REPORT OF INSPECTOR

COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER NO. 1 OF 2005

&

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PROJECT FOR WHICH AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED

CAVAN COUNTY COUNCIL

N3 BUTLERS BRIDGE TO BELTURBET ROAD IMPROVEMENT SCHEME.

Billy Moore, BE, MSC, MBA Chartered Engineer 2 The Elms John’s Hill Waterford

6th. December 2005

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 CONTEXT 1.2 PUBLIC NOTICE EIS 1.3 PUBLIC NOTICE CPO

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

3.0 OBJECTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS

3.1 OBJECTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS IN RELATIION TO THE CPO 3.2 OBJECTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS IN RELATIION TO THE EIS

4.0 ORAL HEARING

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES

5.1 INTRODUCTION 5.2 NEED FOR PROJECT 5.3 SUITABILITY OF PROPOSED PROJECT 5.4 PLANNING ISSUES 5.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 5.6 KEY IMPACTS OF PROPOSED SCHEME 5.7 STATURORY PROCESS ISSUES

6.0 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ON COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPROVAL OF SCHEME IN RESPECT OF WHICH AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WAS PREPARED

APPENDIX A: LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT ORAL HEARING

APPENDIX B: PHOTOGRAPHS

2 INTRODUCTION

1.1. CONTEXT

This report relates to an application by Cavan County Council for confirmation of Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) Number 1 of 2005 and for approval of the road project, the N3 Butlers Bridge to Belturbet Road Improvement Scheme, in respect of which for which an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared.

Objections were received to the CPO and observations were received in relation to the EIS and an Oral Hearing was held from 20th September to 22nd September 2005 under Section 218 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 and under Section 50 of the Roads Act, 1993.

1.2. PUBLIC NOTICE – EIS.

The EIS was submitted to the Board as was date stamped 23rd June 2005. A copy of the EIS was made available for public inspection, from Thursday 2nd June to Wednesday 6th July 2005, in the Road Design Office of Cavan County Council, Farnham Street, Cavan. Copies of the EIS and the Non-Tribunal Summary were available for purchase for a fee of €100, and €5 respectively.

A public notice was placed in the Anglo-Celt, dated 2nd June 2005. The published notice indicated that written submissions may be made to An Bord Pleanala so as to reach the Board not later than 5.30pm on Friday 22nd July, 2005.

A copy of the EIS was submitted to the following prescribed bodies:

- Office of Public Works, Dublin - Bord Failte Eireann, Dublin - An Taisce, National Trust for Ireland, Dublin - An Comhairle Ealaoin, Dublin - The National Monuments Advisory Council, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government - Belturbet Town Council, Belturbet, Co Cavan - Natural Heritage, Environment & Heritage Service, N. I., Belfast.

In addition, copies of the notice and EIS were forwarded to the following for their information.

- Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Dublin - Northern Regional Fisheries Board, Ballyshannon, Co Donegal - National Roads Authority, Dublin - Waterways Ireland, Enniskillen, Co Fermanagh - Heritage Council, Kilkenny.

3

1.3. PUBLIC NOTICE – CPO

The Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) was made by Managers Order No 05/73R, dated Monday 30th May 2005.

A Form of Notice of the CPO was sent to the owners, lessees and occupiers affected by prepaid registered post on Monday 30th July 2005. A copy of the Non-Technical Summary of the EIS was included for information.

The Form of Notice stated that any objections to the order or extinguishment of public rights of way must state in writing the grounds of objection and be sent addressed to An Bord Pleanala so as to reach the Board no later than 5.30pm on Wednesday 13th July 2005.

A public notice was placed in the Anglo-Celt, dated 2nd June 2005. A copy of the order and the map referred to in it was made available for inspection at the Road Design Office, Cavan County Council, Farnham Street, Cavan.

4 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed N3 Butlers Bridge to Belturbet Road Improvement Scheme involves the construction of approximately 6.7 km of single carriageway road, including a by-pass of Belturbet Town.

The existing N3 from Butlers Bridge to Belturbet is narrow and the horizontal alignment is poor with several dangerous bends. The existing N3 will be reclassified as a regional or local road and will remain in place to serve local traffic once the proposed road scheme has been opened.

