IN THE MATTER OF A PUBLIC INQUIRY ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT PUBLIC INQUIRY DIRECTION ORDER PUBLIC INQUIRY VESTING ORDER PUBLIC INQUIRY STOPPING UP OF PRIVATE ACCESSES PUBLIC INQUIRY

DAY 6

The Panel:

Mr Kevin Chambers

Mr William Gillespie

Held at:

The Mellon Country Hotel

Beltany, Road, Omagh

Monday, 16th May 2011 At: 10.30 am

Mr Francis O'Reilly represented the Roads Service

1

I N D E X

{TR:4} (P:9)Presentation by Mr Winters

{TR:4} (P:13)Presentation by Mr Donnelly

{TR:4} (P:19)Presentation by Liz Saulter

{TR:4} (P:25)Presentation by Councillor Brush

{TR:4} (P:33)Presentation by Mr Suitor

{TR:4} (P:37)Comments by Mrs Christie

{TR:4} (P:45)Presentation by Mr Murtland

{TR:4} (P:56)Further comments by Ms Saulter

{TR:4} (P:57)Presentation by Mr Morris for Ballygawley Traders

{TR:4} (P:63)Presentation by Mr Tallon

{TR:4} (P:66)Presentation by Mr McGonnell

{TR:4} (P:70)Presentation by Mr Mulligan

{TR:4} (P:90)Presentation by Mr David Brush

2 {TR:4} (P:102)Presentation by Mr McClean

{TR:4} (P:108)Presentation by Mr Mallon on behalf of Mr Eric Coote

{TR:4} (P:111)Presentation by Mr Coote

3

ERRATUM

Page 3, Line 8, Insert: “Presentation by Peter McCarron” – (Page 121)

Page 12, Last paragraph. Delete “£” sign.

Page 21, paragraph 1, last line. Replace “own” with “on”.

Page 43, paragraph 4, first line, Page 44, paragraph 2, first line. Replace “MR CHRISTIE” with “MS CHRISTIE”.

Page 46, paragraph 2, second line. Replace “300” with “3000”.

Page 52, paragraph 2, line 3. Replace “quest” with “west.

Page 76, paragraph 5, first line. Replace “MS SALTERS” with “THE CHAIRMAN”.

4 Monday, 16th May 2011

THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning. My name Kevin Chambers and my colleague is Bill Gillespie. Welcome to Day 6 of the Public Inquiry into the strategic issues related to the A5 Western Transport Corridor proposals. As usual I need to begin with a few housekeeping matters. Once again I am at the risk of boring everyone, but I would like to ask that you ensure that you are aware of the location of all the emergency exits at the front and back of the room. I would ask that everyone present switches off their mobile phone, not just put on silent. I also ask that when you rise to speak you introduce yourself by stating your name and speak slowly and clearly to allow the Stenographer to accurately record the proceedings taking place. Now just before we begin the main business of the Inquiry this morning, which is the presentation of evidence by either objectors of the scheme or supporters of the scheme, I would like to read out a statement relating to the role of the Inspectors. I want to do this because issues were raised last week relating to the independence and impartiality of the Inspectors. I promised on Friday afternoon that I would read out a statement in that respect. This is what I want to say. First of all dealing with the appointment of Inspectors: The Roads Service Northern Ireland Order, 1993 is the main legislation which contains the provision enabling or requiring the

5 Department to hold an Inquiry in connection with the exercise of its functions. Schedule A1, Clause 33, of the Interpretation Act, Northern Ireland, 1954, provides for the Department to appoint a person (Inspector) to hold a Public Inquiry into the Department's proposals. The Department presently has a panel of 13 Inspectors from which it can appoint an Inspector to hold a Public Inquiry (subject to their availability). The Inspectors are appointed by the Department for Regional Development under the above legislation (not the Roads Service). We are completely independent and impartial and are not self-appointed. The Inspector may require participants in Public Inquiries to submit copies of all statements/evidence to him or her at least four weeks before the commencement of the Inquiry. A witness who proposes to produce any other papers which have not been lodged previously may be asked to show good cause for late presentation of evidence. It is entirely at the Inspector's discretion to accept evidence which has not been presented four weeks prior to the commencement of the Inquiry. Some objectors at a Public Inquiry may wish to just make a "Statement" which is not subject to questioning, but the Inspector may choose not to hear a statement in this situation. Inspectors may intervene when they consider questions or responses to be unduly lengthy, repetitive or unhelpful. The Inspector will normally attribute more weight to evidence which has been subject to questioning.

6 Inspectors have the powers to refuse the submission or production of any matter or evidence which they consider to be irrelevant, repetitious, contrary to the public interest or which is directed to the merits of government policy. Government policies which have been through the democratic process are outside the remit of the Inquiry. If witnesses are repeating evidence given earlier the Inspector may limit or refuse such evidence to be heard. Last minute introduction of material intended to catch an opposing party off guard is not acceptable. Inspectors will exercise discretion in favour of persons who wish to be heard (but cannot appear as of right), provided the presentation is likely to last no more than five to ten minutes. Legal challenges such as an alleged contravention of human rights are not for the Inquiry, but should be addressed through the Courts. Any concerns about an individual Inspector should be directed to the Department for Regional Development. Upon receipt, the Inspector's report and recommendations will be considered by the Department. Roads Service will then be asked to produce a Departmental Statement, which will set out the Department's consideration of the Inspector's comments and recommendations. It will state the Department's decision on whether to proceed with the scheme without modifications or subject to such modifications as the Department thinks fit or not to proceed at all.

7 The Departmental Statement will be copied to all objectors and any other person who appeared or was represented at the Inquiry and who has asked to be notified of the decision. In notifying the objectors of the decision the Department will either append a copy of the Inspector's report, if convenient, or the relevant extract from the report. The Department will not circulate the Inspector's report before a decision is made. In light of some of the statements made last week I thought it important, ladies and gentlemen, to clarify both the position of the Inspectors and the purpose of the report we have produced. Now I am not prepared to take questions on what I have said up until this point because there is a very, very full schedule today and we have to ensure that all those who wish to present evidence will have the opportunity to be heard. If there is any time at the end of the today's proceedings I will consider that. No interruptions at this point, thank you. The first presenter this morning I understand is Mr Ed Winters present. Could you come forward, please and present your evidence, and I remind you to state your full name and speak fairly slowly and clearly so that the Stenographer can accurately record your evidence. MR WINTERS: Can I hand you a prepared copy? THE CHAIRMAN: One point I would like to emphasise, Mr Winters, this Inquiry is specifically focused on strategic issues and strategic matters relating to the A5 proposals. I would ask that all presenters of evidence to ensure that while there is some leeway and

8 possible overlap in terms of strategic and other issues, to focus and concentrate on the strategic matters.

Presentation by Mr Winters

MR WINTERS: Thank you, and good morning. My name is Ed Winters, and my wife Winifred and I live with our four dogs in Cavanacaw near Omagh just beside the Gold Mine. I am semi-retired having worked as professional photographer for 32 years in my Omagh High Street Studio. I hold a London University General Science Degree and in 1996 I gained a postgraduate diploma in Environmental Protection. Omagh Minerals applied for planning permission for a Gold Mine and associated Minerals at Cavanacaw in 1992. This major application was supported by an Environmental Impact Statement, which I have here. This scoped the entire development. A Public Inquiry into this application was held in 1993 and the Planning Appeals Commission recommended approval and this was granted with 39 conditions to protect the environment and the community. Omagh Minerals have consistently flaunted those conditions with breaches of the planning conditions and Enforcement Orders that have been issued by the Planning Service to get them back to those

9 conditions. For example, the name of the application for a gold mine and associated minerals but, in fact, this is an open cast lead mine producing tonnes of toxic lead and a few ounces of gold and silver. Associated with the lead are other toxic and carcinogenic materials such as mercury, cadmium mercury and arsenic. Continual restoration at the Gold Mine was an element of the successful application with progressive back filling of the open cast mine. All waste rock was to be used for back filling and re-landscaping with no rock to be removed from the site. However, in Condition 39b, the phrase "And the removal of surplus rock", had slipped into the planning consent. This may be interpreted as a few lorry loads of excess rock but between the period of July 2008 and February 2009, the contractor PT McWilliams, took out some 140 20-ton lorries of rock per day before the Planning Service issued an Enforcement Order to stop. This massive movement of rock totally wrecked the road infrastructure around Cavanacaw and resulted in many families not being able to use the road for every day use. This rock was used for the construction of the Aughnacloy bypass. Omagh Minerals have applied for planning permission to remove 1m tonnes of rock, and subject to no objection from the DRD planning permission will be granted. It can be assumed that that rock will be used for the new A5 road. This rock is contaminated with lead and during transport dust will blow all over the countryside contaminating and damaging farmland, waterways and people's health. The repaired

10 infrastructure will again be wrecked with a detrimental affect to the community. I believe that planning permission would never have been recommended by the 1993 Public Inquiry if these events had been known. It is not morally right to have the conditions set up to protect the environment and the community changed to facilitate the greed of Omagh Minerals. I want this Public Inquiry to recommend that DRD should respect the conditions of that last Public Inquiry here in Omagh. I want them to recommend that DRD respect those conditions and not to allow any rock to be removed from the site and used in the construction of the A5. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr Winters. Does that conclude your statement? MR WINTERS: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: You have raised an issue already raised last week and the Department did give assurances that no contaminated materials would be used in the construction of the A5 if it is to go ahead. Now, notwithstanding that remark does the Department have anything further to say? MR O'REILLY: Mr Inspector and Mr Winters, Mr Reid will deal briefly with that. He answered a similar concern last week in terms of not using contaminated material and the fact that at present no rock

11 from this particular mine would be required. But perhaps it is better for him to answer you. MR WINTERS: This is my first visit. MR O'REILLY: I understand. That is why we are happy to answer it briefly because it is your first visit. THE CHAIRMAN: I think that would be very helpful, Mr O'Reilly. Thank you. MR REID: Paul Reid, Mouchel. As Mr O'Reilly has said the question was raised last week and a similar concern raised that the potential for contaminated material from the mine from that site could be used on the A5 WTC. I can confirm, as I did last week, that the use of contaminated material from the mine or sources would not be permitted on the Project, and I can also confirm certainly at this stage that there have been no agreements whatsoever regarding the use of material from the mine in respect of the A5. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything further to add, Mr Winters? MR WINTERS: You know, as I said, the Company have applied for planning permission to remove £1m ton of a rock. They have been stockpiling for a number of years, which can be viewed from any part of the road. If you look up to the west you can see that stockpile. You know, it really beggars belief that if they are going to remove it where are they going to take it? All these years we have had similar assurances from many parties, but at the end of the day that company up

12 there seems to do exactly what they want. I just wanted to make that particular point without going into a debate about the issue. I want to say something else. It makes living up there with a three metre wide road exceptionally difficult, exceptionally stressful. You know, if I had of been told the truth in 1993 I would have moved. I should have moved. THE CHAIRMAN: We appreciate your concern, Mr Winters. Thank you very much. Before Mr Winters leaves does anyone wish to make any comments or ask any questions related to Mr Winters's evidence? In that case thank you very much for coming here today. MR WINTERS: Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity. THE CHAIRMAN: We are running a little bit earlier but if we can have Mr Bill Donnelly. I see he is here. Mr Donnelly, you have spoken to us before so you are aware of the procedures, I am sure. MR DONNELLY: Could I ask Mr Reid, did you confirm there were no agreements to use rock from the Gold Mine; is that right? MR REID: That is my information.

Presentation by Mr Donnelly

MR DONNELLY: Inspector, as you are aware parts of this scheme you heard last week in cross-examination, there is some repetition

13 after Mr Winters, as you just said. There are parts of this I would like to read out. I have to it read it in its entirety, if I may? THE CHAIRMAN: That is fine. MR DONNELLY: It is fact that the Cavanacaw Gold Mine near Omagh produces primarily lead and only small quantities of gold. In fact, it produces up to 1,800 times more lead than gold. It is more of a lead mine than gold, an open cast lead mine to be exact. Those are the facts. For years the Gold Mine employees have been speaking openly about their intention to supply the A5 with waste rock, even boasting about it, from the mine, of course. It is widely accepted locally that this is indeed their intention. I have searched the internet thoroughly and have been unable to find a single case where waste rock from a lead mine is used for building anywhere in Western Europe. The 1993 Gold Mine Public Inquiry made clear that the main site would become an area contaminated with heavy metals, and warned of the dangers of dust contamination even in the surrounding fields. Dr Stewart Jaggers, a toxicologist who gave evidence at the Inquiry, warned that the dust created by the Mine could be a danger, not just to those employed there but to those living in the vicinity. He said that the heavy metals emanating from the site, including lead, cadmium and arsenic could, if inadequately monitored and controlled, lead to the ruination of grazing land and then the contamination of meat and milk. The resulting Environmental Statement set out in detail how

14 the waste rock from the mine was to be stored on site minimising danger to the public and the environment. Back in 2008, ignoring the contamination warnings of the Inquiry and also ignoring the Environmental Statement's requirement that the waste rock was to be stored on-site Planning Service did, in fact, allow the unauthorised removal of up to half a million tonnes of the waste rock which was used, as I have said, in the building of the Aughnacloy bypass, possibly one of the biggest environmental crimes in the history of Northern Ireland. They were well aware, the planners, that the Gold Mine was a contaminated area and that no planning permission for large scale rock removal for the road existed. Roads Service facilitated this unauthorised rock removal by producing a road haulage management plan for up to 145 trucks per day around the Mine site, which is something like 290 truck movements per day. This unauthorised rock removal now forms part of the complaint against Planning Service currently being investigated by the Northern Ireland Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is also investigating an array of other possible planning breaches by the Company. Local residents opposed to the transport of this dubious material past their homes have encountered, we believe, an appalling lack of integrity and trustworthiness on the part of officials from various departments, people who have the responsibility for the stewardship of our environment and the protection of the public, the same people who,

15 I fear, will be charged with policing the findings of this Public Inquiry and the terms of the A5 Environmental Statement. Planning Service recently recommended approval of planning application K/2008/0995/F which, if approved, will allow the removal of a further million tonnes of rock from the Mine. This time a proper road haulage management plan from Roads Service wasn't produced as, indeed, it should have been as part of the planning consultation. Presumably they already knew what the outcome would be, i.e., that the minor road around the site are narrow and have limited potential for the regular movement of heavy loads, exactly as it says in the Environmental Statement which should have required them to recommend refusal of the application. This application proposes to increase the number of truck movements around the Mine from two expected movements per day to 200 movements per day on these minor roads. You would have thought that if anybody in Northern Ireland would have concerns about the removal of a vast quantity of rock from a heavy metals contaminated area for road building, it would have been the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, but apparently not, under FOI residents were sent a copy of their consultation response to the planning application, unbelievably the Environment Agency hadn't even mentioned the contamination issue in their approval recommendations. Unsurprisingly no official has put their name to it. Recently residents have asked most of the key officials from Roads Service, Planning Service and the Environment Agency if they

16 have any knowledge of any plans to use the rock in the building of the A5. As yet none of them have admitted to having any. I would suggest that these officials are well aware of these plans but are seeking to keep this information out of the public domain, at least until after this Inquiry. Even the Minister for Regional Development, Conor Murphy, is dodging the question. It is, in my opinion, inconceivable that we have a planning application to remove 1m tonnes of rock from a contaminated mine, an application supported by Planning Service, Roads Service and the Environment Agency and the officials concerned have not got a clue about where this material is going. Let's put this in perspective, we are not talking about a couple of truck loads here, we are talking about perhaps 100 truck loads per day, every day for a year. Roads Service can tell us definitively that during the construction phase of the A5 there will be 50 truck movements per day for a year at the northern end of the mine at Gillygooley and another 50 at the other end at Clanabogan, a total of 36,000 truck movements in the vicinity of the Mine, and they still can't tell us if the material in them will be coming from the mine or not. It simply doesn't stack up. Finally, there can be no justification for Roads Service spending a huge amount of public money on producing an Environmental Statement for the A5 while ignoring the Gold Mine Environmental Statement. Equally there can be no justification for them spending another huge amount of public money on this Public Inquiry if it is

17 prepared to ignore the findings of the Gold Mine Public Inquiry. If this Inquiry has to have any credibility then the evidence of independent experts like Dr Jaggers and Dr Chambers from the 1993 Gold Mine Inquiry must be respected. This Inquiry must help ensure that not an ounce of rock from the Cavanacaw Gold Mine is ever used in the building of the A5, or hopefully any other road. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Does that conclude your evidence, Mr Donnelly? MR DONNELLY: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Can we have a copy of your statement of evidence? MR DONNELLY: Certainly. THE CHAIRMAN: Does the Department wish to make any comment on the evidence presented to us by Mr Donnelly? MR O'REILLY: No, Mr Inspector, following Mr Donnelly's cross-examination last week and the evidence already given by Mr Reid I don't think we need to. THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone wish to comment on Mr Donnelly's evidence or questions relating to it? In that case, Mr Donnelly, once again thank you very much for coming and presenting your evidence to us. I believe the next presenter is Liz Saulter. As before I would ask you to begin by stating your full name and speaking slowly and clearly for the benefit of the Stenographer.

18

Presentation by Liz Saulter

MS SALTERS: My name is Liz Saulter, and I represent Aughnacloy Development Association. I am a property owner on the Main Street of Aughnacloy. We raised five issues previously and I am sure you all have copies of the issues raised and responses. So rather than wasting any time I will just sum the facts that I have here to read out regarding the response, the five responses. The first one was that the current passing trade is maintained to the highest possible level of travellers seeking services in our town. Aughnacloy is the last town to be bypassed on the route and we are here in a capacity to actually seek help to try and lobby, we don't have a major political or otherwise figure to represent our community such as Caledon and Moygashel. Our little Development Association does its best at grass roots level but its voice is sometimes ignored. In other words to keep the commercial centre of Aughnacloy on-going we need as many of the main planning bodies as possible to help our Association. Our town historically provides services to the thousands of daily travellers on the north/south route between the two major cities of Dublin and Derry. We lie directly and strategically halfway on the journey and we know that we are in a key position to offer services at that

19 level. Our biggest concern would be given a bypass that we would lose out on a lot of the benefits from the passing trade. We have 51 businesses currently working out of premises and all strategically placed and linked to the Main Street in Aughnacloy. Every single one of these businesses rely on passing trade. We have seven hairdressing salons and they are even known to get clients stopping en route for a haircut. What we want to maintain is that service area. Our Development Association have visions of creating a centre similar to the Linen Green in Moygashel on or along our Main Street because we have such a wide area for parking. Fifty-three seater coaches can park comfortably along with large freight lorries. We want to make sure that those travellers would stop. There are plans which relate to Number 5, issue Number 5 that relates to the slip roads. We notice that there are two roundabouts to negotiate on what we call the northern side of Aughnacloy. Now it is a known fact that drivers, including learner drivers, that the worst obstacle they want to face is a roundabout. Everyone, including myself, would think of all the driving manoeuvers that you have to take roundabouts are detrimental, I think, on a journey. Having one to negotiate is fine, but at the eastern side on the north to south route there will be two roundabouts to negotiate. I would see that being detrimental to passing traffic because drivers like myself are lazy and if we are given a chance to maybe go on somewhere else with a lack of things we would take it, with the lack of obstacles in the way.

