassland GS4 Habitats: None. Species: Marsh Fritillary Marsh GM1 Habitats: None. Species: Marsh Fritillary

Dry Siliceous Heath HH1 Habitats: ‘European Dry Heath (4030)’ Species: None Wet Heath HH3 Habitats: ‘Northern Atlantic wet heath with

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 90 of 105

Erica tetralix (4010)’. Species: Marsh Fritillary Lowland Blanket Bog PB3 Habitats: ‘Blanket bogs (7130)’, priority if active Species: Marsh Fritillary Cutover Bog PB4 Habitats: ‘Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhyncosporion (7150)’, Species: Marsh Fritillary Eroding Blanket Bog PB5 Habitats: None. Species: Marsh Fritillary Rich Fen and Flush PF1 Habitats: ‘*calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae (7210)’. Species: None Poor Fen and Flush PF2 Habitats: None. Species: None Oak-Birch-Holly Woodland WN1 Habitats: ‘Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in British Isles (91A0)’ Oak-Ash-Hazel Woodland WN6 Habitats: None, Wet Willow Alder Ash Woodland WN2 Species: Potential Bat habitat or migration Mixed Broadleaved Woodland Mixed WD2 route. Broadleaved/Conifer Woodland WD2 Conifer Plantation WD4 Scrub S1 Hedgerows WL1 Treelines WL2 Stone Walls and Other Stone Work BL1 Buildings and Artificial Surfaces BL3 Exposed Siliceous Rock ER1 Habitats: None, Species: None

5.2 Conservation Status Of Habitats Found Within The Study Area 5.2.1 Aquatic Habitats A total of forty seven watercourses are crossed by the proposed Greenway. These watercrossings were assessed in terms of habitat, aquatic ecology, Q- Rating, Annex II species and evidence of bat species in bridge structures. The ecological status of watercourses is generally good to high. A number of watercourses were classified as slightly polluted – moderate status. 10 The Annex I habitat ‘oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals of sandy plains (Littorelletalia uniflorae) (3110)’ is a qualifying interest of all cSAC within the study area, and the majority of lakes within proximity to the proposed Greenway correspond to this Annex I habitat. These lakes are host to several species of conservation interest including Arctic Charr. Several lakes in the area are part of catchments for Freshwater Pearl Mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera), including Lough Bofin, which is part of the Owenriff Catchment. The NPWS Rare and Protected Species Database has a record for two species of conservation

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 91 of 105

importance at Oorid Lough including Bog Hair-grass and Marsh Clubmoss. Slender Naiad, an Annex II species, has also been recorded from Lough Bofin.

5.2.2 Terrestrial Habitats • HH3 Wet Heath: Areas of Wet Heath habitat are common throughout the study area, particularly on Cutover and Degraded Bog. The habitat found within the study area corresponds to the Annex I Habitat ‘Northern Atlantic wet heath with Erica tetralix (4010)’. This is a qualifying interest of Maumturk Mountains cSAC and Connemara Bog Complex cSAC through 10 which, or adjacent to which, sections of the proposed Greenway route will pass.

• HH1 Dry Siliceous Heath: This habitat type occurs is numerous locations within the study area. All Dry Siliceous Heath (HH1) recorded in the study area is classified as ‘European Dry Heath (4030)’. This Annex I habitat is a qualifying interest of Connemara Bog Complex cSAC.

• PB3 Lowland Blanket Bog: Lowland Blanket Bog is widespread and is a qualifying feature of Connemara Bog Complex cSAC, The Twelve 20 Pins/Garraun Complex cSAC and the Maumturk Mountains Complex cSAC. This habitat corresponds to the EU Habitats Directive Annex 1 ‘Blanket bogs (7130)’ and Active Blanket bogs that are still capable of peat formation, which are considered a Priority Habitat. All Lowland Blanket Bog (PB3) recorded in the study area was classified as the Annex I habitat ‘Blanket bogs (7130)’

• PB4 Cutover Bog: The blanket bog in the area has been subject to extensive turbary cutting. Areas of active or abandoned cutover are classified as Cutover Bog (PB4). Slender Cottongrass, a protected species was found on an area of cutover bog on the shores of a small lake in Maam 30 Cross. The NIS notes that the Annex I habitat ‘Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhyncosporion (7150)’ is a qualifying interest of all cSAC sites through which, or adjacent to which, the proposed Greenway route will pass and can occur in all types of bog, therefore it is assumed that this habitat may occur within all bog habitats encountered within the study area including Cutover Bog (PB4).