The proposed scheme passes through the townlands of Kilnaleck, Annagh, Aghnaguig, Cormacmullan, Drumalure Beg, Crahard, Bessbrook, Kilduff, Bun, Putiaghan Upper, Putiaghan Lower, Drumavaddy, Sraheglin and Kilconny. The general topography along the proposed route is characterised by drumlins and lakes.

The proposed scheme includes: - Five at–grade junctions with existing roads - A bridge crossing at Aghnaguig Beg - A bridge crossing of the River Erne.

The proposed N3 road improvement scheme is designed as a standard rural single carriageway road with a design speed of 100kph, comprising 2 number 3.65m carriageways, 2 number 2.5m wide hard shoulders and 2 number 3.0m wide verges. The proposed route passes through the lowland drumlin belt of County Cavan characterised by a network of low hills used for pasture and hollows with a range of wetland types including lakes, bogs, fen and wet woodland.

The southern end of the proposed scheme, which is shown in Figure Number C3157, and Figure 1.1 of Volume 1 of the EIS, dated May 2005, commences on the existing N3, approximately 1.8 km north of the village of Butlers Bridge, at the end of the completed Cavan By-pass Scheme. The proposed route then progresses northwards and deviates from the existing N3 for its entire length. The northern end of the scheme ends at the Staghall Roundabout, west of Belturbet Town, where it re-joins the N3. Minor modifications to the existing Staghall roundabout will be required to facilitate the tie-in of the proposed scheme with the existing N3.

Two major bridge structures are proposed. The River Erne crossing will be in the order of 133m in length. The bridge at Aghnaguig Bog will be a minimum of 109m in length. A number of farm underpasses will be incorporated where farm holdings are severed.

5 3.0 OBJECTIONS & SUBMISSIONS.

3.1. OBJECTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS IN RELATION TO THE CPO.

A total of 24 objections to the CPO were received by An Bord Pleanala, and these are listed below. During the course of the Oral Hearing a number of objections to the CPO were withdrawn and the main points of the objection from the remaining 3 objectors are summarised.

3.1.1. Agnes & Dennis Mc Caffrey (Plot No 117) - withdrawn.

3.1.2. Bernadette Ceelan & Others. This letter on behalf of the residents and frequent users of local roads L5527 and L5529 (i.e. Belturbet Lane, Stragheghin Lane, Putiaghan Lane and Bun Lane) objected to the extinguishment of rights-of-way. The letter of objection, with 150 signatures on an attached petition, was received by An Bord Pleanala on 12th July 2005.

3.1.3. Harold Clarke (Plot No 107) - withdrawn.

3.1.4. Ralph Dunne (Plot No 110) - withdrawn.

3.1.5. Robert Stronge (Plot No 109) - withdrawn.

3.1.6. Eugene & Eileen McCaffrey (Plot No 120) - withdrawn.

3.1.7. Kieran & Patricia McCaffrey (Plot No 118) - withdrawn.

3.1.8. James Fitzpatrick (Plot No 122) - withdrawn.

3.1.9. William Heaslip (Plot No 146) - withdrawn.

3.1.10. Celine & Melvyn Clarke (Plot No 108) - withdrawn.

3.1.11. Ian Dunne (Plot No 116) - withdrawn.

3.1.12. Kieran McGovern (Plot No 121) - withdrawn.

3.1.13. Janet Moore (Plot No 127) - withdrawn.

3.1.14. Lionel & Linda Johnston (Plot No 145) - withdrawn.

3.1.15. John & Gretti O’Hare (Plot No 115) - withdrawn.

3.1.16. Frank McCaffrey (Plot No 119) - withdrawn.

6 3.1.17. Patrick & Nuala O’Gorman (Plot No 126) - withdrawn.

3.1.18. Philip Fitzpatrick (Plot No 125) - withdrawn.

3.1.19. Damien McConnell (Plot No 123) - withdrawn.

3.1.20. Vincent Bartley (Plot No 104) - withdrawn.

3.1.21. Martin Donoghue (Plot No 138) - withdrawn.

3.1.22. Eugene Donoghue (Plot No 137) - withdrawn.

3.1.23. Sean Fitzpatrick. This letter, dated 12/7/05 and date stamped 13/7/05 objects to the closure of road L5527 and to the extinguishment of his right-of-way. He has been in the tourist business for the past 30 years and needs direct access to Putiaghan Lane by car and by foot and to bring boats to and from the lake.