20 We have a population in the BT 69 area of three to 3,500 now. We have a high proportion of migrant working population moving into the town and the population is growing, but we also now are facing a serious case of deprivation. There are a lot more properties derelict in the town and it is very, very difficult to encourage new business to the town, which our Development Association is continually doing. It is very difficult with the thoughts of having a bypass because no one wants to develop properties in order for a new bypass to take away passing trade. One of the key issues for small businesses that could be attracted to the main street would be the fact that they would rely own passing trade. Now we are quite willing to work with any agencies, including the road planners to put a case because our voice is small there, to put a case to encourage a set up like Linen Green. We could be seen as a gateway to the north, Berwick on Tweed between England and Scotland is a prime example, I think for tourism, to encourage growth, keep a sense of community about Aughnacloy, to allow young people to stay in the community, that they would have chances of work without completely going. We remember what happened at Ballygawley when the roundabout was created there. I mean, Ballygawley literally died a death and we don't want that to happen in Aughnacloy. We want it to remain as vibrant as we can. Like I say, we are a tiny voice and it is not always listened to. We are in a strategic place to provide tourist information and to provide the necessary services where people are two hours north of Dublin, two

21 hours south of Derry. We are in an ideal place for drivers to get out and use it as a stretching post. We are appealing for help in any direction to be able to get our plans for the future. There was a case about air quality and noise pollution. I have lived in Aughnacloy for over 30 years off and on and I have never heard anyone mention problems before because everyone relies on the traffic, and personally I did live in Scunthorpe, which is a major steel producing town in Lincolnshire, and people didn't complain there and there was air pollution and noise pollution there. In conclusion I just want to point out that we are here for help in any direction and we want to make sure that whatever plans are in place that we are worked with and people will negotiate with us and help us to make sure that we are not going to be -- peopling coming in and putting in new roads don't care about the community. I feel strongly because I am Aughnacloy born and bred and I would just like to have as much help and support for the future as we can. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Miss Saulter. Would the Department like to comment on Miss Saulter's comments? MR O'REILLY: I think there was a response, but Mr Loughrey may be able to add to that. MR LOUGHREY: Thank you. This is obviously a common theme when you get into road building and bypasses when you look at the needs of the road user and those that rely on the road to serve the business against the business needs of the community. This was pointed out to us

22 at an early stage. You will recall we reviewed and had a look at our junction strategy and we now currently have a junction at the north of Aughnacloy, albeit with north facing strips, so that means that people travelling south along the A5 can go off at the north of Aughnacloy to get into Aughnacloy, and equally people leaving Aughnacloy could get on to the new road, that is at the northern end. I will ask Peter in a few minutes to comment on the design. Then you move to the other side which is the roundabout at the A28. Roads Service, we recognise the facilities that Aughnacloy can and does provide and typically in a Project like this then that is covered with signage to the area and you can see that on the A4 where the facilities in the area are covered with signs. Equally there is still a local community to be served and my experience with this, and there are differing views, but there is a view that they can perhaps be served better when you take the through traffic and/or the unnecessary traffic out of the town. So there is differing views there. I will ask Peter to comment on the design of the junction. MR EDWARDS: Good morning, Inspector and Miss Saulter. The design that we have for Junction 16 as it is labelled for Aughnacloy North, does have two roundabouts. It is typically in terms of a dumbbell junction and that is quite a standard arrangement for accommodating slip roads and grade separated junction such as this. It takes into account the approach roads that will come into it, so that is the A5 North and A5 South and Aughnacloy Loughans Road. When you look at the geometry

23 and the standards we have to design to, any other form of junction would probably take a lot more land or it will not be necessarily as safe. It won't be dangerous but it won't be as safe. We have identified for safety and for minimising landtake the dumbbell roundabout, the two roundabouts solution is the appropriate one at this stage, albeit it may be perceived to be an obstacle to drivers it is probably the safest and the most efficient junction. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Edwards. Does anyone else have any comments or questions they would like to ask relating to Miss Saulter's evidence? MS SALTERS: There is one thing, I haven't approached is the fact about signage. Our Development Association will feel that signage should be up immediately to point out to drivers that are currently going through the town that we are the service, because if something is planted in their minds visually at this stage before any work starts I think it is very important to let people know that we are here, we are the service point, the gateway to the north. If we could develop that it would be very beneficial to our community. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, not wishing to answer on behalf of the Department, Miss Saulter, I take it the issue with signage is difficult at the moment because as yet the scheme has not had final approval. Am I incorrect in that assumption? MR LOUGHREY: You are right, the issue of signing both permanently and temporary is something for further down the line at the

24 detailed design stage. THE CHAIRMAN: Anything else you want to say Miss Saulter. MS SALTERS: No. Thank you for the opportunity to bring the issues. THE CHAIRMAN: You are welcome. That brings us to Councillor Brush. I am aware that he is not scheduled to present his evidence until 11.30 but if he is here, if you have no objection I ask you to come forward and present your evidence now. I ask you to speak your full name and speak slowly and clearly for the Stenographer.

Presentation by Councillor Brush

MR BRUSH: I am Councillor Sammy Brush and I live in Ballygawley and I represent the area around Aughnacloy. As well as that I don't own any properties involved in this so I am looking at it from a different point of view to perhaps property owners. I am sure you have in front of you the 18 points that I raised in my correspondence with Mr Pat Doherty on 30th December last year and the answers or the response to them? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Councillor Brush we have that

25 information. MR BRUSH: You can see that I start off from the position of believing that this scheme is unnecessary, that an upgrade of the existing A5 would serve the community living in the area much better and would cause a lot less disruption and upheaval to the farming community. When I am on that subject can I just say that it is interesting that the EU has for a number of years been putting land or encouraging farmers to set aside land that was deemed unnecessary for food production, so that it appears now that the food production may well be one of the things that will be much needed in the future. That there is a feeling that there will be a scarcity of food in the next decade or so. So I think it is important that that should be taken into consideration. This proposed road is going through very productive agricultural land, both arable and grazing land. I think it is something that should be considered very seriously for the future production of food. Number two, I point out that the proposed road between Aughnacloy and Ballygawley would add 50% to the existing journey and that is, I believe, totally correct and perhaps an underestimate, given that there is a loop around Aughnacloy, which no one outside the people who designed this road, can understand the need for it. Firstly, the amount of traffic on the existing road between Aughnacloy and Ballygawley would appear not to justify a motorway type of dual carriageway. I think that needs to be looked at very seriously. I cannot understand that when they set out to design this road

26 that they were given four options or four possible routes and that they didn't seem to be able to interchange any part of any of the routes with any other, there was no such thing as mix and match, but now there has been a number of variations to the Preferred and Proposed Route which to me means that it could have been possible to mix and match. I would have suggested that the Green Route in Aughnacloy would have been a more sensible route, both distance wise and not have put out of existence so much agricultural land. A five kilometres loop around Aughnacloy is to me ridiculous and surely something else could have been found there? I have looked at the junction on the Carnteel Road and I felt that that bridge across the Carnteel Road north-east of Aughnacloy that could possibly have been, if this loop goes ahead it would have been more sensible to have a junction there with these slip roads, a bridge and access roads, seeing that there still would be a link to the A4, M1 through the Granville junction because, as I stated, why would anyone drive through a long two sides of a triangle, in fact, using the hypothenuse rather than using the other side which would be much shorter, and that road is very well used at the present time and an improvement on it would also be more necessary than this new A5. That is what I fear in the old system that the money spent on this new dual carriageway will take way from the improvement on the existing roads and that we have a motorway and then cars basically leading through the rest of country. The limited number of accesses at Aughnacloy, that is why I

27 thought that Aughnacloy would really, as has been pointed out by the previous speaker, will suffer very greatly because of this bypass and the fact that the way the existing access through the Monaghan Road will be blocked and the new route will be from the Caledon Road, which is foreign to the drivers using that road, using the A5 at the moment. I feel that it will be more important to have had the junction on the existing Monaghan Road for drivers that use that road at the moment would normally go through Aughnacloy, and if the junction will be there instead of the Caledon Road it would have been much easier for the users to access Aughnacloy if they need to, and as it has been pointed out, it is a natural stopping place on the road from Dublin to Londonderry. Number five, the proposal to extend the A4 dual carriageway from the new roundabout at Ballygawley to another new roundabout at Crossboy will have an adverse effect on both the local population and the businesses in Ballygawley if there is no access to the A4 in Ballygawley. Now, since that I have seen that there is a proposal for a bridge there and the bridge, in fact, will be not on the place of the existing roundabout and it would cut-off the access to Ballygawley at that particular point. I believe that that is totally wrong and that if you look at Dungannon, the A4 Dungannon, you have a junction at Stangmore, one at the old Eglish Road, one at the present Eglish Road. One at Granville and one for Castlecaulfield. Certainly the one at Granville are far closer together than the roundabout, the present roundabout at Ballygawley on the new roundabout, the new proposed roundabout. Given the fact that

28 there is no junction between Cabra and Ballygawley I think it is very, very important that there is access to the A4 where the existing roundabout is at Ballygawley at the moment. I believe that can be easily done by two access roads, the same as is done at Granville or at the old Eglish Road junction or at the Castlecaulfield junction. I see absolutely no reason in the first place to close that access without building a bridge. As I have pointed out the ground that is already owned by the Roads Service there is more than adequate to build that bridge and provide access roads without vesting any more ground. People who are living there whose grounds is proposed to be bought have suffered so much in the past that it would be ridiculous to vest any more ground from them. I might mention one particular thing, at the roundabout at Ballygawley there is Suitors Gallery and Tea Rooms which depends completely on passing trade. When we talk about signage I have for years and years tried to get signage of local services to Ballygawley village and the Roads Service always resisted that. So I find it a bit strange that they would say now that there would be no problem with signages for Aughnacloy. Where are the signs for Ballygawley? I have been fighting that for many, many years and still have not had any local signage for Ballygawley. So I take that promise of signage with a pinch of salt. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The last issue you raised about signage is not strictly within the remit of our scope. MR BRUSH: You can understand why I raised it, because the

29 Roads Service promised if the new road at Aughnacloy goes ahead they will provide signage. I am saying they resisted signage for Ballygawley when it was done years ago. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Brush, you have raised some issues which have been raised previously, but you have also raised some issues, and I would ask the Department what their comments are. You have also raised a question for myself which I would like clarification on but I would like the Department's comments. MR O'REILLY: Has Councillor Brush finished? MR BRUSH: Not really. THE CHAIRMAN: My apologies, I thought you had. MR BRUSH: I think I have covered the points about the roundabout at or the access at Ballygawley. If I could just say as well providing access roads in Ballygawley, that would reduce or do away with the need to restructure the Tullybrian Road and bring the traffic in from the new roundabout by the Tullybrian Road, it being a road which passes a school and two housing estates and which for many years has been used for access only. I think it would be very wrong to acquire land to build a new part of that road and bring traffic in past two housing estates and a school when there is a bridge being built across the A4, and it would be reasonable to expect access at that point and it would reduce the need, in fact, it would eliminate the need completely for a restructuring of the Tullybrian Road. I think that is a very important point that needs to be made.

30 Also I raised the points about the Ulsterbus Park and Ride facilities. I think at the moment there is something happening on that one but I don't think it is going to be permanent and I am not sure what the plans really are there. I think if there is a Park and Ride at that particular point, that is another good reason for access at the existing roundabout, because that would be serving the village as well as serving the wider community. I feel that access to the new proposed A5, as I pointed out, is too limited to be of use to the local community. I say that from the point of view of the farming community, the business community and the tourism community. How would a new motorway with limited accesses to it serve the needs of the B&Bs and the hotels and all the other catering, the existing catering establishments along the A5 now, that exist now? Those will all be very, very seriously affected by the limited access leading to and from the new A5. I think that is probably a summary of what I have said. You have the rest of it in front of you anyway. So I think that concludes what I have to say. THE CHAIRMAN: Councillor Brush, thank you very much for that. I now invite the Department to comment. MR O'REILLY: Mr Inspector, the response to Councillor Brush will come from Mr Loughrey, Mr Edwards and Mr Reid. I am conscious that many of the points that the Councillor has raised have equally been raised by concerned organisations within Ballygawley. So

31 the response will be fairly lengthy. I am not certain if those representatives are here at the moment, but certainly we are in a position to answer, although it may take some little time. It may well be you prefer a break or alternatively we can proceed. THE CHAIRMAN: How long do you anticipate it would take roughly, Mr O'Reilly, to make that response? MR LOUGHREY: Ten to 15 minutes. THE CHAIRMAN: I recognise the point that you have made, Mr O'Reilly, about others raising similar issues and I note that this afternoon we have the representation for the Ballygawley Traders and the Ballygawley Development Association, where I anticipate a similar line of questioning and similar line of evidence. Councillor Brush, would it be acceptable for you to have your concerns and the concerns of others with similar questions answered during that period, is that convenient for you? MR BRUSH: Yes, I would prefer to wait for that. THE CHAIRMAN: That would be very, very helpful. Indeed, I have a question that I want to ask about Councillor Brush's evidence but I will hold that back as well. On that basis I suggest we take a break for 15 minutes and reconvene at 11.45.

(Short adjournment)

THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen I would like to reconvene. I understand the next presenter is Mr John Suitor. Could you

32 come forward, Mr Suitor, please. Again, as I have said many times before, for the benefit of the Stenographer if you could first of all state your full name and speak slowly and clearly so that she can record your evidence accurately.

Presentation by Mr Suitor

MR SUITOR: I am John Suitor and I am here to speak on behalf of Suitor Gallery. I am a retired civil engineer. Suitor Gallery was a business started by my wife 20 years ago at Ballygawley Roundabout. It now supports two families and we have six of a staff temporary and permanent. Our main source of business is from passing tourists who come from Dublin and Belfast and obviously go to Sligo, Fermanagh, Derry, etc, and Donegal in particular. When the new A4 dual carriageway was opened we have suffered quite a drop in business and we have no doubt that if this scheme goes ahead, as it is now envisaged, we will probably have to close. Tyrone has several initiatives, of which we are part, to encourage tourists to stop in Tyrone and not to necessarily just fly

33 through. We see that the construction of this new A5 dual carriageway will encourage people not to stop but to continue to their destination without stopping. As the lady from Aughnacloy said we are halfway between Dublin and Derry and we have a lot of customers who stop for a break and a meal, obviously, and this is not going to happen in the future. We have no problem with a new safe road being built. Our problem is that the configuration of the new road will deprive us of business. When it was initially planned and there were meetings in Ballygawley there was to be a new interchange approximately half a kilometre from the existing roundabout beside our business. Suddenly towards the end of the scheme several months back we find this exchange has now been moved a further kilometre towards Eniskillen, completely out of sight of Ballygawley. As the previous speaker said the link road back from the village is going to be passing through a school and a couple of housing estates. We have never succeeded in getting an explanation for this change. Had it gone through as originally planned it wouldn't have been as disastrous. Since the opening of the A4 dual carriageway I have applied for planning permission for a Brown sign to try and encourage business. As Mr Brush pointed out Ballygawley does not have any signs on that new dual carriageway such as Granville and Cabra, for instance. It is a well known fact that on that road to Dungannon from Ballygawley several businesses similar to our own have had to close down as they were operating obviously at a loss now. We want to try and avoid this. I

34 would agree with Councillor Brush on what changes could be made to the scheme so that Ballygawley could have better access but I will not repeat that. One thing that I think that the planners or the people designing the new road failed to address was the local people. I would refer you to the document Submission On Policy and Procedure prepared by Conor Loughrey on page 8 and I will read from section 4.1.1. "A key element of the strategy is the emphasis on the development of a modern, integrated transport system. Its stated longer term vision for transport is to have a modern, sustainable, safe transport system which benefits society, the economy and the environment." Of course we agree with that: "and which actively contributes to social inclusion and to everyone's quality of life." Well, our contention is as designed no consideration's taken for the quality of life of the local people in the area who are earning their livelihood from the passing traffic, from the tourists, etc. I think this should be reconsidered and certainly Mr Brush's ideas on retaining the existing roundabout, which was built and opened six months ago as a means for people to access on to the new system, that we would agree with that. It is probably the most important part of what we hope to achieve. That is largely what we have to say on that subject. It is a matter of trying to give access to people travelling. People coming from quite a distance are not going to suddenly stop and travel back 1.6 kilometers from the interchange towards Eniskillen to get

35 to our place or to get to Ballygawley. They will continue on probably to where they are intending to go. Certainly I don't intend to deviate off my path a considerable distance when travelling to get to a restaurant or whatever. So that is my presentation. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Does that conclude your evidence, Mr Suitor? MR SUITOR: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: I think you will agree that the views expressed are largely reflective of the views given by Councillor Brush earlier and the Departement proposes to make a fairly detailed response and it will probably cover the concerns you have raised as well, would it be acceptable for you to have that response given at that time, which will be immediately after lunch, or would you like a specific response at this stage. MR SUITOR: I think it will be -- THE CHAIRMAN: The opportunity will be given for you if you so wish to cross-examine the Department or at least question the Department again in terms of their response. I do think we will be probably going over the same ground if we start that process now, but it is entirely up to you. MR SUITOR: I can wait two hours for that. THE CHAIRMAN: That will be very, very helpful. Thank you. In that case rather than any response at this stage I propose that we

36 go on to ask the next presenter to give their evidence. I believe that is Mr Robert Murtland. Has Mr Murtland arrived? I am informed Mr Murtland has not arrived at this stage. In that case could I have a quick word with the Programme Officer, please? Ladies and gentlemen as the next person wishes to present evidence has not arrived representation has been made to me by another member of the public who wishes to make a statement or pose a question, and I am going to allow that person to do that now. That is Mrs Christie. Mrs Christie, would you like to do that now? MS CHRISTIE: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs Christie, in accordance with the advice I gave in my statement this morning, it is at the discretion of the Inspector to allow and individual who is not scheduled today to give evidence for a period of five to ten minutes. So I ask you to try and do that and comply with the timescale that I have given you. Thank you.

Comments by Mrs Christie

MS CHRISTIE: I shall start. On Friday afternoon, 13th May, you, Mr Chairman, the Inspector, stated that you would make an opening statement on Monday, 16th May regarding independence with reference to an objector. You did not name the objector, just as I had not done so in the morning, but there was no doubt that no one in the room could have mistaken who you were referring to. I did state that I felt I

37 could not retract one word of what I had said. In relation to the allegation of independence I wish to say that when I was talking to the Department I used the term "you", you, Mr Chambers, along with Mr Gillespie, asked me who was I referring to. I hesitated because in my mind's eye I knew who was referring to, but I did not wish to name names and in my hesitation you said, or someone said, "You mean the Department?" And I said "yes". I also went on to say, Inspector, that you are chosen by the Department to chair the Inquiry and that you are not totally independent. Now I think it is that statement that I think may have led you to making the statement that afternoon. It is this phrase that I wish to clarify now. At that time I had a hazy view of what the Department meant, but the Department is made up of a number of different strands. Mouchel, who have been employed by the Department since 2007 is composed of very expert individuals whose remit extends from principal engineers, team leaders of flooding and drainage, technical directors of environment and business, ecologists, hydrologists. In other words, a very expert number of people, as well we have the Director of Mouchel Ireland. We also have the Roads Service, an Executive body employed by the Department of Regional Development, and we have the Project Sponsor from the Roads Service. We also have the Inspectors, a team of Inspectors who are employed by the Department to chair the Inquiry. Now, you have a remit, Inspector. You have a Terms of Reference. Example, in the Terms of Reference that I have discovered it

38 is not possible to discuss alternative forms of transport, even though the Department of Regional Development has produced a document titled "Accessible Transport Strategy Action Plan," which is a plan for making transport in Northern Ireland easier to use for disabled and elderly people to use. I thought we had to be inclusive, we can not look outside the bubble. Now as well as having a Term of Reference which is controlled, does that mean, for instance, that I could not bring to the table an article that I read in the paper concerning that Ireland has the second highest number of car users in the European Union. In that Article it was stated that in the Republic of Ireland measures were going to be implemented to reduce the number of car drivers and to encourage them to use public transport as they do in eastern Europe where the figure is roughly 30%. That is a question I would like responded to afterwards. Now not only are you responsible, you have a Terms of Reference, but there are also Rules and Procedures. In these Rules and Procedures the Department was allowed to hear questions from the objectors the first three days of the Inquiry and they could not be questioned afterwards for the subsequent seven days of this part of the Inquiry. Now I for one did not know that that was the case. I feel that there are disadvantages for the objectors. First of all I think it takes time to get into an Inquiry. When you arrive everything is very strange, and remember we did not have our meeting to discuss how the Inquiry was going to be conducted, how our responses were going to be used. What

39 were the rules and procedures that would determine the process of this Inquiry? I have looked at documents and I can't see anything that refers to the Department could only be questioned the first three days. Now what does that mean for us? Well, as I have been trying to do during the last week during the various presentations I felt that when someone made a presentation, and they have been wonderful, a lady asked a member of the Department a question concerning alternative forms of transport. The answer was given with regard to the most expensive alternative form of transport, the 2+1, 1+2 which would now require a central carriageway and parallel roads, access roads. Now I had noted in the lady's submission that this lady referred to the beautiful countryside, the grass verges for hard shoulders. So I decided that I would like to ask that question. I asked how much would it cost to have a road with hard shoulders, that means widen the existing roads to hard shoulders standard. The Inspector, Mr Chambers, had mentioned to the Department that they could refuse to answer that question, and they did. Now that does not leave us in a good position because what that means is we all in the room heard that lady make her submission. We all understood what the question was about. That is the time to bite the bullet. I was told I could ask that question a week later when I would make my submission. That to me is pointless, because it may not be the same audience and I would have lost the bite. It would no longer be in context. It is a huge disadvantage to us.