• PF1 Rich Fen and Flush: There is one lake within the study area under transition to Rich Fen and Flush PF1 habitat, located west of Maam Cross 40 south of the proposed greenway. This habitat can correspond to two annexed habitats, ‘alkaline fens (7230)’ and ‘calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae (7210)’. ‘Alkaline fens (7230)’ is a qualifying interest of Connemara Bog Complex cSAC and Lough

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 92 of 105

Corrib cSAC. ‘Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae (7120)’ is a qualifying interest of Lough Corrib cSAC.

• WN1 Oak-Birch-Holly Woodland: This habitat type corresponds to the Annex I habitat ‘Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in British Isles (91A0)’,which is a qualifying feature of Connemara Bog Complex cSAC, The Twelve Bens/Garraun Complex and Lough Corrib cSAC. Examples of the Annex I habitat was found within the study area, but will not be impacted by the project. 10

5.3 Conservation Status Of Protected Or Vulnerable Species Within The Study Area • Freshwater Pearl-Mussel: The Freshwater Pearl-mussel is an Annex II species listed as a qualifying interest for Lough Corrib cSAC and the Twelve Bens/Garraun Complex cSAC. Several lakes in the area are part of catchments for Freshwater Pearl including Lough Bofin. The Owenriff River has one of the top populations of this species in the world. The Bunowen River, which is crossed by the proposed Connemara Greenway 20 approximately 4km west of Oughterard and 70m north of Lough Ateeann, is upstream of a known population. The Owentooey River is also upstream of a Freshwater Pearl Mussel population. 6 No. watercourses in the area were found to have pearl mussel present, and 11 No. were found to have pearl mussel downstream. There is therefore, very high potential for impacts on populations of this species as a result of the proposed development works.

• Atlantic Salmon: Annex II species which is a qualifying interest for Lough Corrib cSAC, Maumturk Mountains cSAC, Twelve Bens/Garraun Complex cSAC and Connemara Bog Complex cSAC. There were a total of 30 23 watercrossings where potential salmonid habitat was identified. Although there were watercrossings where salmonid habitat was not identified, they may serve as a potential conduit for pollutants to other water bodies where Atlantic Salmon may be present. There is therefore, very high potential for impacts on populations of this species as a result of the proposed development works.

• Otter: Annex II species, listed as a qualifying interest of Lough Corrib cSAC, Twelve Bens/Garraun Complex cSAC and Connemara Bog Complex cSAC. Signs of otter activity were noted at many of the watercourses in the 40 study area during the site surveys.

• Slender Naiad: This Annex II species is listed as a qualifying interest for Lough Corrib cSAC, Maumturk Mountains cSAC and Connemara Bog Complex cSAC. This species was not recorded during the botanical surveys for the project.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 93 of 105

• Sea Lamprey / Brook Lamprey: These lamprey species are listed as one of the qualifying interests of Lough Corrib cSAC. The current distribution map for Sea Lamprey does not include any grid square traversed by the Greenway.

• Lesser Horseshoe Bat: The Lesser Horseshoe Bat is listed as a qualifying interest of Lough Corrib cSAC. The Lesser Horseshoe bat was not observed but it is known to occur at the east of the route near Oughterard where the 10 habitat is more favourable for the species. No signs of this species were noted in the study area, and there are no suitable roosting/hibernation sites in the vicinity of the proposed works.

• White-clawed Crayfish: This species is listed as a qualifying interest of Lough Corrib cSAC. There are no reported records for crayfish in close downstream proximity to the proposed Greenway. Given the lack of suitable aquatic habitat, i.e. waters rich in lime, their presence is highly unlikely.

• Shining Sickle Moss: This Annex II species is one of the qualifying species 20 of the Lough Corrib cSAC. This species will not be impacted by the proposed works.