3.1.24. Mr Denis Storey (Plot No 134). The letter of objection by Ned Nagle, on behalf of Mr Storey is dated 12/7/05 and is date stamped 12/7/05. The main grounds of objection are: - Inadequate schedule of accommodation works - Effect of road drainage design on lands - Access to retained lands and to served lands - Impact on farming system - Impact on dwelling house and farm buildings.

Given the objections in relation to the confirmation of the CPO, it was required to hold an Oral Hearing into the objections.

3.2. OBJECTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS IN RELATION TO THE EIS.

A total of 24 submissions were received by An Bord Pleanala in relation to the EIS, and these are listed below. The observations submitted to the Board in relation to the EIS were, in many cases, identical to the objections submitted in relation to the CPO. During the course of the Oral Hearing many of the objections to the CPO were withdrawn. The main additional points in the submissions relating to the EIS are summarised below.

3.2.1. Agnes & Dennis McCaffrey

3.2.2. Ian Lumley. The letter from Ian Lumley, on behalf of An Taisce, is dated 20/6/05 and is date stamped 21/6/05. The main points in the submission are:

7 - The proposed is not related to any integrated multi-model transport strategy and promotes car dependence with consequent environmental impact. - The EIS should be assessed for compliance with the requirements of the Directive. - Assessment is required in relation to impact on designated areas and Priority Habitats around the River Erne area, including consideration of alternatives. - Consideration is required to ensure that supply sources for sand gravel aggregates and other materials are fully identified.

3.2.3. Trustees of St Andrews Church.

3.2.4. Philip Fitzpatrick.

3.2.5. John & Gretti O’Hara.

3.2.6. Patrick & Nuala O’Connor.

3.2.7. Frank McCaffrey.

3.2.8. Lionel & Linda Johnston.

3.2.9. Kieran & Patricia McCaffrey.

3.2.10. James Fitzpatrick.

3.2.11. Damien McConnell.

3.2.12. Janet Moore.

3.2.13. William Heaslip.

3.2.14. Ian Dunne.

3.2.15. St Andrews Church.

3.2.16. Celine & Melvyn Clarke.

3.2.17. Harold Clarke.

3.2.18. Ralph Dunne.

3.2.19. Robert Stronge.

3.2.20. Eugene & Eileen McCaffrey.

8

3.2.21. Vincent Bartley.

3.2.22. Eugene Donoghue.

3.2.23. Kieran McGovern.

3.2.24. Mr Denis Storey. The letter of objection by Ned Nagle, on behalf of Mr Storey is dated 12/7/05 and is date stamped 12/7/05. The main grounds of objection are:

- Inadequate schedule of accommodation works - Effect of road drainage design on lands - Access to retired and to served lands - Impact on farming system - Impact on dwelling house and farm buildings.

3.2.25. Northern Regional Fisheries Board. This letter is dated 12/7/05 and is date stamped 14/7/05. The letter makes a number of observations, which are summarised hereunder:

- Lough Oughter and associated Loughs cSAC is of international ecological value and has an “A” rating according to the Habitats Directive. - It is imperative that access to all watercourses particularly Putiaghan Lough, be maintained and even enhanced (e.g. car parking, etc). - The bridge structures will require an EIS. No details of biological surveys in the immediate vicinity of the proposed temporary bailey bridge and permanent bridge at Chainage 6 + 500 to 6 + 600 have been provided. - A clear span is recommended for the River Erne crossing. No works should be conducted in the vicinity of the River Erne during the peak spawning period for salmonids between November and March inclusive. - The proposed mitigation concerns such as attenuation and pollution control are welcomed and should be adhered to. - The “minimal impact” suggested for the 1.8% reduction in the Aghnaguig wetland is questioned. - The use of a qualified environmental environmental scientist/ecologist to oversee ecological aspects of the scheme is mentioned. - The Board should be kept informed regarding further developments relating to the scheme.

3.2.26. Mr Peter Sweetman.

9 The letter is dated 13/7/05 and is date stamped 13/7/05. The letter submits that the EIS is inadequate with regard to nature conservation and landscape.

A fax/letter was received by the Board from the Development Applications Unit of the DEHLA on 26th/27th July 2005 in connection with the proposed scheme. As the final date for receipt of submissions was 22/7/05, the submission was deemed not capable of further consideration by the Board and it was accordingly returned.