40 What this really means, Inspector, is that in my view, and I can state this, in my view the process is very controlled in terms of procedures, in terms of reference, in terms of when the Department can speak and in terms of when we can speak. It is also controlled by time slots. We are given time slots. Now what that really means is that you can speak for a certain time but, more importantly, there can't really be any discussion except the witness questioning the Department. What it really means is the process goes on relentlessly and the objector who would like to ask questions has not the opportunity. Now I am going to make this statement in two sentences. It is controlled within and without. It is designed to give the Department maximum protection and the objector minimum exposure. Now that is all very well if that is the way it is, but there is a huge flaw in this Inquiry and that is we have not had the opportunity to know how our responses were going to be used at the Inquiry. We did not know the procedures and I am going to refer to my letter of 10th May which I have submitted to the Department of Regional Development. THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs Christie, before you continue I said you would have five to ten minutes to make your case. I have to ask you to draw to a close. MS CHRISTIE: I will read this quickly. In response: "Dear sir/madam, in response to a telephone conversation yesterday afternoon from Mr J Miller, Lands and Legislation Branch, I wish to raise two issues which are not in dispute, either of which should

41 automatically result in the postponement of current proceedings. One, the fact that the people did not receive before the pre-inquiry meeting of 6th April 2011, responses to their objections lodged on 21st January and which Roads Service stated in their letter, dated 1st April 2011, attachment one (that you would receive a response from the Department before pre-inquiry meetings) ... I apologize that we have been unable to meet this commitment. The simple fact is that Roads Service should have responded to every respondent before setting up a pre-inquiry meeting. It was up to the Roads Service to meet this commitment and to change the date for the pre-inquiry meeting. The consequences were that without the Department's response before a pre-inquiry meeting no discussion took place about the order of the Public Inquiry and how our responses would be used at the Public Inquiry. Each respondent has received within the last two weeks the following: Fifteen files comprising 678 pages plus 173 maps and diagrams which are as follows." THE CHAIRMAN: Excuse me interrupting you, we are going over old ground covered previously and I have to ask you to draw to a conclusion as we have a programme to keep to. MS CHRISTIE: Inspector, by your interruptions you are delaying my response. I feel that it is only one page left and it is relevant. It is relevant to the letter that I sent. "Flooding, 43 pages, 50 maps and diagrams. Ecology, 57 pages. Cultural heritage 24. Traffic flows 58. Service water 37.

42 Engineering system one, 56 and 14 maps and diagrams. Engineering two, 60 pages, 21 maps and diagrams. Engineering three, 62 pages 24 maps and diagrams. Construction one, 41 pages. Construction two, 35. Construction three 34. Volume one, chapter one to 10, 97 pages, 42 maps and diagrams. Volume two, chapter 11 two page index, 22 maps and diagrams. A man representing a client stated that he had received his on 27th April. The most effective people are the farmers who are extremely busy at this time of the year. The Department has taken three months to prepare evidence in response to our objections for the Public Inquiry. We should be given a comparable timescale to examine these files. It is unjust and an infringement of our rights to continue with these proceedings and to place us at such a disadvantage. The only recourse is an immediate postponement. THE CHAIRMAN: Does that conclude your statement? MR CHRISTIE: Yes, that concludes my statement. THE CHAIRMAN: I wish to make one comment before we move on and that is the programme for the Inquiry has been drawn up and scheduled to try and assist with the efficient running of all the proceedings of the Inquiry, including the presentation of Department evidence and cross-examination of that evidence, and the presentation of witness statements and questions arising there from. The Department has been cross-examined over a period of two days and continues to answer questions relevant to the evidence presented by individual witnesses.

43 That is the process and structure which we are proceeding with at the moment. MR CHRISTIE: That is the process that I have just described, Inspector, but the flaw is that we did not know of the limitations placed upon us by questioning the Department only the first three days. As I have stated, the flaw is that the Department should not have fixed a date for the pre-inquiry meeting before completing their commitment. If they had not the responses issued to us before a pre-inquiry meeting, how could we understand? I myself hadn't and when someone mentioned the 20%, it didn't ring a bell, but when I got the responses I was wondering how are you going to use these responses. When I present, and I have been here nearly ever day, has any submission this week got to be based on strategic and if I put in local issues will I get a red mark through it? You know, there are a lot of things. Procedures and rules when you are operating a tight ship, Inspector, the tight ship must be known by everyone, objectors especially. We have to know what the tight ship is about before we set foot into this Inquiry. That has not happened and meantime disadvantage upon disadvantage is rolling on just as the Inquiry is rolling on. At the end of the day we might as well not be here. THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs Christie, your comments are duly noted. Thank you. Can we now proceed, ladies and gentlemen? I understand the next presenter is Mr Robert Murtland. Is he here? MR MURTLAND: Yes.

44 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Murtland. If you take a seat, please, and begin by stating your full name and again, as I have asked everyone else I ask you to speak slowly and clearly for the benefit of the Stenographer.

Presentation by Mr Murtland

MR MURTLAND: My name is Robert Murtland. I come here as a person concerned about the environment and the land use. I have a background internationally as an environmentalist and a forester, so perhaps bring a different slant to the problems and the Inquiry. One of the main problems at present is population growth globally and in some instances you have populations in countries like Uganda and Kenya doubling every 15 to 20 years. This road, the A5 and also the A6/A2 will take up some 6,000 acres of valuable arable land. We should be looking at issues of food security, issues of climate change, global warming and the cost of transportation of many of the exotic food that is imported from overseas, much of it to be substituted locally. On a local front my background is we had a small farm on the north side of Derry and I remember the first road widening 20 feet went off the front garden, then a dual carriageway and now a further realignment of the dual carriageway and construction of a roundabout, bridges across the Faughan which has led really to the bit of land being hung, drawn and quartered. There is also electric pylons that go across it.

45 So virtually in my lifetime that area of land has been nullified as a productive unit. The same thing is happening now with this A5. I mentioned the loss of 300 acres, or 1,200 hectares of productive farmland and also the fragmentation of a great many farm holdings. The fragmented holding become less economic to work. There is a loss of farm income and productive capacity of the land. There is a loss of farm jobs, farm services and the processing of farm products. These are all value added to the economy. Yet the emphasis is on the economic development due to the road. There is no account taken of these loses in the Cost Benefit Analysis. There are also non-quantifiable benefits from the existing land which relate to biodiversity conservation, hydrology and scenic values. Little reference is given to the archeological and cultural values. The demolition of one historic house, could that be rebuilt elsewhere, for example, at the Folk Museum. There is angling and tourism which is part of the economy. The Inquiry touches on the broader policies for the economy, surely this is a major one, i.e., land use values, that land has not been properly valued in the Cost Benefit Analysis. We come back to some of the socioeconomic issues. I attended one meeting of the affected farmers, that because the design of the new road does not allow ready access farmers, families living along the A5 will have to travel considerable distances in many instances just to get to the other side of their holding. The benefits of the road is

46 highlighted but the negative aspects and the losses are glossed over. I have not seen any reference to a Health Impact Assessment which was carried out for the A6, A2 recently. Some pollution aspects are not touched upon. If the Cost Benefit Analysis is taken on board these additional costs relating to the socio-economic, the environment and the land productivity capacity for 60 years, then the Cost Benefit Analysis would be less favourable and may be negative. Also no reference to the fact that two sets of roads will now have to be maintained, the old A5 and the new dual carriageway. What costs have been attributed to this in the Cost Benefit Analysis? If we come to the more practical environmental damage assessment, reference has been made to the charismatic species such as otter, salmon, bats and amphibians, but what about road kills related to hares, foxes, rabbits and bird life who now have three lines of highway to cross instead of one? Some reference was made to the Fisheries, the salmon and trout but no reference to the eels and the coarse fishery. Birds are dependent on these fisheries, kingfishers, moorhens mallards. There is reference to avoiding peak periods of the migratory season for salmon and trout, but salmon and trout enter the river system throughout the year and at this time of year the smolts migrate out to the sea, they will go out to the ocean and come back in a year or 18 months. THE CHAIRMAN: Can you spell is that? MR MURTLAND: S-M-O-L-T-S. There is fish data that is

47 available that you could refer to and that will quantify the issue. Further down the Foyle is a SPA site for the over wintering of bird species. Management of the catchment is important to avoid pollution. There are a number of safeguards built into the scheme, but that is all if something goes wrong. Again I refer to some recent research that the lead additives and exhaust fumes kill insects, and whilst a lot of emphasis has been made about bats and their conservation, bats feed on insects and therefore the spread of more exhaust fumes in the countryside will adversely impact on the bat population, also on swallows and other birds that are insectivores. In summation there is constant environmental erosion, the loss of greenfield sites, intensification of farmland to compensate, of farming practices to compensate for the loss of agriculture. There is agricultural pollutants which again impact, but that is a separate issue, although I am trying to say that with the loss of agricultural land then that which is left has to be worked more intensively, which means more chemicals poured on the land to get to the field. I am sure the farmers would explain that much better than myself. One or two other issues, there is reference to soft clay disposal to avoid transportation costs and this is to be deposited on low lying fields. I would gather the soft clay is impermeable so if it is put on top of the existing fields it will be a water logged pond. There is a need to strip the top soil, deposit the clay and then restore the soft top soil,

48 preferably with similar wetland meadow species. The storage of top soil again, stack it high and it degrades so the low mounds should be one to 1.5 metres high. I come to woodlands and planting that preferably indigenous species similar to those that grow in the hedgerows will be used and not exotics. There is the loss of ancient woodland and that is the unique genetic resource. It is preferable that the one hectare of replanting should be planted from the seed of those trees remaining and not the exotic gene pools introduced from, say, Scotland or wherever sourced at the lowest cost. They should therefore be collecting seed locally now and raising seedlings for planting in three or four years time if the Project goes ahead. Reference of drainage and drain outlets. I looked at one at Drumahoe recently. It is already silted up, it was only put in a year ago. Who is going to maintain the various drainage outlets along the road line? Again, reference to environmental reports being made on an on-going basis. Will these be available to the public and, if so, when? That is essentially all my concerns concerning the road. In the letter sent from the Roads Service 20th January I referred to the disruption of the farming community, the loss of high quality land, plus fragmentation and the environmental damage to the Foyle catchment associated biodiversity. I don't think these have been given adequate attention in the design or the approach to the economics of the road and the case for it. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Murtland, thank you very much.

49 Before you leave I would like the Department to comment if they have any comments to make at this stage. MR O'REILLY: Mr Inspector, the Department's very grateful to Mr Murtland for his comments and observations. A response has been provided to him, as you are aware, but the matters of particular concern that he is highlighting will, no doubt, be taken into account in the design stage in the mitigation stage in the floodplain, etc. So thank you. MR MURTLAND: I think you should also ask for input from the Woodland Trust concerning tree planting and the sourcing of tree planting material, especially with regard to replacing historic woodlands. MR O'REILLY: Yes, I am not sure you are aware, the Department has, for example, spoken with the birds species consultant already with the Royal Society and, no doubt, the organisation that you have just mentioned will be noted and no doubt their advice will be sought. MR MURTLAND: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Anyone else any questions or comments? In that case, Mr Murtland, thank you for coming and presenting your evidence. That is the last scheduled presenter this morning. I propose to adjourn the proceedings now. Mr Loughrey, pointed out to me that Councillor Brush had raised matters in relation to Ballygawley and Aughnacloy. No doubt the Ballygawley representatives would be interested in both, but if Councillor Brush is interested in hearing a response now in relation to the

50 Aughnacloy matters that could be achieved. Councillor Brush would that be helpful? MR BRUSH: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: If you like to come forward again. Mr Loughrey, would you like to go ahead and make your response? MR LOUGHREY: Thank you, Councillor Brush. We have obviously parked the issue of Ballygawley for now and will discuss it this afternoon. There were a number of others areas, one is landscape and the other for the design team. You referred to maintenance of roads and that is something that the last speaker mentioned as well. It is worth emphasising that the money talked about in relation to the A5 Project, it is stand alone and doesn't affect the maintenance budget at all going forward. If the scheme didn't go ahead then the Northern Ireland element of the funding would have to go back to the Executive and they would have to relook at the overall capital programme, not simply within roads. The maintenance budgets, if we look at that for 2011 and 2015, over that four year period it averages at £71m a year. The equivalent figure for the 08/11 was in the area of 66 million. The point that I am making is that the maintenance budget is not affected in any way by the A5 scheme. I will ask Mr Edwards to comment in relation to the design in the vicinity of Aughnacloy. MR EDWARDS: Good afternoon, Councillor. A couple of

51 points you did raise is west of Aughnacloy. I covered that in my evidence and I refer you to page 70 and 71 of my main evidence in relation to the options, the Green options to the west of Aughnacloy. At that particular location it was Green. We did explain how we discounted because of the severe constraints that we had to the west in the close vicinity of Aughnacloy that everyone is familiar with, the Thistle, the soft ground and floodplain. All those issues contributed to the fact that we couldn't. It is an obvious design and everyone looks at that and points it out. When we looked at the assessment it wasn't good for us to put the line there. We looked at going further quest. Then we had greater issues with connectivity to Aughnacloy as we did, so a further west is one you wouldn't want either and certainly Miss Saulter either. We looked at connectivity to the south in terms of County Monaghan and the restraints that they had. It all pointed us to the west of the town was not the place we could be. You did ask about cherry picking elements of the route options and putting them together. In section three there was a combination of Pink, Red and Green although it wasn't Green at Aughnacloy. We were able to have links to pick the best bits as we saw it. There were two other points. The third point that you were commenting on was the third junction for Aughnacloy at the Carnteel Road, and that particular point in the road is a known link up towards Dungannon. We have identified the need to connect Aughnacloy from the

52 existing A5 and the A28 on the south side and to pick the dual carriageway up, and we have the junction on the north now that came in and that is two junctions into quite a small town, close to junctions as well, although it is very close and the alternative route to bring traffic in the Carnteel Road into Aughnacloy and down to junction the A28 would be the desired line to take people down south. We feel is an acceptable route. We have two junction there that we feel is appropriate for the town itself. MR BRUSH: Can I come in there? THE CHAIRMAN: Please feel free to do so. MR BRUSH: On reference to first of all the Green Route, which to me is the more sensible route. I understand that there are other places on this new proposed route that go through floodplains so I would have thought that a floodplain wasn't the barrier in other places that it seemed to be in Aughnacloy. The point that I was making as well is that that would have fitted in well with a junction on the existing A5 road, the Monaghan Road out of Aughnacloy, which would have been more the more sensible and the one that is being used at the moment where the traffic is, does go through Aughnacloy there and if the junction will be on that road rather than the Caledon Road it would have been more benefit to Aughnacloy for passing trade. So it would have removed the need to build a new piece of road which may well be obsolete, as I understand it, a very short time after this road will be built because the junction or where it would

53 connect with the road in the Republic has not yet been decided. So what we are talking about here is building a piece of road which would then be obsolete and have to be bulldozed or left to go to waste between the existing bridge across the River Blackwater and the Caledon that flows out of Aughnacloy. I understand about the Thistle and the Thistle in Aughnacloy is something which nobody has seen unless from a helicopter. A lot of people in Aughnacloy didn't even know it existed. It is impossible to see it from the ground. A lot of it has disappeared over the years. It is not a complete piece, not a complete Thistle any more. I understood that there was a proposal or it had been suggested at the outset that perhaps a piece of land could be acquired where a replica facility could be made like a type of maze type of thing where people could have seen it, walked through it and known what it was about, whereas as it stands at the moment the Thistle is basically a white elephant to a large extent, in that a road going through it wouldn't have caused as much destruction to it as has been caused over the centuries from it was originally placed there. I express again that I think that the junction, if the Green Route had been used at Aughnacloy the junction would have been on the Republic side of Aughnacloy, the road into Aughnacloy would have been the existing road that's there and it would have been much more sensible both from an environmental point of view and from the point of getting the passing traffic to call in to Aughnacloy if they so wished. I think it would be an advantage to Aughnacloy still if that was considered.

54 I understand that the last Minister of the Environment wouldn't have balked at allowing the Thistle to be violated, if that is the right word, but I don't think the Thistle is as important as perhaps the livelihood of the people of the area and the businesses to Aughnacloy. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Councillor Brush. Does the Department wish to come back on any of that? MR EDWARDS: I think the only point that we have, and whilst we can recognise the state of the Thistle as it is now, it is part of the culture of that area of Aughnacloy which is recognised by Planning Service and is such is a designation that we have to respect in our assessment and in the merits of that. We have gone through that aspect with the Planning Service and they responded that they wish to see it protected. You are right, it is a floodplain and it is just one of the factors when you add it all up. You are right it is just one of them. If it was purely just a floodplain I would be hard pressed to defend it, but I would have to fully demonstrate that as it is the floodplain is one aspect of many in that area, but your point is noted. MR REID: Could I just add to that that certainly I hear what you said regarding the Thistle, but certainly during the early discussions when we were looking at constraints and discussing those with the NIEA, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, they stressed particular concern in relation to the Thistle. I know it is acknowledged that it has suffered over the years, but that it is, as they see it, unique in the context and is very important. That was the concern they registered.

55 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Reid. Does anyone else have any questions or comments to be made at this stage? Councillor Brush, do you have anything else you wish to add? MR BRUSH: No, not at this stage. THE CHAIRMAN: Could I thank you again, Councillor Brush and Mr Suitor for agreeing to postpone the response to the case you presented in relation to Ballygawley until this afternoon. That helps the efficiency of the proceedings quite a bit. That being the case, ladies and gentlemen, if there are no further questions I propose to adjourn the proceedings now and reconvene sharply at 2 pm.

(The Luncheon Adjournment)

THE CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to recommence. We are scheduled to have the Ballygawley Traders Association, but before I invite them, Miss Liz Saulter has indicated she would like to make further brief comments. So I would like to invite Miss Saulter back to the witness stand. Miss Saulter, go ahead.

Further comments by Ms Saulter

MS SALTERS: Thank you, it is in response to Councillor Brush's, a couple of comments.