• Marsh Fritillary: This Annex II species is one of the qualifying species of the Connemara Bog Complex cSAC. No evidence of Marsh Fritillary was found during follow-up surveys. Its food plant does not occur on the railway bed.

The NIS identifies the following Annex I habitats as relevant: • Oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals of the sandy plains (3110), 30 • Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix (4010), • European dry heaths (4030), • Blanket bogs (if active bog) (7130), • Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhyncosporion (7150), • Alkaline Fens (7230), and • Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in British Isles (91A0).

6.0 In-Combination Impacts With Other Plans / Projects Waste Water Treatment Plants: The NIS notes that if WWTP’s are operating 40 within the conditions of the discharge licence then there will be no potential for significant cumulative impacts arising in combination with the current proposals in respect of the conservation objectives or integrity of the Lough Corrib cSAC.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 94 of 105

Local Planning Applications: With regard to applications for single rural houses, the NIS notes that if the septic tanks are maintained and operating in accordance with EPA guidelines then there will be no potential for significant cumulative impacts arising in combination with the current proposals in respect of the conservation objectives or integrity of the Natura 2000 sites in the study area.

N59 Clifden to Oughterard Road Scheme and Bridge Rehabilitation Works: It is proposed to upgrade approximately 45km of the N59 road between Clifden and Oughterard in Co. Galway. Bridge rehabilitation works on the Derryvoreada 10 and Tawnaghmore Bridges proposed as part of the overall Road Improvement Scheme are to proceeed ahead of the road project under Part 8 of the Planning and Development Regs. Freshwater Pearl Mussel was recorded in the Owentooey River 150m north of the N59 and in the Recess River downstream of the confluence of the Owentooey and Caher Rivers. In this respect, there may be in-combination effects with the proposed works on the N59 bridges specifically the Derryneen Bridge and the Cloonoppeen Bridge which may impact on the Caher River in combination with the proposed bridges on the Owentooey River.

20 The NIS concludes that the scale of the works and implementation of effective mitigation measures to avoid impacts affecting the cSACs, there will be no potential for further cumulative impacts arising in combination with any other plans or proposals which would be of significance in respect of impacts affecting the conservation objectives or integrity of these Natura 2000 sites.

7.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 7.1 The integrity of a site involves its ecological functions. The decision as to whether it is adversely affected should focus on and be limited to the site’s 30 conservation objectives. The qualifying interests of each relevant Natura 2000 site are the habitats and species for which the sites have been designated. When determining the impacts on the qualifying interests, the main threats and pressures on these habitats and species should be taken into account.

The majority of the proposed works will be carried out along the existing disused rail route and therefore direct impacts of the development will be minimal. However, the zone of influence may extend beyond the works proposed. The project has the potential to pollute watercourses which may impact on Annex II species. The proposed project also has the potential to disrupt the hydrological 40 regime of wetlands and peat bogs, such as drying out the peat which affects the

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 95 of 105

vegetation composition, primarily the peat forming Sphagnum moss species. Key construction activities and ecological impacts arising are identified.

7.2 Impacts During the Construction Phase 6.2.1 Watercourses Watercourses traversed by the Greenway are either designated as part of the Natura 2000 sites or are hydrologically linked to these sites or contain species which are qualifying interests of the relevant Natura 2000 sites. Any run-off or release of contaminants will have a direct effect on one or more these Natura 10 2000 sites or their qualifying interests. The common impacts on watercourses as a result of the construction activities include: • Suspended sediment can settle on spawning areas, infill the intragravel voids and smother the eggs and alevins (newly hatched fish) in the gravel, • Bed Load (coarse material transported along the bottom of the stream) and settled sediments can infill pools and riffles, reducing the availability and quality of rearing habitat for fish, • Suspended sediment can reduce water clarity and visibility in the stream, impairing the ability of fish to find food items, • Settled sediments can smother and displace aquatic organisms such as 20 macroinvertebrates, reducing the amount of food items available to fish. • Increased sediment can displace fish out of prime habitat into less suitable areas and can abrade or clog the gills of salmonid fish. • The potential exists for a range of serious pollutants to enter watercourses during the construction phase, if appropriate pollution control measures are not implemented.