Given the observations received the Board in relation to the approval of the road project in relation to which an EIS has been prepared, an Oral Hearing was held in relation to these observations, in conjunction with the Oral Hearing in relation to the CPO.

10 4.0 ORAL HEARING DAY 1 (20th September 2005)

4.1. INTRODUCTION.

The Oral Hearing in relation to Compulsory Purchase Order No 1 of 2005 and the Environmental Impact Statement, by Cavan County Council in respect of the N3 Butlers Bridge to Belturbet Road Improvement Scheme was held from 20th to 22nd September 2005 in the Cavan Crystal Hotel, Dublin Road, Cavan.

At the outset the Inspector outlined the context of the Oral Hearing in relation to:

- Objections to the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) - The application by Cavan County Council, for approval of the road project in respect of which an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared.

He explained that the Oral Hearing would be conducted without undue formality. He pointed out that he had inspected the area in question on 26th August 2005 and on 20th September 2005.

The Inspector pointed out that the Oral Hearing had two elements:

- The application by Cavan County Council to An Bord Pleanala for approval to the proposed road development for which an EIS has been prepared, under Section 50 of the Roads Act, 1993.

- The application by Cavan County Council for confirmation of the Compulsory Purchase Order, under Section 218 of the Planning & Development Act, 2000.

He pointed out that Section 175(7) of the Planning & Development Act, 2000 enabled the Oral Hearing of a CPO case to take place in parallel with an associated EIS approval application.

In response to the Inspectors enquiry in relation to appearances, Mr George Moloney, Solicitor (assisted by Jacqueline Moloney) indicated that the following would give evidence on behalf of the Council.

− Mike Evans, ARUP Consulting Engineers − Tara Spain, Cavan County Council − Sinead White, ARUP Menzies − Chris Dilworth, AWN Consultants − Siobhan Deery, Margaret Gowen & Co. − Jackie Jordan, Margaret Gowen & Co. − Craig Bullock, Optimize Consultants − John Bligh, Philip Farrelly & Co. − Thomas Byrnes, Brady Shipman Martin − Paul Quigley, ARUP Consulting Engineers

11 − Richard Nairn, Natura Environmental Consultants − Eileen McCarthy, Minirex

Mr Harvey Jones, of Martin & Rea, Agricultural Consultants, indicated that he was acting for a number of the objectors. He indicated that following appearances on behalf of the objectors:

− Brendan Fitzpatrick − Sean Fitzpatrick − Ned Nagle − Tom Corr − Peter Sweetman, representing An Taisce.

4.2. Case presented on behalf of Cavan County Council.

4.2.1. Mr. Mike Evans, Associated Director and Highways Group Leader, ARUP Consulting Engineers.

Mr Evans circulated a Brief of Evidence, the main points of which are summarised as follows:

He was the Project Manager/Engineer for the N3 Butlers Bridge to Belturbet Road Improvement Scheme. ARUP Consulting Engineers were appointed by Cavan County Council in 1995 for the following:

- Consideration of Constraints. - Development of Route Options and recommendation of a Preferred Route Option. - Preparation of Preliminary Design - Preparation of Environmental Impact Statement.

The N3 Butlers Bridge to Belturbet Road Improvement Scheme is included in the 1998 Road Needs Study prepared by the National Roads Authority, forms part of the transport objections of the National Development Plan 2000-2006 and Sustainable Development: A Strategy for Ireland, 1997, and is an objective of the Cavan County Development Plan 2003-2009.

The existing N3 from Butlers Bridge to Belturbet is characterised by sub- standard horizontal alignment with numerous dangerous bends. The current safe operating speed does not exceed 60kph. Belturbet town acts as a bottleneck to through traffic on the National Primary Route and traffic congestion is a regular experience in the town centre. Over 100 traffic accidents, including 8 fatalities have been recorded on the section of road from 1991 to 2004, including 2 fatalities in 2004. The EuroRAP 2005 report designated the section of road in question as a “medium risk road”.

12

The proposed scheme is required to address the deficiencies of the existing road network in order to facilitate inter-urban travel and local travel. The scheme is required to comply with policy objectives at national and local level, as outlined in various plans, including the National Road Needs Study, 1998; the National Development Plan 2000-2006; Cavan County Development Plan 2003-2009; and the National Spatial Strategy 2002- 2020. The scheme is required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate existing and future traffic volumes, to remove the traffic bottleneck in Belturbet, and to enhance safety on the national and local road networks. Traffic volumes on the existing N3 between Butlers Bridge and Belturbet were recorded as varying between approximately 5000 and 6000.