56 As a representative of Aughnacloy Development Association I feel it is important that I hear other opinions. Regarding the Thistle I know that it is of little significance to one group but we do have a very strong historical society, Aughnacloy Historical Society, which is a cross-border body. They are very much in favour of maintaining and keeping the Aughnacloy Thistle as a unique landmark. I just felt that this is an occasion to hear from both sides. Also the fact that the road coming up, the old road up from Monaghan up Mill Street, it is actually a bottleneck at the top of that and it makes more sense to run it up, heavy traffic up through Caledon Road into the Main Street, it would allow traders at the bottom end of the road to maybe arrange for safer parking to facilitate them. That is really all I wanted. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Your comments are noted. The next presenters are presenting evidence on behalf of the Ballygawley Traders Association. I am not sure who the individuals are. I ask you before you start speaking to state your names for the record, please. MR MORRIS: Dillon Morris. MS COOTE: I am Isobel Coote. Could I make an apology for John McDaid who, unfortunately, had to cancel this morning? THE CHAIRMAN: If you would like to go ahead.

Presentation by Mr Morris for Ballygawley Traders

57

MR MORRIS: Ballygawley is a relatively small village of 600 odd. It has a present something of the order of 35 to 40 businesses still actively engaged in the village. As a village we are battling against the bigger towns generally for survival. At present there are 11 vacant premises in the village. The concern we have here is what impact the new road and the access to the village, in particular, will have on the businesses in Ballygawley. To put it into perspective we had the A4 road upgraded last November. That has been of huge benefit of getting access to Belfast and Dungannon and the wider area. The impact for the businesses has been that trade been lost to the village, and the concern here is unless there are sort of alterations made to the access point to Ballygawley we could suffer even more. As an indication of the trade, we have three small supermarkets in the village, one of which I was getting figures from yesterday. The footfall going through that particular shop is down by 542 people last week compared to the equivalent week last year. We are already seeing a downturn in trade which may well be down to the combination of economics of issues more generally, but the A4 road has had an impact. It effectively has taken the road traffic a little bit away from the centre of Ballygawley. Ballygawley had a roundabout for many years but now it has two. Some of the traffic no longer hits the roundabout that is closer to the

58 businesses and the village. This new road is going to exacerbate the situation. We are concerned as to what impact this will have. As a village or trading sort of group we are supportive of the wider road itself and what we are still looking for here is recognition that whilst there are benefits, there are costs to certain individuals and businesses, and if efforts can be made to alleviate those impacts then that is something we would look to do. Direct sort of impact for the loss or changes in road network, my understanding is that the new access points to Ballygawley will be some half a mile outside the village. We have already seen with the new A4 roundabout that has had an impact. That is literally 200 yards out of the village. If we are pushing out the access point of the village by another 500e or 600 yards that will have an impact psychologically whether they come into Ballygawley or whether they perceive that Omagh is not so far and Dungannon is not so far. Trade then will be lost. That will mean if you take the logical step forward that we are a small village with an active commercial centre, but if we lose 10 or 15% of trade then that will have an impact, if you knock that on to the equivalent loss of jobs, that will be a loss of 15 to 20 jobs let alone those businesses that can't survive a downturn in trade. It is a common issue for many, many villages, but this is one we are very much directly affected by the impact. So the general sense that we have is that we have a new roundabout that has been in place for literally six or seven months which

59 is costing us trade relative to the old road network, but certainly by maintaining that junction, that roundabout, albeit some other connection at a point closer to the village will mean some businesses in the village will survive, but placing it where it is proposed will have a significant negative impact for us. Again to put it in context, we will see as the road is sort of moving away to the outskirts of the village that we are losing direct trade in various different ways. We have, as many other villages in the area have, we have a number of peoples parking in Ballygawley or the outskirts of Ballygawley as they share cars, and commuters are coming down the A4 road and meeting the A5 road, and a number of those are currently parking in the village and you will pick up trade from those people at the end of the day as they need whatever provisions. Shops in the village are open until 10.00 o'clock at night and that business will be lost to us. As the commuters are parking three quarters of a mile way they won't think of going into Ballygawley in the way previously. Similarly we are losing trade from the bus routes changing and the pre-destination and the post-destination sort of traffic is being lost to us as well. We appreciate that there is very little that can be done to help us as traders, but if we can actually sort of ensure that the main junction is in the immediate vicinity of the village there is a better chance we will pick up on the passing trade. Ballygawley, some of you may have seen, there was a UTV programme going back five or six months ago that focused on

60 Ballygawley. Ballygawley has been bypassed some 50 years or so already, and as I understand it there was protests at the time of bypassing Ballygawley at that point in time. That still leaves us with two direct access points off the A5 road. Here we would be completely bypassed, people won't think of us, and what we sort of need to help mitigate that is some form of recognition in signage to draw people in. We appreciate that there are minimum sort of volume numbers that typically the Brown tourist signs require before villages are acknowledged for the services that they have, be they restaurants or B&B. For a small village like this having any passing trade coming is vital. To not have that trade means the businesses aren't able to survive. It is too small to survive simply on the location to the villages. The final point is if you were in the village of Ballygawley and looking for lunch there is a restaurant called Askins, and Askins for many, many years had a series of photographs on the wall which were of Bill and Chelsea Clinton back in 2001 when they happened to pop into Ballygawley and they brought an entourage of many dozens with them where security checked the village before they got there. The question is would Bill find Ballygawley if he were going through the village again? THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Morris, does that conclude your statement of evidence? MR MORRIS: It is a joint statement on behalf of the Traders. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything yourself, Miss Coote?

61 MS COOTE: Mr Morris, we have made this out together and he has spoken for both of us on this occasion. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. As you may or may not be aware we had some similar issues raised this morning and we agreed at that time that the Departmental response would be given on the basis of the evidence presented this morning and the evidence that you are presenting this afternoon, and the evidence yet to be presented by those who are going to follow you. So with your permission rather than asking the Department to respond now to the evidence that you have presented I am going to suggest that we await and invite the next presenter or objector to come forward with their evidence, providing they are here with us, and they are, I see. So if you are happy enough with that that is how we will deal with it. In other words, the Departmental response will cover all the issues raised by those this morning and by yourselves and by the next group of objectors who present their evidence. MS COOTE: That is fair enough. THE CHAIRMAN: In that case could I invite Mr Jim Tallon and Councillor McGonnell to come forward. If you state your names clearly for the record and, indeed, those whom you are representing. MR TALLON: I am Jim Tallon, the chair of Ballygawley Development Association. MR MC GONNELL: I am Anthony McGonnell, and I represent the people of the Clogher Valley District.

62 THE CHAIRMAN: If you would like to go ahead.

Presentation by Mr Tallon

MR TALLON: I am going to read from a statement here. My memory is not the best and my eyesight is not too good either. THE CHAIRMAN: If you would provide us with a copy of your statement of evidence in due cores. MR TALLON: Okay. While I have no objection to the new proposed A5 my main concern is the potential isolation of Ballygawley as we will have no direct access to the new A4 as a proposed join up with the new A5 will mean the closure of the new roundabout at Ballygawley. The proposed access to the dual carriageways A4/A5 will be via another new roundabout which will be called the Augher Eniskillen roundabout, as it will be of more benefit to people from that area as it will be to people from Ballygawley. A quick estimate of the distances to be travelled to gain access to the A4 and arrive back at the new roundabout is approximately 1.8 miles, that is going down the Tullybryan roundabout and back up to the existing roundabout. We will say it is approximately two miles for calculation. At present I am aware of approximately 60 car journeys on a daily basis from Ballygawley area only to Granville, Dungannon, Craigavon, Cookstown, Belfast, etc. A multiplying factor of 60 by four,

63 that is a journey to and back home again from work, there is an extra 240 miles per day equating to 1,500 miles a week, and if we take that on a yearly basis that is 57,600 per year extra to be travelled by these 60 people in cars only. There are a lot more who travel from Ballygawley, Eskra, Beragh, etc, and along with personal traffic, mainly shoppers, visiting relatives and also service vehicles servicing the local traders who will have to travel this extra mileage to gain access to the village. The new access to the A4/A5 from Ballygawley and beyond will be via Tullybrian Road which requires upgrading costing whatever amount it is to be, we seem to talk in millions, sometimes billions nowadays. This road is already heavily used between 8.30 and 9.15, with teachers and auxiliary staff, etc, 35 buses come in that way and a considerable number of students are now using own their cars to get access to St Ciaran's College. This happens again at 4.00 as they make their way home. Realistically the main access to the A4 for the Ballygawley area and beyond will be via Cabra slip on road at the moment, as there is little point in going back to go forward. The A5 is of no benefit to this area as access to Omagh will be via the existing A5. Perhaps at points Strabane and Derry we could join the new A5 at a roundabout around Seskinore Road junction near Omagh. Because of using the old roads, the A4 to gain access to Cabra and the A5 to gain access at Omagh, there will be considerable usage on this road still. Our main concern would be the maintenance of the old

64 A4/A5 roadways as we know that the record of Roads Service in maintaining country roads leaves a lot to be desired. To encourage commercial development of the Ballygawley area we need direct access to the dual carriageways and my colleague, Anthony McGonnell, will talk about this shortly. However, there is considerable land pass for housing development and one of the chief selling points was direct access to the A4. Our hope is to go to Ballygawley village and encourage the development of the town with the provision of increased services for the growing population. This will now be negated. As your system looks at a 60 year plan for road usage by then Ballygawley will have died for the lack of further development. I have spoken to CIE and Ulsterbus about their thoughts on bus services when the road is complete, but they were non-committal as they will only be considered some time prior to the owning of the new A5. Currently we have an excellent bus service provided by both and with the new road structure CIE will probably bypass us and we will have to wait and see if Ulsterbus Express services will detour to call in at Ballygawley. Express buses by their name go from major towns to major towns. However, they call to Ballygawley because it is on their route. A two mile detour to get on and off the A4/A5 would not be on their schedule, I feel. Surely the cheapest option without building bridges is to keep the new roundabout open. It will slow down traffic before going on to Augher, Eniskillen and joining the new A5 via the new roundabout. With

65 traffic, the new A5 Aughnacloy Road will be practically redundant except for local traffic, and hence few delays at the roundabout will be incurred. If the roundabout does have to be closed because the decision was already made surely with the current infrastructure you could have access to and off the A4 dual carriageway? If going to Eniskillen we can use the Tullybrian Road as nobody in the area will use it to go to Omagh etc, on the new A5. This would save money and leave access to the carriageway for local people. It seems the people of south and south-east Tyrone are being bypassed literally as few roads from Belfast to Dublin traffic to get through Tyrone as quickly as possible. It would appear to me that roadway experts from Mouchel and Roads Services obviously have no people who live in the area otherwise they would have thought more about meaningful access to the roadway system for the local people whose area the roadways are being driven through. With that I will end. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Councillor McGonnell, do you wish to speak?

Presentation by Mr McGonnell

66

MR MCGONNELL: First of all just to support the comments that Jim has made. I am not an objector to the principle of the A5. In fact, I am in support of it. I object to the removal of the new second roundabout at Ballygawley. The reason for it is, I believe, that this area provides us with a unique opportunity for economic development. If new infrastructure is not going to create new opportunities for economic development in a part of the world that has hitherto lacked this sort of infrastructure then, you know, it is not serving the purpose that it should be serving. I would see this whole new infrastructure A4 and A5 as a means of promoting major economic development in the area of their intersections. It seems to me, and it seems to other people that I have talked to who know a lot more about business development and all that sort of thing, that there is a major opportunity in this area to create a business park, enterprise zone, or whatever you call it. We now know how current this type of thing is at the present of time when there is all this talk about rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy, and less reliance on the public sector and create a private sector. Given the access of that area, it's closest cross-border and all those sorts of things, there is a major opportunity to zone land for economic development. Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council, of which I am a member, are in the process of employing a planning expert to draw up a scheme for business development in that area. Obviously it is something that is going to take a certain amount of time and then the

67 scheme would obviously have to be approved by the Planning Service because this is not included in the area plan. But I have been talking to the Minister to Minister Foster about this. Minister Foster has been appointed and Minister Foster is very much in support of this Project. If a Project like this was to be progressed and to go ahead it is important that there would be a service road. I have seen the current A5, the Tullyvar Road as serving this purpose but it would be imperative to retain the existing access, i.e., the existing roundabout which, as Jim pointed out, is essential to the well being of Ballygawley. It is essential for access to the large secondary school, but it is also essential to provide ready access as a service road for a business park enterprise zone. Now, I would point out that when the new A4 was being constructed, and I would compliment the people and the vision and so on, and the design of that road. I live along the old A4 and it has made life much more pleasant since the new one was opened, but I would point out that a new access was provided on the old A4 to service the extension to the Granville Industrial Estate, which is as yet unoccupied. There was a new bridge and so on put there to service that. I believe that we must have similar provision made here for Ballygawley because for the Ballygawley A4/A5, within that or close to the intersection of those two roads because that is essential, I believe, to the economic development. Economic development, again, I make this point, this new infrastructure should be about creating these sort of opportunities and here we have a wonderful opportunity to do this, but the

68 infrastructure has to be amenable to it. Thank you very much. THE CHAIRMAN: Does that conclude your statement, Mr McGonnell? MR MCGONNELL: Yes, thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything else to add? MR MCGONNELL: No. THE CHAIRMAN: Some of the concerns you have articulated this afternoon reflect quite closely concerns presented earlier by other presenters. Now I propose to have a question and answer session on the issues that you have raised with the Department, and to assist that I would suggest Mr Dillon Morris, Miss Coote, Councillor Brush and Mr Suitor, if you wish, to come forward and join the Panel at the front here. Apologies ladies and gentlemen, I am a little premature here. Councillor Mulligan I believe also wishes to make representation in relation to Ballygawley; is that correct? MR MULLIGAN: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Then it would be appropriate for you to come and present your evidence, if you don't mind. Perhaps you can do it in a central location and then we will have a full question and answer session related to all the issues that have been raised. My apologies for almost ignoring the sequence. If you speak slowly and clearly for the benefit of the Stenographer.

69 Presentation by Mr Mulligan

MR MULLIGAN: Councillor Robert Mulligan representing the Clogher Valley and Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council. Some of the issues that I will be referring to will overlap with what have already been presented and I am sure you will appreciate that. Mr Chambers and Mr Gillespie, as a public representative I wish to raise certain issues which I believe are relevant to the purpose of this Inquiry and to the proposed construction of the new A5 Western Transport Corridor, a corridor which I believe is unnecessary, unjustified and like the last, an environmental catastrophe and a potential threat to the residents along the proposed route whose way of life will be shattered forever and destruction of many indigenous businesses that have been built up over many generations. The failure of the Department to carry out an Impact Assessment on the Proposed Scheme is surely verging on gross misconduct? Abuse of authority, negligence or a combination of all three? My experience in Council has taught me that relatively minor works of a few thousand pounds are of necessity subject to such scrutiny. Here we have had the Department who allegedly set the standard, set this proposal aside, which is an absolute scandal, considering the scale of 86 kilometers and the cost of £800m and the impact it will have on the community, I suggest a very imbalanced impact at that. I have a letter here from Geoff Allister, the Chief Executive

70 of the Department .I should explain that a Full Equality Impact Assessment was undertaken for both the Regional Transport Strategy and the Regional Strategic National Network Transport Plan and consequently the resulting programmes identified with these documents, subsequent editions to the programme as a result of increased investment funding such as the A5 scheme have been subject to Section 75 Equality of Opportunity Screening Analysis to assess whether a full EQA would be required. In view of the significant amount of consultation undertaken for the RSTN Quality Impact Assessment which confirmed that there were no significant impacts on any section of the Section 75 route, full QIAs were deemed unnecessary in the case of subsequent proposals which included at the A5 scheme. I would contend that given that this is a brand new road, in some situations about a kilometre distant from the existing A5, and we are going through virgin land and impacting on a completely different range of people who are affected by any scheme that was surrounding the existing A5, that a proper Equality Impact Assessment should have been carried out, and they still hold that view in spite of Mr Allister's assurance. I said unnecessary and unjustified. This I took from correspondence that I have had sight of from the Chief Executive of the Roads Service, Mr Allister, and this document had indicated traffic flows of 10,580 AADT at Aughnacloy on the Monaghan Road, and 12,737

71 vehicles at New Buildings. These figures, I believe, fall far short of those required to justify the scheme. I gather that some higher figures have been gathered closer to Omagh and Strabane. These, however, can be accounted for by local traffic, school runs and much of that type of business and, indeed, the local farming community going in to transact business within the towns. Indeed, the view of the Department in 2006 was that anticipated traffic volumes increased for the foreseeable future could not justify a dual carriageway. The public consultation document published in July 06 provides for significant improvements to the existing A5, including major improvement between Londonderry and Victoria Bridge. These included bypasses at New Buildings, Magheramason and Sion Mills and, indeed, work has already been carried out south of Omagh at Tattykeel and Brackagh. I would ask what has changed? Has there been a business case prepared for the new proposals, or was there political interference? Another point I raised earlier on in my presentation was the blight on the landscape. The visual affect of the landscape will be immeasurable. To cite just one example, at Broomhill close to the 73 kilometres marker on the maps, the proposed road will cut through a vale of unspoiled land bounded to the west by two Iron Age works and to the North by an ancient graveyard at Errigal with a Celtic Cross. This Celtic Cross is an ancient landmark and is marked up by the tourist people. That, I believe, is an improper destruction of that landscape whereby this has survived for many generations, and if I or you were to propose

72 building a house in that sort of locality similar to where this load is to be planted we would get short shrift from the planning authorities. This is an area of outstanding natural beauty which deserves protection from the Department. This will obliterate and destroy this rural idyll, and just to imagine what impact the proposed works will have on the present occupiers of the land who will see their land and businesses decimated, and I am sure there are many similar instances over the entire route. Similar intrusion on such a vast scale will do irreparable damage to the flora and fauna over the entire length of this new road. This is much more than a strip of tarmac for Aughnacloy and New Buildings. It is a massive excavation exercise deliberately targeting and cuttings and generating spoil for fill to create a road. There will be a health aspect to all of this. You will be aware of the increasing number of suicides within the rural community. I contend that this proposed road will contribute to that in so far as it will put unbearable strain on many individuals under the Human Rights, Section 24 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the right for private and family life and rights to property. Their rights for ease of access will be diminished and in some cases destroyed by the stopping up of certain roads. This will impose longer journey times on them and increase their carbon footprint on the premise of saving 20 minutes journey time. That 20 minutes will be more than offset by all of those people who are inconvenienced and of necessity

73 much longer journeys will be imposed on them. From the point of view of industry and commerce they are going to list development would enhance investment in the North West where investment is not proven. As history tells us, only indigenous industries have a track record of survival. The once great textile industries of the 19th and 20th centuries shrivelled and died not because of lack of road infrastructure, but because of being unable to compete due largely to increased labour costs in Northern Ireland. This applied right across the Province and, indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom. A similar fate awaited the man-made fibre industry. After its short period of growth in the latter part of the 20th century it also disappeared off the map, Courtaulds, ICI, where are they now? Desmonds as a textile processor hung on in the West much to their credit. However, they too finally succumbed to the soaring cost of labour and pulled out. Tourism; the idea that this proposed road will enhance tourism, I believe, is misplaced, that the plan provides a conduit for high street traffic through Northern Ireland, more specifically County Tyrone from Dublin to Donegal with minimal opportunity for tourists to stop off and spend their money in local places of interest. The. The Ulster American Folk Park, that jewel in the crown of tourism in mid-Tyrone, specifically designed and built on the A5 will be cut-off from its lifeblood of passing traffic. We can all recall the fate of the History Park a few short miles from here, and quite close tho the Folk

74 Park, but not on the A5. I suggest it failed because a little more effort was required to access it. The existing A5 and the access to the rural hinterland and its towns and villages will be much better placed to enable tourism to grow. Traffic can meander through the area and easily pick up points of interest. The proposed closure of the Tullyvar Road which has been referred to by others, at the junction of the A4 and A5 recently opened as a wholly unnecessary exercise. This single act of bad planning affected upon will seriously disadvantage the entire village community of Ballygawley and its hinterland. Being accessible from either of the A4 or A5 dual carriageway without travelling a kilometre for the west than necessary at present. This also necessitates the construction of a new road from Drumcor through Tullybryan to get to Ballygawley. This discriminates against the entire community. Further, the closure of the Tullwinney and Ballynanney roads incur serious hardship on residents south of the current A4 line west of Ballygawley, while a distance of something approaching a two mile round trip to access the town. Perhaps this comes under the euphemism blithely used by the Department, as disbenefits. We also have the same situation whereby the Tullyvar Road to Aughnacloy was recently realigned with a three lane carriageway. I have been informed, however, that the crest on Tullyvar Hill is some two metres too high to meet the required radius for dualling. How crazy is that?