Migratory fish associated with the cSACs are sensitive to indirect effects such as turbidity, noise and vibration, habitat exclusion and changes in hydrodynamics. Barrier effects may also prevent them from reaching the rivers where they breed. 30 Increased runoff from the excavated site has the potential to change the water quality and trophic status of a waterbody.

7.2.2 Annex I Habitats Potential impacts qualifying Annex I habitats from the four relevant cSACs through which or adjacent to which the proposed Greenway will traverse are identified in the NIS as follows: • Oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals of sandy plains: Potential run-off of pollutants and introduction of invasive species to these waterbodies during the construction phase of the proposed Greenway may impact the 40 water quality of these lakes and may subsequently have a negative effect on the lakes and their associated aquatic species, if pollution and invasive species control measures are not implemented.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 96 of 105

• Northern Atlantic wet heath with Erica tetralix: There will be no direct impact as a result of construction of the proposed Greenway as it not proposed to directly remove any of this habitat. There may however be indirect effects through the alteration of the hydrological regime, which could produce varying changes in the vegetation and may lead to a drying out of this habitat.

• European Dry Heath: There will be no direct impacts as a result of construction as it not proposed to directly remove any of this habitat type. 10 There may be indirect effects on this habitat due to the spread of invasive species during the construction phase of this project.

• Blanket bog (if active bog) & • Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhyncosporion: There will be no direct impacts as a result of construction as it not proposed to directly remove any of these habitats. The main pressures or threats during construction are drainage and invasion by a species. There may be indirect effects through the alteration of the hydrological regime, which could produce changes in the vegetation or may lead to a drying out of these 20 habitats. There may be indirect effects on this habitat due to the spread of invasive species during the construction phase.

• Alkaline fens: There will be no direct impacts as a result of construction as it not proposed to directly remove any of this habitat. The main pressures or threats during construction are drainage and invasion by a species. There may be indirect effects through altered drainage of the hydrological regime needed to maintain these water dependent habitats, leading to desiccation of the fen and loss of the characteristic micro-topographical features and eventually change in flora and fauna, through the loss of fen 30 character species and/or the invasion of species that thrive in drier conditions. There may also be indirect effects on this habitat due to the spread of invasive species during construction.

• Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in British Isles: There will be no direct impacts as a result of construction as it not proposed to directly remove any of this habitat. The main pressures or threats during construction of the Greenway are drainage and invasion by a species.

40 7.2.3 Annex II Species Potential impacts to Annex II species which are qualifying interests of the four cSACs are identified as follows:

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 97 of 105

• Freshwater Pearl Mussel: The proposed Greenway crosses 47 no. watercourses, 16 of which are known to be upstream of Freshwater Pearl Mussel populations. The release of silt or pollutants such as concrete or hydrocarbons into the pearl mussel population area of river, through the pathway of drainage ditches, smaller streams or rivers, would be a significant negative impact on the pearl mussel population. The NIS identifies the worst case scenario as a large scale spillage of a contaminant which would have an ‘Indirect, Short-term Significant Negative’ impact on the aquatic environment of this species. 10 • Atlantic Salmon: Release of contaminants in the form of hydrocarbon contamination and siltation from upgrading works into these waterbodies either directly or via connecting watercourses or drains which would result in a ‘Temporary Major Negative’ impact on this species. The NIS identifies the worst case scenario as a large scale spillage of a contaminant which would have an ‘Indirect, Short-term Significant Negative’ impact on the aquatic environment of the river and this species.

• Otter: No Otter holts were found within the land-take of the proposed 20 scheme, and so there will be no direct impacts to this species. A release of contaminants to watercourses in the area would have an ‘Indirect Temporary Significant Negative’ impact on this species, as it would reduce the quality of its foraging habitat.

• Slender Naiad: Potential run-off of pollutants to the Clare River during the construction phase of the proposed flood relief works will likely not impact the Slender Naiad, given it’s location above the confluence of the Clare River with Lough Corrib.

30 • Sea Lamprey: There is no evidence of the presence of this species in Lough Corrib or its tributaries. It is unlikely that there would negative impacts on Lamprey as a result of construction of the proposed Greenway.