The initial study area for the scheme development was defined by the tie- in points at both ends at the Staghall Roundabout in Kilconny, west of Belturbet town, and at the existing N3 north of Butlers Bridge at Kilnaleck.

A number of design constraints were identified within the study area. These included the River Erne, the Erne Valley and the Lough Oughter system (a proposed natural heritage area), the rolling drumlin landscape which typifies the study area, and a range of old and modern residential and agricultural developments.

The Preliminary Report, titled “Environmental and Engineering Studies Preliminary Report, 1997” was completed by ARUP in June 1997. A number of route options were developed and evaluated in terms of engineering, traffic and economic performance and in terms of environmental impact on the surrounding area. This report recommended the adoption of route B/B3 as the preferred route for the scheme for a number of engineering, traffic, economic and environmental reasons. Duchas requested that Cavan County Council provide a detailed survey of the bog woodlands along the preferred route and an assessment of the impact of the proposed scheme on the wetland hydrology of the area.

These studies resulted in an Addendum Report in April 2001. This Report recommended a variation to the scheme, ‘Route B, alternative MEL 21/08/00’, which would have the least impact to the Aghnaguig Bog area north of Annagh Lough. The preferred route B/B3 was modified by local realignments, including local realignment CSK46 at Aghnaguig Bog, as indicated in Figure 3.2 of the EIS.

A number of alternative options were considered including:

- The “do-nothing “ option. This option was not considered further.

13 - The “do-minimum” option. This option was not considered further on traffic and safety grounds. - 4 alternative routes: - Route A, where impacts on existing residents would be relatively severe. - Route B, where impacts would include increased noise levels and resultant loss of amenity and tourism potential. - Route B/B3, with lower levels of environmental impact generally. - Route C, with severe ecological impact on wet broad-leaved woodland within the pNHA at Kilnaleck; high potential for pollution of lakes; and high visual impact and impact on residences

Route B/B3, with the modification of local realignment CSK46 at Aghnaguig Bog, has been selected as the preferred route and is the subject of the EIS.

Consultation for the scheme included non-statutory consultation with the public, consultation with landowners, consultation with interested bodies including the Department of the Environment, Heritage and local government, in addition to the formal consultations for the scheme.

The proposed road improvement scheme has been designed in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads & Bridges (DMRB) published by the National Roads Authority (NRA). The proposed cross section comprises 2 number 3.65m wide carriageways, 2 number 2.5m wide hard shoulders and 2 number 3.0m wide verges. The design speed is 100kph, matching the existing N3 sections to the north and south. Link roads to the existing N3 and to tie in with the N87 are designed as single carriageway roads with design speeds of 85kph. The design speed for other roads varies between 70 kph and 50 kph.

An alternative junction layout at Cormacmullan, located at approximately Chainage 2+350, as indicated on Figure 4.12 in Volume 1 of the EIS, was incorporated in the preferred scheme.

A number of at-grade junctions are proposed as part of the scheme, as shown on Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 of the EIS. Turning facilities will be provided on all cul-de-sacs formed as part of the scheme.

It is proposed to extinguish a number of public rights-of-way as part of the proposed road development, including the permanent extinguishment of public rights-of-way at 6 locations. At these locations pedestrian access will be maintained through the provision of footpaths.

A number of access roads will be provided for the use of landowners, in order to mitigate the effects of farm severance caused by the proposed

14 scheme. These proposed access roads are 4m wide with 1m verges and the location and extent of these access roads are shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.5.

Drainage works are proposed including culverts along the proposed road development. These are designed for a 1 in 100-year storm return period and a minimum culvert size of 900m is specified. Where the topography indicates that overland flows may be towards the proposed roads, interceptor ditches have been provided to collect these flows and discharge them to a suitable outfall. A road drainage system will be installed to provide surface water drainage from the new road pavement. In areas of high aquifer vulnerability and/or karst, a positive or sealed drainage system will be provided in order to prevent road runoff from percolating into the ground. Filter drains and catchpits are to be provided as a means of controlling grit and silt washed from the road surface at the upstream stages of the network.