75 It has been known for some long time that the strategic route of the A5 was to be improved. Surely it would be reasonable to expect that such work will incorporate a strategic thinking? Not much sign of forward planning here. In conclusion the stated reason for not upgrading the existing A5 is indicated as there being more than 700 junctions and accesses leading to and from it. Further, its vertical and horizontal alignment is not of a suitable standard for a high speed, dual carriageway. With the greatest of respect, I would suggest that the chosen route would present many more challenges than anything the upgrading of the present road would were it to be improved. The exorbitant cost financially and environmentally and the unnecessary impact on human rights would be greatly reduced. I contend that if half the thought and planning had gone into upgrading the existing road a way could be found to produce a satisfactory outcome, one which would make the strategic transport need for the foreseeable future, and at the same time provide a comparable level of local employment which would stimulate the economy, bringing the benefits already cited with minimum disruption and reducing the physical and mental impact the current proposals have. That is my presentation. MS SALTERS: Thank you very much Councillor Mulligan. I recognise that you have raised issues specifically associated with bypassing Ballygawley but you have raised broader issues about the

76 advantages or disadvantages of the proposed scheme. I am also aware of the fact that those who are going to present evidence after you will wish to make specific reference to Ballygawley and some wider evidence as well. I think it is appropriate, nevertheless, at this stage to take a question and answer section, encompassing all the evidence presented today through Councillor Brush, Mr Suitor, Ballygawley Residents Association and Ballygawley Traders Association, along with your own evidence. So I am now going invite the Department to make a response to all the issues raised so far and you will have an opportunity to respond to that. If you would rather stay where your are or you could join the Panel. MR MULLIGAN: I will join the Panel, if you don't mind. THE CHAIRMAN: Notwithstanding the fact that we have more similar evidence later on I invite the Department now to respond to the issues that have been raised. MR O'REILLY: Mr Inspector, as you correctly pointed out certainly the first three quarters of the Councillor's presentation dealt with issues that in my respectful submission have been more than adequately covered on a number of occasions in the past. The latter quarter of his presentation dealt with concerns raised by the other members of the panel, and I am more than happy that those matters are dealt with by Mr Loughrey, Mr Edwards and possibly Mr Reid. I therefore call on Mr Loughrey from Roads Service to give

77 his perspective on the suggestion that if no new roundabout is created in the Ballygawley area what those more recent construction remain? MR LOUGHREY: Thank you very much. As you point out these representations that have been made probably don't reflect fully the level of representation that there has been, because there has been quite a bit of written correspondence and signatories to petitions certainly carrying the same theme. So it is probably worth looking at firstly what the Proposed Scheme entails. If you can see on your screens there, the new Ballygawley Roundabout, the more recently constructed one, the Proposed Scheme is that being removed and then the A4 carries straight through as a dual carriageway down to the new A5 roundabout. So the existing A5 then would be taken up and over the new dual carriageway and then to the junction just north of that. So that is the scheme as it is at the minute. What that would which are us to do is require us to upgrade the Tullybrian Road because essentially that would be the link between the new roundabout and Ballygawley. It would also require a number of properties on the southern side and the western side of that link, there is a number of properties there that need access, clearly they couldn't access on to the new dual carriageway so they would be taken across the road over to the Tullybrian Road. So that is what the Proposed Scheme is. What has been suggested, there was a couple of suggestions and I think the vast majority seem to be in favour of keeping the recently constructed roundabout. There was also a suggestion that perhaps that

78 junction could be a further grade separated junction at that location, whether that new roundabout was constructed, but to provide the slip roads would certainly involve quite a significant impact. It would involve third party land and I don't know what Ballygawley would want anyway, because the people would still, I suspect, carry on through and down to the other roundabout at the A5. So what we then really need to compare then is the two options in front of us. This will be the process with any of the kind that we are considering. Regardless of the people's views or people's individuals views what it all boils down to is the assessment against the standard criteria. That is the criteria that the whole scheme has been effectively assessed on. Those are: Safety, economics, accessibility, environment and integration. Maybe if we look at the two options under those five headings. In terms of safety certainly an extra roundabout on the A4 coming from the east travelling towards the new roundabout, certainly that would be less safe than the same road without that roundabout. The second issue in term of the economics, again that roundabout would cause a time delay for traffic coming from the east down to the new A5 roundabout and would have to negotiate an extra roundabout, that is a time delay when that is factored into the normal process and clearly there is a disbenefit there. Equalling I recognise in doing that there will be a saving in the construction cost, so that would have to be stated there as well.

79 As people pointed out as well obviously what that has done there would have implications for the Tullybrian Road because if that roundabout was left then there would be no need to upgrade the Tullybryan Road to the same scale. So effectively those costs would drop out. The other factor that may possibly come in, we are aware that there is a couple of roads that abut that stretch of road, and certainly access for minor roads onto the A5 is not something that we would want at all. Now, if the existing roundabouts stay then the case may well be made for left in left out for a couple of roads on the southern side there, the Tullywinney Road being one. There is a severance issue for that area; how do you get to it from Ballygawley? And equally then further to the west which is the Ballynanny Road. Certainly the diversion there is quite tortuous for those three or four properties that would use that but, equally, the reason I say nearest is because a dual carriageway wouldn't normally want left in left out of the roads carrying those traffic volumes. So in terms of accessibility, from what we have heard it would clearly be better in terms of accessibility. In terms of the environment obviously leaving the roundabout in and removing this structure beside that roundabout as well as the earlier structure down at the Ballynanny Road, if that turned out to be the case, and I have to say that this is obviously a very preliminary look at this proposal. At the detailed design stage everything would have to be looked at in more detail. We still haven't been through a safety audit process for this. We

80 haven't looked at actual standards in terms of what would be involved here. So these are our initial thoughts that these are issues likely to arise with the alternate option. In terms of the environment there is two structures there that from a visual inclusion point of view we would expect we could do that with or without. Lastly in terms of integration I would say the two options are neutral. Where does that leave us? Clearly there are pros and cons for these options. What it really boils down to is the loss of journey time and the disbenefit of keeping the roundabout when comparing that to the saving and the accessibility to Ballygawley and the surrounding area. Our view is that the proposed scheme that we have taken forward is the best solution, but I would accept it is a very close call. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Loughrey. Do you have any other comments to make at this stage? MR EDWARDS: If I could just make one comment, Inspector. Mr Loughrey mentioned about the level of detail at the moment and the need to go through a safety audit process. My colleague, Mr Maguire, has actually passed this to the safety audit for an initial comment particularly about the left in and left out for minor roads, and it would be over the Ballynanny Road and there are concerns about that, but obviously the design or may or may not be able to alleviate that concern, but it is an aspect there. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr Edwards. Do

81 members of the panel now wish to ask further questions or seek further clarification? MR TALLON: When we talk about accessibility we have a Ballygawley Roundabout, we now see a second roundabout to take us on to the Tullybryan Road and a third roundabout to take us on to the A5/A4. This is accessibility with three roundabouts to negotiate? MR LOUGHREY: To me leaving the roundabout in, the existing roundabout in that, in terms of the Ballygawley region that is the best solution in terms of accessibility and certainly makes Ballygawley easier got to than not without the roundabout. MR TALLON: I presume, the old roundabout is not shown there, the A4/A5 is not shown? We leave it and then travel to the first roundabout here, which is here. This is our second roundabout that we negotiated. We then travel to the Tullybrian Road to get access to the A4 and A5. This is accessibility? MR LOUGHREY: We are saying the same thing, but the alternative in keeping the other roundabout means you wouldn't have to take the trip that you are after. So I maintain that there is the alternative being discussed which is keeping the existing roundabout is better for the accessibility of Ballygawley. MR TALLON: I thought this road is being driven through to take the traffic from Belfast to Donegal or Derry, or wherever, it is certainly not for the convenience of local people. We would have to get access, they are both south and south-east of Tyrone. We have this and it

82 is a huge inconvenience to us. MR LOUGHREY: I understand the point that you are making. Certainly there is a number of junctions at different locations along the route that focus on Ballygawley. Ballygawley is bypassed by the A4 and A5 at the minute but still there is less accessibility than with the proposed scheme. Accessibility is one of the factors to be considered in deciding on options taken forward. THE CHAIRMAN: Councillor Brush? MR BRUSH: Could I just say listening to the answers to the previous speaker there, it would appear to me that the bridge is being ruled out really and that the only option is to retain the new roundabout for accessibility rather than ruling out, and if you put on a bridge there you rule out access to the A4 at that point. Earlier on I argued that if there was a bridge going on there there was adequate room to provide access, but it appears to me that it is either the roundabout there, that is the only access that is going to be allowed where we get to the A4, am I right in saying that? MR EDWARDS: Councillor Brush, if I can come in on that? The proposals as published, which is the scheme at the moment, does have an overbridge but has no access. A lot of people are comparing it with the junction on the A4, and you could say that with that overbridge we could put some slip roads here. Now you would need more land than we have in the current Vesting Order. We have to respect because of the nature of the scheme and the location to the A4/A5 roundabout to the

83 west, we have to be careful how we fit that in. They also have to go through a similar process. So we have looked at that. Now, if we were to put, as Mr Loughrey said, if an option that has access for Ballygawley at this stage, which is the request of you and the panel is, what is the most efficient way of putting that access in, and in that instance the most efficient way is to leave the roundabout and the network that's there now, which is perhaps the link that you have down from the school, that we leave that as the status quo and we drop the bridge. Now if we were going to go for the strategic approach on the A4, which is the same approach that we have taken on the rest of the A4, that we have the dual carriageway going through the junction and then slip roads to the overbridge as necessary, then we would possibly promote the solution as you are saying, which is to add slip roads to our proposal. But we are recognising the current situation and there are demands and the balance will be we do nothing, we save a certain amount of money of the construction costs, but the scheme loses out in its long-term efficiency in terms of losing journey time benefits as more vehicles have to go through that roundabout as well as the new roundabout at the A5. It is a small balance between the two. We have taken one particular line and complied with the strategy that we were developing the road in. We don't have anywhere else in our junction strategy and that grade roundabout, which is what it will be, B roads in the future, it won't be the A5 as it is now. Now, that is something that has to be taken care of and it is not a relaxation of our

84 policy at all. It reflects a possible option and solution in this location and depending on representations that you have made currently. MR BRUSH: Thank you. I don't want to be misunderstood here. What I am asking for is access under onto the A4 where the existing new roundabout is. Either or will do me, provided there is access there. It is just to point out that I had once been told that if a bridge was put there, I think you said it again that it will require more land to be acquired. The reason for that was something to do with levels. I from knowing the area and from seeing it every day cannot understand if you are talking about levels how you are putting a bridge over the higher part of the A4 rather than lower down where the existing roundabout is. To me you have to put the bridge higher because it is higher ground and I can't get my head round why you couldn't have the bridge where the existing roundabout is and the slip roads on either side of it for that matter. MR EDWARDS: That is an element of designed standards that we have to work to. We would like to, as you say, utilise the existing road we have and go over that because we more or less do. But if we were to put slip roads in it would be the extra bit of land we need and we have not fully quantified it. We know the length of road we need. We know that typically we would need land in this quadrant here, in this little area, because if we put a typical slip road in it has to slow down and then come off and then tie in, and likewise go off. On the northern side we may have the opportunity to utilise some of this land, but I am trying to

85 find out how much we vested, I can't remember the lengths. But you would also need some land in here to get on and off as well. So it is not a lot of land extra but it would be more than is currently in our Vesting Order and the boundary of our Vesting Order. As you know from the A4 scheme where we had to do additional vesting it is not without the realms that that was the decision or the recommendation of the Inspectors and it was taken forward, that a supplementary Vesting Order couldn't be carried out to fill that gap. I think at the moment of the current options that it would probably be to leave the roundabout as it is. Does that help? MR BRUSH: I don't want to hogg this any longer but I still can't get my head round why that bridge couldn't be where the new roundabout is, the new alignment of the existing A5 and now you are going back to the old alignment of the A5, and to me I just can't get my head round that one, but having said that I don't want to hogg this any longer. I think the simplest most cost effective solution is to leave the roundabout, the new roundabout as it is rather than go to all that expense of building a bridge, leaving no access there and building another roundabout and another part of the Tullybryan Road and to vest more land I think is totally ridiculous. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Councillor. Does anyone else on the panel have a question to pose bearing in mind that we are starting to overrun our time scheduling, but I want to give you a few minutes as it is such an important issue? Does anyone wish to ask a question? MR MORRIS: Have we got a cost analysis of the cost of

86 putting in the proposed route with a single roundabout as opposed to retaining the existing roundabout and not having to upgrade the Tullybrian Road? MR LOUGHREY: The cost saving of this roundabout don't do the works on the Tullybrian Road. There is also a question mark over the road network to the west there, whether that would be or wouldn't be needed, the cost saving would be of the order of three to £3.5m. MR MORRIS: So comparing the £3.5m cost and just looking through the comments that you have made earlier on, safety, I am struggling to see on a motorway network or dual carriageway network how there is a material decline in safety by introducing two roundabouts into the equation rather than motorway, dual carriageway, the existing road networks are much safer than single carriageway roads to begin with. The economics, we are seeing it is cheaper to actually leave the existing road in place. The environment was deemed to be neutral. Integration is neutral and accessibility seems to be better with the existing road. So I am struggling to see the strategics of approach towards building the road, why we should be looking at one roundabout and not two. MR LOUGHREY: There is no doubt that having a roundabout there would be more accidents if you put in a roundabout when compared to a situation when there is not any there at all. When we look at the disbenefits associated with accidents savings, and the standard assessment, if you look at those savings over a 60 year period the order of the disbenefits or reduction in benefit is something of the order of £6m.

87 These are crude figures. We took a quick look at it, but if they are looking at £6m and three, to £3.5m, as I say, these are an estimate of the figures, they are of the same sort of order for the cost benefit for the scheme. MR MORRIS: But 3.5m as a known figure today rather than an estimated £6m over a 60 year period where we have to make a huge amount of assumptions. MR LOUGHREY: Yes, that is the standard assessment process. MR MORRIS: My point is we have the certainty of £3.5m, whereas we have got a large degree as to whether the assumptions made for that 60 year period are correct, as there would be in any instance. MR LOUGHREY: As I say it is a fine call between the two options. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Mr Gillespie would like to pose a question. MR GILLESPIE: Yes. Having heard the representation today is the Department prepared to have another look at this whole Ballygawley issue? MR LOUGHREY: Well, the look that we have had, and there is pros and cons in this, certainly with that loss of benefit our view remains that the Proposed Scheme as proposed is the Preferred Option, but we accept that it is a very close call. MR GILLESPIE: I was wondering having heard the very strong representations today that whilst you have your Preferred Option,

88 whether there is another option we could look at? MR LOUGHREY: Yes, that is fair enough, that is something we can perhaps have a look at and firm up on the issues and costs. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Loughrey. Bearing in mind the timescale if you have any pressing question to conclude with? MR MULLIGAN: Just to come in on support of the last point. In regard to the removal of the current access at the Tullyvar roundabout, which if that is removed will disadvantage, very severely disadvantage, I would contend, something in excess of 1,000 residents in and around Ballygawley village and community. I believe that is something that cannot be set aside lightly. MR MCGONNELL: If I can just make a final point. I came here today to highlight the economic and project the economic benefits of industrial, commercial development there, and it is my belief, and it is the belief I think of us all that the retention of the new roundabout with access to the Tullyvar Road and so on, that that is absolutely crucial to any scheme going ahead there. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, everyone. MS COOTE: Could I just say already the Tullybrian Road going down to St Ciaran's School there is a lot of congestion in that area. Recently we had an incident where there was a lot of cars parked down there and both roundabouts were completely blocked. I just would think even with the Tullybrian Road being upgraded there would still be a lot of congestion in and around that area.

89 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Miss Coote for that point. I think at this point we will recess for perhaps 10 minutes. I know the next presenter is Mr Brush and he was due to present at 3 o'clock. If you have no objection, Mr Brush, we will adjourn for 10 minutes and reconvene at 3.25. (Short adjournment) THE CHAIRMAN: We will recommence, ladies and gentlemen, and I invite Mr David Brush to come forward. Mr Brush first of all apologies for running late. I thank you for that. Apologies we are running behind time. MR DAVID BRUSH: I just need a little bit of time. THE CHAIRMAN: That is fine. Just when you commence state your name in full and could I ask you to speak slowly and clearly for the benefit of the Stenographer. When you are ready, Mr Brush, that will be fine.

Presentation by Mr David Brush

MR DAVID BRUSH: My named is David Brush I am here objecting to this overkill of a road which to my mind is nothing short of the highland clearance in the 1800s in Scotland. First and foremost I feel Mouchel and the Roads Service did not inform people about things properly. There seems to have been, in my view, discrimination against the A5 proposals. In the A4 at each

90 exhibition time they had four days for around 19 kilometers. In the A5 they just had four days for 86 kilometers. If they had been playing fair there would be 16 days. This to me was because on the A4 some people could go and see the proposals, they could inform their neighbours and give them a chance to go the next day to see what was going on and how they were affected. It seems to have been a rushed job from day one. The other point is that, in fact, Mrs Kemps talked about it, I don't think people should have to wait until after the announcement to know whether their properties are affected. Nothing appeared to let them know where the route was going until they announced the Preferred Route. Surely homeowners should have been informed long before that announcement was made? Also I take issue with their traffic forecasts. There seems to be some discrepancy, or maybe what is the proper term for it? But Peter Edwards at the A4 Inquiry at Moygashel stated that the traffic on the A5 section to Tullyvar was 4,800 vehicles rising to 5,800 in 10. Your figures quoted now vastly exceed that. In fact, Inspector, with the downturn they have not reached 5,800 because take 1,000 off them. Mr Edwards told me in a long, hot debate at St Ciaran's School when the Preferred Route was announced, I specifically asked him what was the required number for a dual carriageway. After some hmming and haaing he stated 13,500 vehicles. When was this figure revised? Was it reviewed after they counted the traffic on the A5? I have suspicions.