• Brook Lamprey: There are no records of this species within the study area. It is highly unlikely that there would negative impacts on Lamprey as a result of construction of the proposed Greenway.

• Lesser Horseshoe Bat: There will be minimal loss of woodland, hedgerows and tree lines along the route corridor of the proposed Greenway which are 40 widely used by these animals. Large deciduous trees on or adjacent to the proposed Greenway may harbour bats occasionally, especially if ivy covered. Felling of these trees may result in loss of potential bat roosts and a ‘Permanent Significant Negative’ impact. Potential damage to or destruction of bat roosts during upgrading of the bridges within the study area may also result in a ‘Permanent Significant

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 98 of 105

Negative’ impact. Bridges throughout the Greenway route were deemed unsuitable as bat roosts and such impacts are extremely unlikely chance of these impacts occurring. Lighting during night-works may cause some temporary disruption of local bat populations’ flight paths and lead to a ‘Temporary Slight Negative’ impact.

• White-clawed Crayfish: This species has not been recorded from the study area and habitat is not considered suitable along the route of the proposed Greenway thus impacts to this species are considered highly 10 unlikely.

• Shining Sickle Moss: This species was not found during surveys and impacts are therefore highly unlikely.

• Marsh Fritillary: Adherence to the route of the railway will avoid loss of habitat for this species.

7.2.4 Annex I and Migratory Bird Species 20 With regard to potential impacts to those Annex I and migratory bird species which are qualifying interests, given the scale of the construction works and that construction will be carried out linearly with one work crew it considered highly unlikely that any noise, vibration or air quality impacts will be sufficient to impact populations of these species.

7.3 Impacts During the Operation Phase 7.3.1 Watercourses The main potential impact on water quality and fisheries associated with the 30 operational phase of the proposed Greenway would be the pollution caused by maintenance of surface drains associated with the Greenway and regular control of weeds along the route with herbicide spray. There is also potential for maintenance vehicles which are used along the Greenway causing water pollution through fuel or oil spills.

7.3.2 Habitats: 7.3.2.1 Aquatic ( Oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals of sandy plains (Littorelletalia uniflorae)): Operational impacts may include release to this habitat, of sediment through 40 drain maintenance, of herbicide when weeds are being controlled on the route and of fuel or oil when maintenance vehicles use the route.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 99 of 105

7.3.2.2 Terrestrial (Northern Atlantic wet heath with Erica tetralix, European Dry Heath, Blanket bog (if active bog), Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhyncosporion, Alkaline fens and Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in British Isles): Operational impacts may include alteration of hydrological regime and introduction of additional visitors to the area bringing increased numbers of people traversing these habitats.

10 7.3.2.3 Annex II Species It is considered that the operational phase of the proposed development is likely to have minimal impact on Annex II species which are qualifying interests of all SACs. The proposed Greenway will be used by cyclists and walkers and therefore will not be used by motorised traffic.

7.3.2.4 Annex I and Migratory Bird Species This project is considered to be of minimal impact in its operational phase on the Annex I bird species and migratory bird species which are qualifying interests of both SPAs. The proposed Greenway will be used by cyclists and walkers and 20 will not be used by motorised traffic. Given the scale and type of usage of the proposed Greenway it is considered highly unlikely that any noise, vibration or air quality impacts will be sufficient to impact populations of these species.

8.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 8.1 NPWS publication, “ Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland, Guidance for Planning Authorities” defines mitigation measures as follows: “…….. measures aimed at minimising, cancelling out or ideally avoiding the 30 negative impact of a plan or project before, during or after its completion or implementation. Mitigation measures may be an integral part of the specifications of a plan or project, or an add-on. They may be proposed by the plan or project proponent and/or required by the competent authorities. If mitigation is possible that enables a risk to be avoided fully, then subject to other necessary approvals, the project or plan may proceed.”