91 They talk about the section rebuilt to the Tullyvar and keeping consistency of road. Consistency of road will not be retained on the N2 and at 6.50 in your traffic manual it does not state what standard of road the upgrade N2 will be. If you follow the N2 to Dublin you will find many mixtures in it, starting with a fairly good road at Moy Bridge, a dirt track past Emyvale. A three lane road at Castleblayney which drops back into a two lane road further down. When are we to know the economic appraisal? It seems to be only in their documents as draft proposals or draft form. Draft form is not an economic appraisal. I think any further economic appraisal should have been available for this hearing. They also stated earlier that business lost from income from farms, your other businesses, catering houses and that wouldn't appear to be part of it. If it is not part of the economic appraisal where is the point in having one? We had a new road constructed along the Tullyvar Road or the A5 as part of the A4 proposals costing X-number of millions, where was the foresight in that? Councillor Mulligan stated because Tullyvar Hill was two metres high it could not be considered. Mr Inspector, they designed the road and they built two metres on the top of the Hill because we were told that the level of the road at an earlier stage there, they suddenly discovered they built two metres if not three on the crest of the Hill. Also they talk about the vesting for a scheme. Land was vested for that A5 road. They state there that they can't go outside the vesting. What power or what legal authority, or who gives them

92 permission or moral right to vest land of the same farmers for this proposal? It beggars belief. David Hardcastle at report 3.33 of his report mentions accidents. He talks about two accidents on the section between the A4 and Aughnacloy. It is fairly obvious that those two accidents should never have been there because they are on the section of road no longer in use, and if I take note of it and with the knowledge that I had of it without endeavouring to, what could you say, those that's bereaved is misery, one of those accidents at least had nothing to do with the quality of the road. There were other causes such as inexperience, alcohol and are they factored out of their figures because I feel they should? Take the bypass at Aughnacloy. Surely Aughnacloy could have been bypassed without a five kilometres road? I can't see the need for that. The junction out at Dixon's on the present A5 is unbelievable. One would think they were in New York to see it and it doesn't serve the purpose for which the folk of Aughnacloy wanted it to do. The roundabouts at Ballygawley has been already spoken about and I will not dwell on those for the sake of time. The cultural heritage which I will deal with more maybe in the Local Inquiry, by Rachel Morris, makes no mention of the rath at Lisgenny, the townland of Lisgenny. She seems to stop with the one at Lisdoart. I feel that there was other cultural heritage sites along the proposed route which has never been looked at. Sarah Sutherland in her report on water and what not, talks

93 about the Foyle. She seems to stop at the Ballygawley River, no mention is made of the disaster that will await the Blackwater as it flows from Augher to Aughnacloy and further afield. It just seems to stop with the Ballygawley River. I feel, Mr Chairman, that is as far as we should proceed at this stage. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Brush. Before you leave would the Department like to make any comment in response to Mr Brush's statement? I know some of it was dealt with before but do you wish to make any comment, Mr O'Reilly? MR O'REILLY: My only comment is on the opening three days Rachel Morris and Sarah Sutherland were present and were part of the panel and they were available for cross-examination. The matters raised by Mr Brush now don't appear in his objection which was received 19th January, and I think it is unfair for him to make criticism of their reports when he had the opportunity to do so earlier or, alternatively, to put in an additional submission which might have enabled them to be present today, which they are not and, therefore, incapable of answering his criticisms. Other than that the matters he raised are matters raised earlier and responded to. MR LOWRY: Mr Inspector, at no time in any communication were we made aware that we could come and cross-examine the Department. At no time and no correspondence I got. Furthermore, in

94 the communication pack I got a number of the journals were missing and only my brother had them I wouldn't have had the opportunity to see them. Whether it was by accident or deliberate, but certainly we were not made aware at any time, at the vesting meeting or any time that we had the right to come and cross-examine the Department. I thought it would have been the same as at the A4 that it could have been done today. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Brush, your points are noted. That you very much. Could I now invite Mr Victor Brush to come forward. MS CHRISTIE: Chairman -- THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs Christie, I can't let you comment as we are running behind time. We have to let those scheduled today to do that. Mr Brush, could you state your full name and speak slowly and clearly for the Stenographer? MR VICTOR BRUSH: I am victor Brush and I have a few observations to make at this stage. On a general observation to make a road of this magnitude through the countryside destroying it forever, to remove massive numbers of mature trees and hedges and removing floodplains that will lead to the removal of the food supply for the wildlife, destroying nesting sites breeding grounds etc, all this destruction will inevitably lead to a loss of some of our wildlife species. It will destroy a heritage and countryside maintained and handed down through the generations to the present folk

95 of the present day. No amount of mitigation or whatever you want to do will replace what is destroyed. You don't grow a mature tree overnight, it takes 70 years to grow a mature tree. That tree would be hosting a feast of insects for birds and mammals and whatever else feeds on it. To remove all that, that reduces the amount of feed for birds, mammals, and whatever you have is going to die because they will not have food there in the areas to feed them. Don't forget that in the Good Book they say: "Where a sparrow does not fall to the ground but our Lord knows it." I feel that we are putting this tarmac snake through the countryside and it is going to spoil it for future generations who will never be fit to see a rural countryside again in our area as it is today. I don't think that any thought or consideration for the beauty of our countryside has been given I have talked to folk who have travelled the world and they tell me: Come home to Ireland and it is just as beautiful as anywhere they have been. Yet and all we are quite happy to destroy it. No consideration whatsoever. It is going to be the economic benefits to this that and the other. I don't see it. It is just a matter of pushing the road through to get to Derry as quick as you can and destroy the rural area in the process, and it is going to be of no gain to County Tyrone whatsoever. Just to move on to traffic numbers. This is a somewhat hazy kind of thing. They say there is an average AADT, is that it? It is an average and after the average they give you two figures. When I was at school an average of anything you only got one answer. I feel Roads

96 Service is giving two answers, they are giving an average perhaps and then giving the higher figure and it looks better. It increases the flow of the road and it makes it look better. If you take from outside Ballygawley it averages 6,850, is that the quote? 6,850 may be the proper figure which it is not, 6,850 is only a projected figure for that road, that is not an actual count of traffic on the road. The road is only open from August and there was no counter on it, because I do be on it every day and I know. It is also the same away on down the road the whole way. You have this average figure which is two figures which just can't be. You add up your figures and get an answer by doing a division sum and you get that, that is an average. I think if you go by the English dictionary it will tell you that. The Fred Tullyvar Road, taking the portion of the road from Ballygawley to Aughnacloy, traffic numbers is 6,850, I think far short of what is required for a dual carriageway. I think here we see Roads Service breaking their own rules, breaking their own standards that are set. Even with the projected figure of 10,150 in 2030 we are still short with the required amount of vehicles for a dual carriageway. It would be 20 or 30 or 40 years ahead of our time, yet and all I would count it probably discrimination against other road users who has the required amount of vehicles and who desperately, probably for safety reasons, needs an upgrade. Yet and all Roads Service has chosen to plough their money into a road that doesn't require to be upgraded to a dual carriageway.

97 They say that this bit of a road that is referred to there cost 5.5m. What is 5.5m, it is only 5.5m? But I think if you really looked at it and took it up they are making a dual carriageway from Aughnacloy to Ballygawley which is going to cost in the region of 10m along with it, 80m to 100m or something do that portion of the road. If you subtract what will upgrade the existing A5 going ahead from Ballygawley to Aughnacloy, which is roughly three or four times of the bit that they have already done, so the bit they have already done costs 5m, takes four times more to finish it over to the border, that is 20m. Take 20m off the 80m required to upgrade it to dual carriageway and you are left with 60 million of a savings. It is not 5m they are saving it is 60 million they are wasting. It is not 5m they are wasting, it is 60 million. The road doesn't have the traffic numbers to require a dual carriageway and therefore it should not be made on that section. They go on again in their answer to me to say safety, that they want the same consistency of road the whole way. If that is the way why stop the A4 at Ballygawley? I mean, if you come down the M1 you come to Ballygawley you are going to Eniskillen you are on a two lane road then. Can't people on the A5 do the exact same thing? An even better example is the M2. Leave the M2 going to Derry or Magherafelt and head that way, the M2 I think is dual carriageway then on the M2, hit a roundabout, the dual carriageway past Toombebridge, hit another roundabout and back onto a two lane road and on you go. Is them roads not safe? Has the Roads Service made that bypass to Toombebridge and

98 left it not safe? Yet and all this is what they are telling us, that if they stop at Ballygawley it is not safe. I don't believe that, not me anyway. I think it indicates that there is no forward planning with Roads Service and if there is a forward plan it doesn't mean anything. We have plans for today, but we can change it tomorrow. It doesn't matter, it is only taxpayers money, what odds. In the present economic climate I think they need to catch themselves on a bit, that that is not going to work. Roads Service may have powers to vest land for new roads. But I think Roads Service is abusing these powers by vesting land for the second time off the same farmers for the same road within a short time of five years. I think that is an abuse of that power. It is actually violating them farmers human rights that they can do that and is allowed to do that. I see that as deplorable, despicable entirely. The farmers that were affected the last time restructured their business and kept going and now they are hit again with this and they are expected to put up with this again. I don't think they should stand for it. I don't think so at all. I don't think it is right whatsoever. I think that is all on that. I have another problem here which I am very angry about and was very angry and still am very angry. A number of problems remain unsolved in land they are taking off me. I have one who accused me that Mouchel had informed them that I had attacked some of their members or some of their staff. I think now when they have looked up and found out they have discovered that their staff wasn't even at my premises on the day or the evening that this was supposed to take place. They went ahead

99 and give me an answer and said it was the police came to me: "We wish to make it clear that no allegations were made by ourselves against you -- THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Brush, I am a bit concerned that if you are referring to a matter which is under police investigation -- MR DAVID BRUSH: It is not. THE CHAIRMAN: Then it is obviously okay to proceed. MR DAVID BRUSH: "An incident was actually reported by Mouchel to PSNI, Omagh branch, and unfortunately you were subsequently visited by our colleagues in error. Mouchel and Roads Service have both made contact with the PSNI in Omagh in an attempt to have the matter resolved and have been advised that the PSNI tried on several occasions to contact you but without success." I wonder just how the PSNI got my name and address if it wasn't given to them? I wonder why if Roads Service and Mouchel was so keen why they haven't made contact with me. All the contact I had from a meeting which I was rather rough about and chased them more or less, you could say. This is something that makes me very angry, somebody who is a law abiding citizen who never was in a court in their life and never inside a police barracks in their life is accused of something they never done. I think that is not very nice. They contacted me through my agent when it was suitable to have a meeting. I give them gave them a reply back and said there was time up to 10.00 o'clock any morning I would be available. I wouldn't be available during the day after that particular time in the year, but that was the answer I gave. I never heard

100 another word about it. I never even got that up to the day of the pre-vesting exhibition I think you call them. Peter Edwards spoke to me that day about that matter, so I have had no pre-vesting meetings. Sewerage problems, drainage water, fencing, I don't know. I don't know what's happening there and I am not happy. I think at least, okay it maybe took them a wee time to cool down but at least I think they should have had a meeting before the Vesting Order was popped through the letter box. Probably them things is more for the Local Inquiry but I put this in and it come up as strategic, so at the present time I have no slot in the Local Inquiry unless they are going to come and resolve them before the Inquiry. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I would suggest, Mr Brush, that matters related to the vesting of your land would be a local issue rather than strategic but you have raised other matters that are strategic matters and unless you have anything further to add I would ask the Department to respond? MR O'REILLY: I don't think we need to reply to Mr Brush, thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Has anyone else any comments or questions they want to put at this stage? I would point out to you, Mr Brush, that you still have time to present evidence to the Local Inquiry. If you want to make arrangements to have a slot at the Local Inquiry the Programme Officer is here, Mr Graham, and he will direct you

101 to the relevant Programme Officer. MR VICTOR BRUSH: Thank you. MR O'REILLY: I should say that the Department is more than willing to meet with Mr Brush in advance of the Local Inquiry if that can be arranged, apart from his view that other earlier officers were refused by him, but in light of what he just said the Department is willing to meet with him at a mutually convenient time. THE CHAIRMAN: In light of what Mr Brush said today I would suggest the Department again tries to meet with him and discuss some of the issues. MS CHRISTIE: Inspector? THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, Mrs Christie, but I am not taking comments from you at this stage. You will have a chance to present your evidence tomorrow at 4.15. Could I ask the next presenter to come forward? As I have said many times before state your name in full and speak clearly and slowly and present your evidence to the Inquiry.

Presentation by Mr McClean

MR MCCLEAN: The following objections are made on behalf of my wife and I whose new home is extremely close to the proposed route, and also my father-in-law who stands to lose a significant area of agricultural land if the Proposed Scheme goes ahead. I would like to

102 object to the section of the proposed scheme from Ballygawley to Aughnacloy on the following grounds. One: There is insufficient traffic volume to justify such an elaborate design. Two: The existing A5 is no longer substandard due to the recent realignment at Tullyvar. Three: The propose scheme doesn't provide consistent road standards across the board anyway. I apologise if any of these objections are covering ground previously covered. Looking firstly at the traffic volume. Referring to the traffic study detailed in the Submission on Traffic Forecasting and Economics, firstly it is unfortunate that this study was conducted in May 2008, before the A5 realignment at Tullyvar was completed since that may have invalidated some of the results. Nonetheless referring to paragraph 3.26 and the associated map in figure 3-5 it is clear that the traffic volume on the section between Ballygawley and Aughnacloy is recorded as 6,850, a much lower volume than on the rest of the A5. This low traffic volume is recognised in paragraph 8.7 of the Departmental Statement, which also admits that it is lower than the thresholds required to justify a dual carriageway which is quoted as 11,000. My own observations of traffic at Ballygawley would agree. The bulk of traffic movements as between the A5 Omagh road and the A4

103 Eniskillen road and A4 Dungannon roads. I use the A5 every day between Ballygawley and Aughnacloy and with the new Lisgenny Road junction I never have any problems making a right turn. Traffic volumes rarely require waiting more than a few seconds. It is unfortunate that the traffic study does not include detailed vehicle flows through Aughnacloy. While the map indicates that there are 8,850 vehicles on the Monaghan Road there is no way to ascertain from the given data what proportion of those 6,850 Ballygawley vehicles make up this number. The map does show, however, that relative to these figures there is a significant amount of traffic on the other roads in and out of Aughnacloy. These must also account for some of the proportion of the 6,850 from Ballygawley. I can only offer anecdotal evidence that my observations would suggest that much of the traffic either terminates in Aughnacloy or leaves on the Carnteel or Caledon Road. Another unknown is what proportion of the traffic from the Republic of Ireland also terminates in Aughnacloy. From causal observation of the vehicle registrations in Supervalue Pound Hill car park, it would appear that a significant number of southern residents shop in Aughnacloy, presumably to avail of the exchange rate benefits. Only strategic cross-border traffic from at least Ballygawley would benefit from the Proposed Scheme, and assuming even 50% of the traffic from Ballygawley will cross the border this would only be around 3,000 vehicles.

104 None of the local traffic would be well served by the Proposed Scheme. They would be impeded by the addition of roundabouts both north and south of Aughnacloy and they would also find it more difficult to access the new A4 in an easterly direction due to the destruction of the new roundabout at the A4/Tullyvar, the lack of any slip roads to and from the existing Tullyvar Road and the significant detour required to access the A4 in the Proposed Scheme. I know that was covered this afternoon. Much of the justification for the proposed scheme and avoiding an upgrade of the existing A5 scheme is due to the substandard nature of much of the existing A5. I would agree that prior to the very recent A5 realignment at Tullyvar, the junction between Ballygawley and Aughnacloy could have been considered substandard. The accident figures given in 3.32 of the Submission on Traffic Forecastings and Economics were recorded for the period 2005 to 2009. This is prior to the opening of the new Tullyvar realignment in March 2010. Now that this realignment has been completed the previous substandard design issues have been addressed with an improved road alignment over Tullyvar Hill and the addition of crawler lanes on both climbs. The proposed scheme would render the Tullyvar realignment redundant, reducing it to merely a local access road. This would be in addition to the old Tullyvar Road. Given that the Tullyvar realignment

105 only opened in March last year at a reported cost of £13m this would be a significant waste of public finance. A human factor is that the many people in the vicinity of the A4 and A5 around Ballygawley were adversely affected by the recent works, either the scheme itself or the construction. Many of these same people stand to be affected again by the proposed scheme. Indeed, many people actually believed the work on the Tullyvar realignment was for the A5 WTC scheme. This smacks of either bad planning of the Tullyvar realignment or opportunism in the Proposed Scheme due to the prospect of a large investment from the Republic of Ireland. The Departmental statement in (paragraph 8.7) indicates that although traffic volumes do not justify the section from Ballygawley to Aughnacloy, it is justified by the benefit of providing a consistent standard of carriageway over the entire scheme and across the border. However, at the moment at least, the N2 in the Republic of Ireland from Aughnacloy to Monaghan is not of such a standard, nor is it definite if a dual carriageway scheme will go ahead in the near future due to the current economic constraints in the Republic. Due to the lack of a dual carriageway in the Republic, the Proposed Scheme degenerates to a single carriageway for the last section to join the existing Monaghan Road. This means that if a N2 dual carriageway is constructed in future, there will still have to be additional work required on the A5 to meet it with a consistent standard of

106 carriageway. Given the evidence above and the current need to reduce public expenditure I would suggest it is folly to build this section of the Proposed Scheme from Ballygawley to Aughnacloy. Instead it should be deferred until such times as the need for such a cross-border road can be clearly established and when there is a corresponding N2 scheme in the Irish Republic. In the meantime the recent realignment at Tullyvar make the existing A5 between Ballygawley and Aughnacloy more than sufficient as part of a safer and modern roads infrastructure, and the current low traffic figures mean that the existing design should be more than adequate for some time into the future. THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions from the Department? MR O'REILLY: No. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr McClean? MR MCCLEAN: One comment that we talked about earlier, the Ballygawley Roundabout would make provision for deferring the building of the section from Ballygawley to Aughnacloy such that the existing road could be retained and it could then be considered in future whether to build the section from Aughnacloy to Ballygawley if and when the need has been established. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, Mr McClean, thank you for coming and presenting your evidence. The next presenter is Mr Eric Coote and Mr Conor Mallon.

107 Would you like to come forward, please? Again gentlemen, I ask you to speak your names in full and also that you again speak slowly and clearly for the benefit of the Stenographer.

Presentation by Mr Mallon on behalf of Mr Eric Coote

MR MALLON: Conor Mallon, I am a chartered surveyor of Best Property Services and I am acting on behalf of Mr Coote. What we propose to do is if I could maybe do a brief summary of what the particular issues are for this Inquiry and then Eric would like to say a few words and then there is a number of questions at the end pertinent to the points we are making, if that is okay? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR MALLON: My client has a farm holding of approximately 52 acres at this location. He has other land that is more remote, but this is his home farm which he lives on with his wife and son Peter, who is involved in the farm business. The intention would be that Peter would take over the farm eventually. It is a dairy unit with approximately 40 cows and the plan would be that those numbers would extend, the plan to expand the farm business. The main problems for this particular Inquiry stem from the proposed loss of his land at Tullybrian Road. Is it possible to put up an image of it for your benefit, or we have a map here? THE CHAIRMAN: Before you do that, Mr Mallon, it strikes

108 me that you are looking at local issues here with land take? MR MALLON: No, because it has a direct bearing on the issue that you have already heard in relation to the Ballygawley Road. Mr Coote's farm is on the Tullybrian Road which is the proposed new way, if you like, into Ballygawley. So while we have got a wider objection that might have eight points in it we are only really going to deal with the points that have been identified as strategic. THE CHAIRMAN: In that case I am not sure whether or not at this stage we can ask the Department. MR MALLON: I have a map. It is for your own benefit. THE CHAIRMAN: You want to present it as evidence? MR MALLON: If you have a map in front of you it might be easier. That is a map provided by the Department, by Dr McIlmoyle. I think the Department has it. As you will see from the map the existing Tullybrian Road runs through the middle, not the middle, it dissects Mr Coote's holding. It is proposed that the landtake would be on new realigned Tullybrian Road which would involve the acquisition of approximately about eight acres of what would be my client's best farmland. It will have a major impact on his holding and we would go to the Local Inquiry in relation to that. The working of his holding would have a bearing on the proposal to use Tullybrian Road as the main route into Ballygawley. I think at this stage we should also say that Mr Coote would like to support the comments of the Ballygawley Traders. So in terms of supporting the

109 need for a review of the decision to do away with the existing roundabout, that he would be supportive of either leaving the existing roundabout or one of the other options rather than the existing Preferred Option. Mr Coote has a herd of 40 cattle and they have to get from one side of the Tullybrian Road to the other side twice a day, which is, if you like, four journeys over and back twice. Potentially that has the ability to disrupt which will become the main route into Ballygawley. At the moment the Tullybrian Road is a backwater, if you like, not a lot of traffic on it and if it is going to be the main road there would be particular difficulties in stock handling for Mr Coote in terms of moving his cattle back and forward, and also potentially significant disruption at peak hours. His stock would tend to be moved over and back at or about eight or nine or 10.00 o'clock in the morning and, again, at five or 6 o'clock in the evening which are times of peak traffic. It would be basically flagged up that that is something we would wonder has that been reflected in the Department's economic consideration, you know that additional disruption to traffic? I also want to highlight the fact that if this is a major access route to Ballygawley and the main road in, again for emergency services, ambulances, fire engines and police cars, if you have a herd of 40 cattle moving across that road, again, it is likely to have potentially a significant impact. There are issues in relation to the design of the access as to how to get the cattle over and back but, again, that is probably one more

110 for the Local Inquiry. I think if I could maybe bring my client in at this stage. The nature of the rest of my items are more in the nature of questions. So I bring in Mr Coote and come back to finish off with a number of questions. THE CHAIRMAN: Fine, go ahead, Mr Coote.

Presentation by Mr Coote

MR COOTE: Eric Coote. I object to the proposed link of the road. The reasons why. Ballygawley has been at a crossroads between Derry, Dublin, Belfast and the west. It has been the crossroads and in bygone days were used by the coach travellers between here and Dublin overnight stops and so forth. The Tullybrian Road junction would help keep Ballygawley in that position if it was retained, Tullyvar Road junction. People travelling from Dungannon, Belfast, would save a two mile drive plus travel time if they were able to leave the A4 at Tullyvar Road rather than travelling the one mile to the new proposed junction of the A5 and one mile back along the Tullybrian Road running parallel with the new A4 to the old Ballygawley Roundabout. The Tullyvar Road junction would be beneficial to the traders of Ballygawley. Also it would be convenient to motorists travelling to Sixmile Cross, Carrickmore, Garvaghy and Tullyvar and Aughnacloy

111 areas, people could leave at that Tullyvar Road junction and have less travelling to do. It would also help relieve traffic at the new proposed roundabout at the A5 if traffic going off at them areas could go off at Tullyvar Road. It would leave less traffic at the proposed roundabout of the new A4/A5. Also I would ask Roads Service to consider, subject to the road traffic design standard a left in to the Tullybrian Road would be beneficial to the people on Tullybrian Road and the school. There would be a cost savings to the Roads Service if they built a new Tullyvar Road and construct a new Tullybryan bridge, it would aid myself and the other landowners concerned. The loss of land it will have taken to construct the new road would have a serious affect on our farm business. I will deal with another issue. The blocking of the Tullywinney and Ballynanny Roads. Roads Service have not given any consideration to people living in the Tullywinney and Lisdoart areas. They have to travel a long distance, approximately two miles via Drumgullion Road to avail of the services provided for in the local village of Ballygawley. That distance is too great for people to walk to Ballygawley. I ask Roads Service to give consideration if they can't see a position to leave a junction link into them roads, at least give access for pedestrians to cross the new A4 from the Tullywinney Road by a footbridge over the new A4, or a pedestrian tunnel on to the new A4 linking from the Tullywinney Road onto the

112 Tullybrian Road. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Perhaps you could give your statement to us. MR O'REILLY: Not blocking out Mr Mallon, as I understand the position of the proposed access to Ballygawley which was the subject, and must concern a complaint that would involve taking land, vesting land from Mr Coote. You have gathered that the Department is perhaps neutral on whether the new scheme goes ahead or the existing roundabouts remain. Now as I understand it if you were jointly to make the recommendation that there should be no change in the roundabouts and that status quo prevails, there might be implications for Mr Coote in terms of access. So if that in some way alleviates questions or reduces the number of questions I am happy. Equally what the Department would like to know is Mr Coote's view if, in fact, the access to Ballygawley remains as it is rather than it is proposed, as there might be implications for him. I wonder is that permissible so that you and Mr Coote would know. It might suit his purposes if his land wasn't used but, again, Mr Loughrey would be better placed to indicate what the consequences of preserving the status quo was. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that. In the first instance, Mr Mallon, Mr Coote do you want to respond to the proposition? MR COOTE: Regarding the new roundabout on the Tullyvar

113 Road I would leave it up to Roads Service whether to leave that and build the bridge and put the slip road in, that is for the Roads Service. But I think it would still serve our needs to get where we have to go. MR MALLON: If there were other implications, from preliminary discussions that we have had with Roads Service any other implications for Mr Coote's land would have not as severe an affect as the current proposal. MR COOTE: We still would be losing some land to upgrading the present road to dual carriageway, we would still loss some land and we have a field cut-off us, but we have to, you know in the interests of progress we have to take some. THE CHAIRMAN: Those are the considerations that perhaps the Roads Service would take into account when reviewing the proposal. MR O'REILLY: There is just one question Mr Loughrey would like to ask Mr Mallon or Mr Coote, or both. MR LOUGHREY: There is one, as I understand it, the land in the north of the Tullybrian Road, land in between the two roads and then land to the south of the dual carriageway just south of the A4. The bit to the south of the A4 how would you see that being accessed if the Tullybrian Road upgrade and link wasn't done? MS COOTE: I would have to go to the Tullyvar Road and down the A4. It would be a bit of a disadvantage, but it wouldn't outweigh the advantage of not constructing a new Tullybrian Road. I would still be left with more land for my cows because my cows don't

114 be over in that field anyway. They don't cross the A4. MR MALLON: It would still be a better option. MR COOTE: Yes. MR LOUGHREY: It would just be vehicular traffic that would have to get to that severed portion? THE CHAIRMAN: It strikes to me, Mr Loughrey, that some further conversations with Mr Coote would be better to clarify what the different options are. MR MALLON: Could I come in with a couple of questions? THE CHAIRMAN: If you feel there are other questions to be answered carry on. MR MALLON: At an earlier stage some of the original scheme documentation said that the initial traffic studies prior to the Preferred Route announcement indicated that there was a need to be close to Ballygawley to ensure traffic would transfer to the A5 and not remain on the local road network. Then subsequently it was decided that the previous requirement to position that junction close to Ballygawley could be relaxed. I would just ask why was that relaxed or why particularly was the need to have that junction close to Ballygawley relaxed? MR EDWARDS: Inspector, if I could answer for the Department on that one. The initial statement in the early studies about being close to Ballygawley was in relation to actually the options that were even further west down towards Augher and the transfer of traffic. Now when we came to the Preferred Route which was in the

115 area close to Mr Coote's land which is as close as we could get to Ballygawley effectively, that gave us the optimum solution. Now once we then identified all the issues associated with the Preferred Route or the flooding or the land owner issues that came up on the earthworks, we had to reassess that and in the balance of things we felt that we would have to not be as close to Ballygawley because of all the other issues we had to deal with. Hence we only moved down to the Ballynanny Road in the area we are now with the Preferred Route of the proposed scheme, and acknowledged that additional bit of traffic did have some disbenefits but it was acceptable in terms of being the best solution. I mean, as I said in my evidence, Inspector, there were a number of assumptions we did make in the Preliminary Options in the Preferred Route which we went back, going west of Ballymagorry into the floodplain. That was another assumption that we had to change and reconsider based on further information we had. Likewise at this location, in terms of the traffic the desire to be as close to Ballygawley as possible, we had to relax that assumption because of all the other issues we identified on the scheme. MR MALLON: Would it be right to say then in that kind of a balancing exercise that you are doing between the different options, that leaving the existing roundabout would score better in terms of some advantage in terms of having that access close to Ballygawley? MR EDWARDS: I am not sure if you were here earlier, Mr Mallon?

116 MR MALLON: I was here since lunch time. MR EDWARDS: Mr Loughrey said that if we leave the roundabout in at Ballygawley we lose some benefits in the long-term. In the overall scheme benefits of 60 year life will lose benefits because we get a slightly reduced journey time from one roundabout to the other. We save straight away in construction costs. Now Mr Loughrey quoted a figure of 3.75m roughly as an indicative figure as a costing of that, not building the bridge on the A5 and not building the Tullybrian Road. Now Mr Hughes has identified one point and that is how to deal with pedestrians in that location, which may or may not be bringing some costs back in, but in the overall scheme that is a balance to be taken into account and that is the further work that Mr Gillespie was asking us to quantify. So that is the sort of balance that we have. So, yes, in putting that roundabout back in and taking the bridge out in the Tullyvar Road we are affecting the economics but it is minor at that level in the overall scheme and that was acknowledged as well, but we don't have a specific detailed assessment of that. So that we could have a debate. MR MALLON: Thank you. Could I ask Mr Loughrey, he had made a comment and it was discussed about the potential cost savings as to the difference between 3.5m and £6m in rough figures, but in another part of your response, Conor, you said that it was a close call. I am not sure just when you say it was a close call in relation to the options, would it not be the case if there is £3m for talk's sake is that not a significant

117 amount and could you expand what you mean by close call? MR LOUGHREY: What you have to look at is in relation to the overall cost benefit for the scheme, in the order of 1.99m at the minute. So it is how those figures match up to the benefits and costs of the overall scheme and then how you look at all the other materials such as in this case accessibility. MR MALLON: Have you considered in your costings to date the notional cost to all the traffic going into Ballygawley stopping and starting for Mr Coote's cows in terms of journey times, and if that is say 10 minutes a day and there is 10 people sitting in a traffic jam over the next 60 years, is that something factored in? MR LOUGHREY: The Tullybrian Road are you talking about? MR EDWARDS: I would say no we have not factored that aspect of daily traffic into the costings on the Tullybrian Road nor have we taken account of that aspect of daily life in the modelling of the delays on the existing A5 currently as well. So it could be either, we could say it is neutral or one way or the other. There is a number of farms on the existing A5 that do the same manoeuvre. MS COOTE: Currently my cows don't cross the existing A4. MR EDWARDS: I know that, Mr Coote, but in terms of whether we identify the delay that would occur if we built the new Tullybryan link and take the Ballygawley traffic in and the delays that would encounter for people, what my point was was that if there are currently on the existing A5 farmers who take their dairy herds across the

118 existing A5 with its much higher traffic flow, and we have not necessarily recorded the delays to traffic in that location as a specific element of the function of the model, so we could argue that if we delay that there would be even greater benefits in the road, but we have not taken that into account. THE CHAIRMAN: I suggest, Mr Coote, in relation to your own stock may be it is an issue you would want to raise again in the Local Inquiry. Mr Mallon, unless you have pressing issues I would propose to move on to the final presenter? MR MALLON: I may have one or possibly two questions and one comment. So I will not keep you too much longer. We would like to raise the issue of whether or not a new bridge is required over the Ballygawley River which is approximately to the front of St Ciaran's College and we would suggest that if there is increased traffic on the Tullybrian Road that that bridge will have to be upgraded which would be a substantial expenditure that might need to be costed in this, measuring up the pros and cons of both schemes. THE CHAIRMAN: Do the Department have a response at this stage? MR LOUGHREY: I am advised that that was reflected in the cost we talked about. MR MALLON: So is there a proposal currently to replace that bridge? MR EDWARDS: In the current proposal, yes, that bridge will

119 be replaced. MR MALLON: Right. MR EDWARDS: If you look at the actual vesting and the boundary you can see the bridges there and we have allowed for the working space to reconstruct that bridge. MR MALLON: Okay. So that is something at the end that will be taken into account if you are measuring up the pros and cons of both schemes. Perhaps if I could conclude by just giving the example on the A4 for the Inspectors benefit. There was an issue where at Mullybrannon where there were a number of residents at the far side of Moygashel who had an access issue and they got together. I am quoting from the statement by the Department on the Inspectors report and the Inspector stated that: "Whether such feelings are based on fact or perception verges on the academic, suffice to say he found them very real." At that time the Inspector recommended that the Department would review the specific linkages and in that case the Department had changed it and did provide access, but I would suggest that in this case the Ballygawley residents, traders, residents and local people were not particularly tuned into the fact that this was likely to be happening and that from what you have heard this afternoon from the local traders and residents that have appeared in front of you, even though they are late in the day to be wakening up to the fact that they are now realising this is going to have a major impact potentially on their small town, I think that

120 we would be suggesting to the Inspector that you would recommend that there would be a reappraisal of the options at this particular part of the scheme. THE CHAIRMAN: That is an issue that has already arisen, Mr Mallon. MR MALLON: We are throwing our weight in behind it. MR COOTE: As regards the Ballygawley people not knowing, it is late in the day when the Ballygawley people found out that the Tullyvar Road junction was going to be removed. It is only when in the later stages of the process that they found out and, indeed, Mr Suitor didn't know that until I informed him that that was the case and he asked me to bring in the map so he could see what was proposed. THE CHAIRMAN: Very well, gentlemen, that concludes your evidence. First of all we are overrunning proceedings today, it has been a full debate. I thank you for both your patience and forbearance. Mr McCarron, you have been allocated a period of 45 minutes to present your evidence. But we probably need to conclude the Inquiry around 5.15 to 5.30 because it is a long day for all concerned and there comes a stage when it is difficult to concentrate in view of the complexity of all the evidence presented, but you will have the time allocated to you so I invite you to go ahead. MR MCCARRON: My name is Peter McCarron. I am from Derry City and being from the Northwest I am very familiar with the important function the A5 plays in linking the whole northwest of Ireland

121 to the rest of the island. Indeed during the preparation of this submission I have realised how much of a role the A5 has played in my life, from family visits to Dublin in the Seventies, to football matches since the Eighties and bus journeys home at weekends when I studied and then worked in Dublin in the Nineties. Now that I live back in Derry and work in Letterkenny, I still visit Dublin regularly for work meetings and training days. The A5 really is an important road. Having grown up in Derry I am also familiar with how much Derry has suffered from lack of investment over the decades and I am delighted now to see the city improving year by year. Of course we still lag well behind many areas and large parts of Derry sit very high in the league tables of deprivation as is graphically illustrated in Diagram 4.8 of the RDS consultation document. I want to make it very clear before I go further that I am not anti-development. I am for development that is genuinely sustainable and will fulfil the economic needs of the Northwest. In the relation to the A5 WTC I want to present a case that this particular proposal is a poor use of public money and does not sit at all comfortably within the quoted policies. Furthermore in the guise of being good for us it is actually doing us a huge disservice. If the money is genuinely available it could be much better spent to improve transport infrastructure for the same region and transport corridor in a manner that it is not so far out of touch with EU, UK and our own Assembly policies.

122 POLICY CONTEXT The Departmental Statement on the Proposed Dualling of the A5 Western Transport Corridor published by the Roads Service lists in section 3 a hierarchy of five policy and delivery documents setting A5 in the strategic and framework context of Northern Ireland. They are: Shaping Our Future: Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland 2025. (RDS) Regional Transportation Strategy for Northern Ireland 2002-2012. (RTS) Regional Strategic Transportation Network Transport Plan 2015. (RSTN TP) Programme for Government / Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland. Investment Delivery Plan for Roads. (IDP) The Environmental Statement (ES) lists the same documents in Section 2.1. And then gives a paragraph outline of each. It seems that the aim is to show that the proposal fits within the current policy and strategic framework. In my opinion if you read the whole documents the A5 WTC does not sit well with the majority of the documents with the exception of the IDP and more of that in a bit. Fig 5.5 of the RTS shows strategic improvements to the A5

123 e.g. by-passes, and clearly does not envision a dual carriageway. The statement that a total 85 km of dual carriage way to be built obviously does not include this. Rather than go through each document in turn as I did in my original submission I am going to examine how well the A5 WTC proposal fits some of the key strategic themes identified from the documents. As you will see there are serious problems with it. Firstly though I must mention that the RDS and RTS are currently undergoing revision. From reading the consultation documents it appears that the revised publications will be give an even stronger commitment to sustainability and new approaches than the original documents. In fact the subtitle to the RTS consultation document is A Sustainable Transport Future and the consultation period runs until 28th June 2011. Therefore it would seem that this inquiry is premature as the A5 must be tested against the policy content of the new documents. This would mean that this inquiry cannot reach a properly informed decision as to whether this proposal is in line with the policies of the Assembly before the revised documents are published. The inquiry must allow for possible new evidence to be submitted depending on what is contained in the revised strategies. There is precedence for this. In the Thames Gateway Bridge Inquiry the Inspector allowed post-inquiry correspondence to facilitate the result of a consultation on air quality management that was to occur after

124 the inquiry had ended. I have the relevant pages of the transcript as appendix 1. The matter is covered between page 3 line 13 to page 5 line 3. STATUTORY CONTEXT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT. Council Directive 85/337/EEC as amended sets out the requirements of what an EIA must contain. Article 5(1) requires the developer to supply in an appropriate form the information specified in Annex IV of the Directive inasmuch as the information is relevant to the characteristics of the project and it is reasonable to compile it with regard to current knowledge. Annex IV paragraph 3 includes population and climatic factors in the list of aspects of the environment that must be described if they are likely to be significantly affected by the proposed project. I will refer to both these aspects again later. The inter-relationship between the factors must also be described. SUSTAINABILITY The RDS uses the definition of sustainability adopted by the of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future otherwise known as the Brundtland Commission. Sustainable Development - Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. To me this is a good people centred definition of sustainability. It sets the tone for much of the document.