The NIS specifies an over-arching mitigation measure as the preparation of Construction Method Statements, identifying detailed mitigation and implementation measures. At the oral hearing, NPWS undertook to engage with 40 the developers to finalise and agree these method statements.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 100 of 105

8.2 Annex I Habitats Potential impacts to Annex I habitats are indirect. The NIS identifies standard mitigation measures for the control of airborne and waterborne pollutants during construction, including: • In-stream works will be carried out outside of the salmonid spawning season and the times that early life stages of salmonid fish will be present. In-stream work within the period 1st October to 1st May (inclusive) will only be undertaken with advanced approval of Inland Fisheries Ireland and the 10 NPWS. • The works area either side of the drainage channels will be fenced with geo- textile fencing to prevent the wash-out of suspended solids to the watercourse. Where possible, a buffer-zone of riparian vegetation along the drainage channels will be retained. • Where works are to be carried out at the stream edge, in stream and riparian works will incorporate a silt-trap placed within the watercourse directly downstream of the works and sedi-mats will be placed downstream of the silt trap. • The use of machinery and equipment that has been used in waters infested 20 with Zebra Mussel should be avoided. Where so used such vehicles will be steam-cleaned according to Inland Fisheries Ireland guidelines. • Works will be subject to appropriate ecological supervision.

8.2.1 Specific pollution control and Mitigation Measures for Annex I Habitats

• Oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals of sandy: General good practise in road building and standard pollution control measures, with 30 particular respect to silt control, especially at small land drain crossing points. Protection of watercrossings with the provision of silt fencing on either side of the road works. Site runoff to be intercepted and attenuated prior to discharge to watercourse. SuDS or other proven silt control measures should be incorporated upstream of outfalls to the watercourses to help reduce sediment and pollutant loading to those watercourses which discharge to the habitat that may arise during more frequent small run-off events. Surface water shall be attenuated through the construction of temporary check dams. Where culvert replacement is needed, short, temporary by-pass channels should be excavated around the culverts being replaced and that these bypasses are 40 lined with geotextile before the flow is diverted into them. This will allow the new culvert to be inserted in the dry in the existing channel, thereby reducing the quantities of silt generated by the construction. The base of each will be placed below the current bed level. Where appropriate, as directed by IFI, any coarse

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 101 of 105

material present under and around the existing channel will be removed, set aside and then replaced over the base of the new culvert after they have been inserted. This will help preserve the existing habitats as much as possible. Works will be subject to appropriate supervision by a suitably qualified ecologist.

• 4010 Northern Atlantic wet heath with Erica tetralix Works in or near the area habitat should be minimised and this area should be fenced off. Works in or near this area should be supervised by a suitably qualified ecologist. The Zone of (ecological) Influence will be minimised through 10 the lining and blocking of drains to prevent drying of wet heath. A clay seal will be installed along the edge of the land-take parallel to the areas of wet heath to mitigate against hydrological (draw-down) effects.

• 4030 European Dry Heath Works in or near the area habitat should be minimised and this area should be fenced off. Works in or near this area should be supervised by a suitably qualified ecologist.

• 7130 Blanket bog (*if active bog) 20 Works in or near the area habitat should be minimised and this area should be fenced off. Works in or near this area should be supervised by a suitably qualified ecologist. The Zone of (ecological) Influence will be minimised through the lining and blocking of drains to prevent drying of bog adjacent to the Greenway. A clay seal will be installed along the edge of the land-take parallel to the areas of bog.

• 7150 Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhyncosporion Works in or near the area habitat should be minimised and this area should be fenced off. Works in or near this area should be supervised by a suitably 30 qualified ecologist. The Zone of (ecological) Influence will be minimised through the lining and blocking of drains to prevent drying of bog adjacent to the Greenway. A clay seal will be installed along the edge of the land-take parallel to the areas of bog.

• 7230 Alkaline fens Apply standard construction pollution control measures. Works in or near the area habitat should be minimised and this area should be fenced off. Works in or near this area should be supervised by a suitably qualified ecologist. The Zone of (ecological) Influence will be minimised through the lining and blocking of 40 drains to prevent drying of bog adjacent to the Greenway. A clay seal will be installed along the edge of the land-take parallel to the areas of bog.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 102 of 105

• 91A0 Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in British Isles Felling of trees will be carried out outside the bird nesting season (1st of March to the 31st of August, in order to avoid the risk of mortalities).

8.2.2 Mitigation Measures at Bridge Replacement Sites None of the bridges will have footings within the river channel and no in-stream works will be required. No further mitigation measures are required other than 10 good construction practice when working adjacent to a watercourse. Works should occur during dry weather in a low flow period and should be agreed with the IFI in relation to fish migration and spawning periods. Ecological supervision is required for the proposed works at bridges, due to the presence of Freshwater Pearl Mussel in the receiving watercourses.

8.2.3Specific Mitigation Measures for Annex II Species • Otter: Standard good practice measures when working adjacent to a watercourse. It is not proposed to provide mammal underpasses as the 20 species ability to continue commuting throughout the study will not be impeded by the proposed works. No direct impacts to otter holts or resting places will result from the proposed works.

• Freshwater Pearl Mussel: • Atlantic Salmon: • Slender Naiad: Measures identified for the control of waterborne pollutants will mitigate for impacts to Freshwater Pearl Mussel, Atlantic Salmon, and Slender Naiad. All works at water crossings where Freshwater Pearl Mussel is present or is 30 downstream of the works will be supervised by a suitably qualified ecologist.

At further information stage, NPWS raised particular concerns regarding the assessment of impacts of the proposed development on the Freshwater Pearl Mussel (FPM). The applicants were accordingly requested to submit Method Statements for each work section making particular reference to FPM sites, identifying specific protection measures of the highest level to obviate downstream impacts. The response identifies the river catchments wherein FPM are found and pearl mussel locations along the Greenway route. Additional control 40 measures for works within these areas are identified. Measures for the protection of watercourses include:

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 103 of 105

• Employment of a suitably qualified Ecologist to supervise works at watercrossings, and to provide site inductions for all personnel. • None of the seven bridges will have footings within the river channel; therefore no in-stream works will be required. • The timing of the works must be specified and agreed with the IFI in relation to fish migration and spawning periods.

At the oral hearing, the NPWS indicated their satisfaction with the extent of surveys undertaken and undertook to agree works method statements for the 10 proposed development with the developers. It was recommended that an ecologist with suitable and wide ranging experience be engaged in order to draft these statements and supervise the works. Subject to such measures, it was indicated that adverse impacts on species and habitats of interest would be avoided.

• Lesser Horseshoe Bat Works will seek to generally avoid woodlands and mature trees. Specific measures are identified in respect of buildings, trees, bridges and lighting. Compensation for loss of commuting routes is proposed and linear features such 20 as hedgerows and tree lines shall be retained and/or replaced where possible. Any bank side vegetation along watercourses requiring removal shall be replaced with native shrubs/trees after works.

• Marsh Fritillary Butterfly Surveys did not identify the presence of the species along the route. NPWS recommend that further targeted surveys be undertaken in August of 2013. All works in suitable habitats should be subject to the supervision and requirements of the project ecologist.

30 9.0 CONCLUDING STATEMENT: The NIS concludes that with the implementation of best practice and the recommended mitigation measures, the proposed Greenway will not have a significant effect either individually or in combination with other plans or projects on the conservation objectives of Lough Corrib cSAC and SPA, Maumturk Mountains cSAC, and the Twelve Bens/Garraun Complex cSAC and SPA. NPWS advise the following the further information response and subject to the final agreement of the works method statements, significant adverse impacts on species and habitats of conservation interest are unlikely.

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 104 of 105

On the basis of the information contained in the application and subsequent submissions to the Board and at the oral hearing, I consider the conclusions of the NIS to be reasonable and appropriate.

In this regard I consider it reasonable to conclude that the proposed development, individually and in combination with other plans or projects would not adversely affect the integrity of the European sites, • Lough Corrib cSAC (Site Code: 000297), • Lough Corrib SPA (Site Code: 004042), 10 • Maumturk Mountains cSAC (Site Code: 002008), • Twelve Bens/Garraun Complex cSAC (Site Code: 002031), • Connemara Bog Complex cSAC (Site Code: 002034), and • Connemara Bog Complex SPA (Site Code: 004181) in view of the site’s conservation objectives.

20

PL07.JA0033 An Bord Pleanala Page 105 of 105