125 On page 20 the RDS states: The Strategy has a substantial statutory basis reflecting national and international commitment to a sustainable approach to accommodating growth within the Region. Figure 8 of the RDS then shows the Sustainable Development Context which starts with our International Obligations, to The European Spatial Development Perspective to the UK Sustainable Development Strategy to The guiding Principles ending with The Spatial Development Strategy Strategic Planning Guidelines. The RTS confirms the RDS vision: To have a modern, sustainable, safe transportation system which benefits society, the economy, the environment and which actively contributes to social inclusion and everyone's quality of life. Point 7 of my original submission points out that sustainability is supposed to be a theme running through the RDS and yet the ES does not consider how the proposed A5 WTC impacts on sustainability. The response (issue 3) states that sustainability does not fall within the scope of the process or the required content of an environmental statement prepared in accordance with the Directive. This might be true in a very strict interpretation of the Directive. However the ES does quote from strategies that have sustainability as a major theme, e.g. the RDS and RTS. So in my opinion if the ES mentions sustainability as in section 2.1.2 in setting the context

126 of the proposal then surely there is a duty to acknowledge the impact of the proposal on sustainability. By failing to do so I feel that the ES is hinting at sustainability credentials for that proposal that are undeserved. The A5 WTC is unsustainable because it does nothing to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions associated with transport. It's construction will in itself consume considerable resources in the form of materials, energy and the loss of agricultural land. It reinforces dependence on the car as the preferred mode of transport and effectively shuts the door on any possibility of a return for the railway to Tyrone and by extension Donegal. EIA may not deal explicitly with sustainability, but there is a second EU Directive relating to environmental assessments which does. It is commonly referred to the Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) Directive and is the subject of Council Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. It requires that transport plans and programmes, amongst others, must undergo such an assessment. It was transposed in legislation here by the Environmental Assessment of plans and Programmes (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2004. All programmes since July 2004 are supposed to undergo this process. Annex I of the SEA directive explains that effects includes cumulative effects. Annex II includes the degree to which a plan or programme influences others in a hierarchy and the need to take the

127 promotion of sustainable development amongst factors that must be considered. There is a serious deficiency unless an SEA which encompasses the effects of the A5 WTC is carried out and this inquiry cannot produce a properly considered recommendation unless such a test of sustainability has been carried out at some point. If no SEA was carried out then this inquiry is premature as the A5 WTC proposal has not faced any test of sustainability. In my opinion the logical level at which the SEA should be carried out is at the IDP level as this is a very comprehensive delivery programme for roads in Northern Ireland and would facilitate the description of cumulative impacts. I have written to the Roads service enquiring if an SEA has been carried out on the IDP (appendix 2). To date I have received no reply To date I have received no reply." Actually I have received a reply and it is appendix 2A, so there is an extra appendix in there that you didn't have above. I don't think it is a satisfactory reply in that they basically said that they think a sustainability test was carried out but I can't find any evidence of it anywhere on-line. I know that the revised documents are currently undergoing an SEA, I can find the scoping document but that is about all. I can't find any evidence that the A5 has undergone a sustainability test anywhere. Planning Policy statement 13 (PPS13) is intended to assist in

128 the implementation of Shaping Our Future and again quotes the vision of that document. In section 16 it is stated that another document, Moving Forward: The Northern Ireland Transport Policy Statement, signalled an important step to enable a move away from a transport system dominated by car use, to a more balanced and integrated system in which public transport and non-motorised transport would be an attractive option for many trips. The proposed A5 represents a huge step backwards in that regard and will encourage car-use. Section 27 states that the primary objective of PPS13 is to integrate land use planning and transport by amongst other things promoting sustainable transport choices. .In section 28 one of the secondary objectives is identified as making efficient use of road space in the context of promoting modal shift to more sustainable forms of transport. If the new A5 is constructed the end result will be two parallel roads. Doubling the road space on the same route is hardly efficient use of road space. CLIMATE CHANGE AND GREENHOUSE GASES The consultation document for the RDS makes more mention of greenhouse gas emissions that the original RDS. The bar chart in figure 2.2 graphically shows that transport is the only sector in which green house gases are substantially higher than in 1990. I stated in point nine of my original submission that the failure to include the impact of the proposal on greenhouse gas emissions was a significant oversight. The rebuttal response stated merely that

129 regional emissions are reported in Chapter 8 of the ES. In my opinion this is not a satisfactory answer to the point I raised as there is no mention in Chapter 8 of CO2 or any other greenhouse gas emission. Although it does state that carbon emissions will increase by 27% by 2015 and 30% by 2030 above what would be expected if the A5 WTC is not constructed. In 2009 the European Commission published a report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, Appendix 3. It raises similar concerns about the EIA process. It states in section 3.5.4: The EIA Directive does not expressly address climate change issues. Most of the Member States recognise that climate change issues are not adequately identified and assessed within the EIA process. Any review of the impacts of climate change is often limited to CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions from industry and from increases in transport as part of air quality studies or as indirect effects. The EIA assessment will often not go beyond evaluating existing emissions and ensuring that ambient air quality standards are met. In addition, the effects on global climate, the cumulative effects of an additional project and adaptation to climate change are not sufficiently considered within the EIA. It goes on to state that these issues need to be tackled. The ES for the A5 WTC is no exception. It does not mention CO2 or climatic impacts at all. Nor does it consider what contribution this proposal will make to greenhouse gas emissions. This despite modelling projected traffic flows and increases in traffic. It should be relatively

130 simple to calculate CO2 emissions from the data on traffic volumes and flows.

The proposer should be required to quantify the impact of the A5 WTC on greenhouse gas emissions before the this inquiry makes a final recommendation. It is in the media today that the UK government tomorrow are going to make a major statement on greenhouse gas emissions and requirements and I ask that the Inquiry bear that information in mind. It sounds like it is going to be very important.: Such a requirement is all the more important if you bear in mind the comments about evidence presented regarding global warming and climate change contained in the Inspector's Report after the Thames Gateway Inquiry. I have attached the relevant pages as appendix 4. In section 9.382 the inspector concludes with regard to CO2. It seems to me that even a small increase offers no assistance in achieving a reduction to which the Government has made a commitment. The Inspector obviously considered CO2 emissions an important impact, yet the rebuttal I received states that such issues are outside scope of the ES. Cumulative projects Annex III of the EIA Directive includes the cumulation with other projects as a criteria for including a project in the EIA process.

131 Maybe it is not quite clear on whether the cumulative effects should themselves be included in the EIA. This is another reason why this inquiry cannot issue a proper recommendation until it has considered the results of an SEA carried out either on this project or the strategies that it apparently fits in with. The SEA would consider the impacts of all proposed projects together if carried out at IDP level. The proposed project is actually part of a larger scheme taking the road the rest of the way to Dublin and there is a transboundary element to the overall scheme which should be covered either by an overall EIA or an SEA. ECONOMICS Draft Budget 2011-15: Spending and saving proposals within Department for Regional Development. The Draft Budget published on 13 January 2011 shows that this proposal is going to be an enormous drain on Department finances over several years and will have a large negative impact on society. This negative impact has not been included in the ES. Section 11 of the draft budget states that key aims of the DRD include developing sustainable transportation networks (in objective A) and protection of the environment (in objective B). t is impossible to argue that an 85km section of mainly dual carriage provides a sustainable transportation network. The transformation of about 1200 hectares of land into roadway certainly does not protect the environment.

132 The draft budget lists a lot of cutbacks in certain areas and it is clear from reading the Draft Budget that a large part of the reason for this cut is the fact that £790 million of the DRD budget is ring-fenced for two road schemes, the A5 WTC being one of these. In my original submission I pointed out that the situation may be even worse as there must be a serious question mark over a new Irish Government actually being able to provide funding, in which case is the DRD going to make up the short-fall and have an even greater negative impact on society. The rebuttal stated that in that case the A5 WTC would have to be reconsidered. If anything since January the economic situation in the Republic seems to have worsened. Economic Activity. The ES whilst it recognises that traffic will increase, it does not suggest how much of this may be due to strategic economic activity and how much is actually generated by the road itself being there. Although one of the main aims of the A5 WTC is to stimulate the economy it is not clear how this will actually create jobs. There will of course be temporary jobs during construction, but you cannot base economic growth on such temporary jobs. Fuel prices continue to rise alarmingly and if transport in the Western Corridor is road based this could very quickly actually become a hindrance. The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) produced a

133 campaign report in 2003 called Roads to Regeneration, appendix 5. In it the CPRE make many interesting points regarding construction of major roads and economic activity. Many of the arguments are based on a Government report produced in 1999. It is argued that: Too frequently assertions are made that a new road will support the local economy, without showing a clear link between the new road and the regeneration benefits. They also point out that roads work both ways and can actually facilitate the movement of resources out of an area. It is stated that the Government's Green Book on Appraisal requires that any distributional effects identified should be explicitly stated and quantified as far as possible. Many of the new jobs in Derry at any rate seem to be in call centres and that kind of service industry is unlikely to require a dual carriageway such as the A5 WTC. The CPRE also suggest that traffic growth and economic growth should be de-coupled. FRESH THINKING. The RDS states that it adopts a fresh approach in seeking to met the Region's transportation challenges, making best use of the road and rail system in a manner tailored to the unique settlement pattern of Northern Ireland. Section 2.1.1 of the RTS states that the strategy marks a

134 "fresh start" for transport in Northern Ireland. Section 6.6 of the RDS consultation document states that the new RTS will present a fresh direction for transportation here, with sustainability at its core. SPG-TRAN 4: To change the regional travel culture and contribute to healthier lifestyle. The proposed A5 WTC does not represent a fresh approach, a fresh start or a fresh direction. It is merely a continuation of a programme of building major roads which in the UK is known to generate more traffic and ultimately does not solve the problems it set out to tackle. This fact is recognised by the DRD in public consultation document for the revised RTS. In section 2.5 it states: Building new roads will not reduce the total volume of traffic and while increasing road capacity can temporarily reduce congestion, it ultimately leads to increased traffic as more people choose to travel or make new trips to take advantage of the new road space and improved connectivity. Similarly Section 19 of PPS13 recognises that increased levels of car use and car dependence can have an adverse effect on public transport patronage. Article 3 of the EIA Directive states that the impacts on human beings must be considered. In Annex IV the impact on population is one of the aspects of the environment that must be considered. Behaviour is an important characteristic of human beings and populations.

135 Therefore it would make sense to include the way in which a proposal impacts behaviour in the ES. The ES for the A5 WTC proposal does look at behaviour to the extent that it is expected that between 60 to 90% of traffic flow on the current A5 would divert to the new road as was stated in the response to my original submission. If there is an expectation that a certain percentage of people will modify their behaviour by using the new road, then it is valid to expect that an ES might consider how the scheme will impact on attempts to change the travel culture and reduce dependence on car travel in the Western Transport Corridor . This inquiry should recommend that the A5 WTC is not constructed as it will make it so much harder if not impossible to change travel culture in the future. The lack of a fresh approach is reinforced by the admission in the rebuttal of my original submission which states that the Roads Service is not taking any steps to reduce traffic on the existing A5. This admission must also call into question the figures for future traffic speeds and traffic growth as they are obviously based on an assumption that there will be no attempts at traffic reduction.

There are examples of fresh thinking to be found. One such example included in a paper called The Strategic Network Needs Strategic Policy Appraisal by Phil Goodwin, Professor of Transport

136 Policy, Centre for Transport and Society, UWE Bristol, published in July 2009, appendix 6. He argues that a new approach to transport planning which takes greater account of cities and local traffic on the strategic network. He states that it does not make sense to expand motorway capacity to provide for more traffic than the local roads at each end can cope with. The proposed strategic A5 WTC does not even actually link up each end of the route properly. It may meet its stated aims of freer traffic movement along the actual route of the new road. However it is likely that Newbuildings in particular is going to have a terrible traffic problem due to the construction of this road. A dual carriageway with motorway speeds will end at Newbuildings several miles from Derry. The DRD argue that the road is necessary due to high traffic volumes and the section from Strabane to Derry has the highest volumes, yet all this traffic, over 22,000 AADT by 2015 and almost 27,000 by 2030, is likely to meet a serious bottle neck in Newbuildings. At the other end the last few miles of the A5 WTC to the border will be single carriageway as the traffic volumes are somewhat lower, not enough to justify dualling. On a wider strategic scale, Dublin has a serious traffic problem which this road will not help. Professor Godwin argues that it makes more sense to focus on where people experience most congestion such as towns. This appears to have been what DRD was doing until recently by building by-passes

137 for towns such as Newtonstewart and improving overtaking opportunities. Professor Godwin introduces the concept of looking at transport corridors as a barbell rather than as a straight line. This takes more account of the transport networks along the corridor and the way in which transport policies in cities and towns influence the amount of traffic generated. He also points out that much traffic on strategic roads is local rather than strategic, travelling between adjacent junctions, e.g. on school runs, rather than a relatively long way. This is likely to be the case on the A5 WTC also. In my original submission I pointed out that no figures were given for end to end traffic (point 26) The response was that no such figures were available, but it was predicted that in 2030 around 500 vpd would travel between Moy Bridge and Newbuildings and 2,200 vpd between Moy Bridge and the border crossing to Donegal. This seems to be a very small percentage of overall traffic. Is the implication that the rest is quite local traffic? If so then it is quite possible that traffic reduction measures such as car pooling, better bus services and cycling options could make a difference. Ultimately a rail service would be the best option. SAFETY Section 2.2.2 of the ES states that a total of 32.3km of the existing A5 do not comply with current design standards, mainly in relation to Full Overtaking Sight Distance and Sight Stopping Distance.

138 The ES is telling us therefore that to bring 32.3km of carriageway up to current standards 85km of new road must be constructed. That simply does not make sense. Furthermore, when the A5 WTC is finished cars will still be allowed to travel on the sub-standard old road. If the road is so dangerous it would be negligent not to close it altogether as soon as a safe alternative is available. The sensible option is obviously to upgrade the existing A5 and remove the dangers completely. ALTERNATIVES I am a firm believer in constructive criticism therefore it would be remiss of me not to offer some alternatives. The only alternatives considered in the ES were alternative route options including upgrading the existing A5. The upgrade option was dismissed for reasons not stated in the ES. Instead readers are referred to another document. Naturally the only choice left is from amongst the various route options. In reality this is not much of an option. Alternatives should have included other travel options. The DRD is supposed to be in the business of facilitating movement of people and goods not vehicles. The various rail options should have been considered. The rail options include. A) proper upgrading of the Derry to Belfast line to reduce journey time and facilitate onward travel to Dublin B) re-instatement of the original line to Dublin via Strabane and Omagh.

139 This would show integrated transport and land use in action, not the lip service that the ES pays to it Travel from Derry to Dublin via Belfast should be achievable in well under four hours in comfort if the existing line was upgraded. This would reduce traffic on the A5 leaving more space for other road users. In combination with other traffic reduction measures the A5 WTC would be unnecessary. The ultimate goal should be a Derry to Dublin railway. On a direct Derry-Dublin line it should be about two hours (as is possible on the Dublin/Cork line which is a greater distance). Then whether or not the A5 WTC is still required could be looked at. The RTS states that just 360km remains a rail network of 1500 km. A new railway would reverse this. Recently I have been reading Farewell The Derry Road by Eric T. Challoner. It describes the history of the Derry to Portadown Railway until it was closed in 1965 as the Government pursued a road-based public transport policy, not unlike today. I wasn't even born then, but I feel cheated now that I have been robbed of the chance to travel that route. Speaking as a regular user of the A5 my least favourite mode of travel to Dublin is by car. Fuel is expensive, you generally have to pay for parking in Dublin and I hate the traffic jams. In my opinion public transport, preferably by rail, to Dublin is less of a waste of time than travelling by car

140 A combination of upgrading substandard parts of the existing A5 and upgrading the Derry/Belfast railway line would likely be the best option initially. It would sustainable, facilitate economic development, provide real transport options, encourage a change in travel culture, remove the existing substandard sections of A5, possibly for less money. A decision to allow the A5 WTC will only reinforce that very bad, unsustainable and unpopular decision to close the Derry Road taken in the Sixties and condemn Tyrone and Donegal to another lengthy period without the alterative of travelling by rail. CONCLUSION In my opinion this is the wrong proposal at the wrong time and this inquiry should make a recommendation on strategic grounds that the A5 WTC should not proceed for the following reasons: The A5 WTC does not fit with the overarching strategy documents of the RDS and RTS. Both of these important strategy documents are currently being revised,. It is likely that the construction of a major road will jar even more with the revised publications. At the very least these revised strategies must be considered before this Inquiry publishes its recommendation. RSTN TP does not even hint at the construction of A5 WTC instead listing strategic improvements. Graphically illustrated in Table B.1. If the A5 WTC is allowed to go ahead it will make it much

141 more difficult in the future to persuade people to choose non-car modes of transport. This proposal fits in with a model of accepting and encouraging traffic growth and the resultant increase in greenhouse gases rather than being in line in with stated policy on sustainability, reducing the need for travel and changing the travel culture The alternative of rail would fulfil strategic transport objectives aims much better than the A5WTC. Construction of the A5 WTC will effectively mean that railways will never return to county Tyrone and by extension County Donegal. It is a selfish proposal in the sense that whilst other sectors are successfully reducing their greenhouse gas emissions the transport sector is continuing to increase its. If the A5 WTC goes ahead other sectors will have to work even harder to make up the difference. The traffic figures are based on continued growth where there is no effort to reduce traffic. The figures could be very different if a proper programme to encourage traffic reduction such as encouraging car pooling was implemented and remove the justification for the A5 WTC on grounds of volume of traffic. Much of the traffic that will use the new road will probably be local rather than strategic traffic. As such improvements to the local road network would be more beneficial. The draft DRD budget shows that the A5 WTC will be a

142 huge drain on Departmental resources that will mean cuts in other services above what would otherwise occur even in these tough economic times." I had another little supplement to that but I have given my copy to somebody. Can I could borrow one? THE CHAIRMAN: Could I suggest, Mr McCarron, that it would be appropriate to summarise the supplementary document? We already have a full copy of the document. MR MCCARRON: Does my statement become a part, do I have to request that to be read in? THE CHAIRMAN: What is the question? MR MCCARRON: Does my original statement I sent in January to the Roads Service and the rebuttal to it become part of the documentation? THE CHAIRMAN: It is all part of the evidence. MR MCCARRON: These are just a few points that have become apparent in the last week. I want to draw a point to the Roads Service Corporate plan 2013 and business plan 2011. It states that sustainability is contained in their mission statement. I think it is important to bear that in mind. One of the core values, I have copies here, is that it includes being flexible and that is expanded to include questioning. It is just two words. It is interesting in light of the statements that Roads Service felt constrained by the political direction design of a dual carriageway only.

143 There is the overall document "Everyone is involved" the Sustainable Development Strategy from the office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The first line says that none of us can avoid the implications of our non-sustainable programme, activities or lifestyles by ignoring them. That section seems to be very important and it appears the Departments are bound by it. The Everyone's Involved document does state that unfortunately it doesn't seem like Section 25 has been very well implemented and they will hopefully provide guidelines on it. I think the Inspectors should maybe look that the Section 25, that document, it could be very important. Just a couple of comments on the macro-economics Ecotech for Mouchel, mainly because I didn't get time to do it before and didn't know where it was. Basically I think that the economic study doesn't support the proposal for the A5 very well. It mentions that 260 jobs will be created. It doesn't say where or how they will come about. In the questionnaire that was done it states that the road was overwhelming cited as the principal mode of transport, however, road is the only mode of transport available. So it is interesting reading and really doesn't support the proposal for the A5. It also states that the skills base is low and that we should be heading for knowledge based economies and things like that, and really Non Space by which they mean software computer programme, they don't need a dual carriageway for that change.

144 The scope of the Environmental Statement, Mr Reid said it wasn't appropriate to widen the scope of the Environmental Statement to include sustainability. I would ask that the Inspectors do actually take sustainability requirements very seriously because they are very serious matters. I feel that there is a good danger that the largest infrastructure Project ever in Northern Ireland will fall through the sustainability safety net and that would be very serious if it did. I ask will people thank us in 60 or 100 years time for this road? The road is being appraised over a 60 year period in terms of life saving, reduction of deaths. I think it is fair to ask will people in 60 years time thank us for it? I just want to say quickly on the rebalancing infrastructure argument, that Mr Loughrey argued that basically this road is very necessary to give the west the same opportunities as the east in relation to transportation, in terms of road transport and dual carriageways. I am all for fairness and people who know me, I have argued that a long, long time. Even if you accept had a argument then surely it is even more imperative that the west deserves equal treatment in terms of railways, especially if you think that in Fermanagh, Tyrone and Donegal there is no railway here, so in future if fuel prices become too high we are stuck with road and that could be a hindrance. So I think that should be considered. I also think that in the rebuttal in my statement they said if there was no road built the journey times would increase by six minutes between Moy Bridge and New Buildings and I don't think an increase of six minutes will destroy the economy.

145 I will let you read the compensation. It is just interesting, I think, that the compensation could be worked out over 60 years, but that is not for the Inquiry. To finish on the potentially persuasive argument, basically the case for this road is itself potentially persuasive, however when scrutinised in detail it does not stack up. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr McCarron. Now at this stage I invite the Department to make comment, but bearing in mind that you have submitted a very comprehensive and detailed document I wonder do the Department require time to consider this and perhaps make a response at a later stage? MR O'REILLY: No, thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: You don't. Mr O'Reilly do you wish to make a response? MR O'REILLY: No. THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions? MR MCCARRON: Do you need copies? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, it would be helpful to have a copy of that. Once again, Mr McCarron, thank you for producing a detailed portfolio of evidence and thank you for the patience and forbearance of waiting to the very end and being part of the overrunning schedule. That being the completion of all the evidence to be completed today, ladies and gentlemen, I propose to close today's proceedings and reconvene tomorrow morning at 10.00 o'clock.

146 Thank you very much for your participation.

(The Hearing concluded until Tuesday, 17th May 2011 at 10.00 am)

147