Where the risk of groundwater pollution is high a combination of filter drains, to control the level of the water table in the pavement layers, and a positive drainage system to remove surface water from the road, is proposed.

Drainage will be provided for surface and sub-grade drainage for the proposed roadway with discharge to 10 road drainage outfalls. Class 1 Bypass Type Petrol Interceptors will be installed at these outfalls. Accidental spillage and silt containment measures will be incorporated downstream of the interceptors. These containment facilities will be lined in areas of high aquifer vulnerability. Attenuation ponds will be provided downstream of the spillage containment facilities. These will allow for the slow release of storm water, by using a low level outfall and a high level outfall in each case. An overflow facility will be provided to allow for extreme events (i.e. events with a return period of greater than 25 years). Culvert designs will allow for fish passage requirements and for mammal passage.

Two major bridge crossings are proposed; the bridge at Aghnaguig Bog will be a minimum of 109m in length and the River Erne crossing will be in the order of 133m in length. A temporary bridge will be required to facilitate construction of the latter. No works will be carried out adjacent to the River Erne between November and March inclusive to allow for the peak spawning periods for salmonids.

The extent of traffic route lighting will be determined at the detailed design phase. In the rural areas lighting fixtures will be fitted with fully cut-off flat glass type lanterns to limit light spillage beyond the road boundary.

15

Improvements to the existing N3 were not considered practical or adequate to accommodate the predicted traffic volumes. These include normal traffic growth, diverted traffic growth and other traffic components such as induced traffic.

An Origin-Destination survey, applied to a system of traffic zones was used for traffic modelling. The expansion factors outlined in RT 201 ‘Expansion Factors for Short record Counts’ published by An Foras Forbartha, 1978, were used. The AADT flow on the proposed N3 is predicted to be 12,512 in 2003, with an associated Level of Service D, as shown in Table 5.9 of the EIS. An analysis of the Staghall Roundabout and of the proposed N3 priority junction with the existing N3, at Butlers Bridge shows that both junctions will operate within capacity.

The reduction in traffic volumes in Belturbet town will reduce pedestrian and vehicle conflict and will improve the overall safety environment.

The construction works for the proposed scheme will take up to 36 months for completion. Temporary road closures and traffic divisions will be required at certain locations during the course of construction. Given that the amounts of material excavated and material deposited are in approximate balance, the need to remove earthwork material from the site or import material to the site is substantially reduced. Surplus excavated material may be used off site on other development projects, for capping and rehabilitation of nearby landfills or for remediation of quarries or borrow pits.

Measures will be incorporated into the scheme to ensure that suitable temporary accesses are provided to severed lands.

The lands to be acquired for the scheme, which are the subject of the Compulsory Purchase Order, are shown on Document No 5 submitted at the Oral Hearing ( Drawings N3-DEP-01 to N3-DEP-05) and described in the Schedule, Part II of the CPO. These describe lands that are to be permanently and temporarily acquired as follows:

- Agricultural land approximately 59 Ha - Land for residences approximately 1 Ha - Public/private roadway approximately 4 Ha

1 dwelling (CPO Reference No 124) is included in the CPO.

Mr Evans circulated an Errata Document (Document Number 3), dated 20th September 2005, to the Environmental Impact Statement. This includes amendments to the CPO Schedule, which provide for the removal

16 of the following Plot Nos. 107a.106, 107b.104, 107b.105, 109a.102 and 109a.104.

4.2.2. Ms. Tara Spain, Senior Planner, Cavan County Council.

Ms. Spain circulated a Brief of Evidence, the main points of which are summarised as follows:

She commented specifically on the Scheme from a planning perspective in relation to the relevant planning objections at national, regional and local levels.

Sustainable Development – A Strategy for Ireland 1997: This document states: “Addressing transport deficiencies and costs are of critical importance to meeting the objectives of government policy regarding the growth and equitable distribution of income, facilitated by increased opportunity and mobility for economic development.”

National Development Plan 2000 – 2006: The Plan makes reference to Ireland’s infrastructure deficit including sections of the National Road network. The Plan makes specific reference to the policy objective of carrying out improvements to the N3 (Dublin/Belturbet/Enniskillen/Derry) route.

National Spatial Strategy 2002 – 2020. The N3 is indicated as a strategic radial corridor (Dublin to Enniskillen) and the NSS recommends implementation of the road investment programme under the NDP as a key element in enhancing regional accessibility and thereby underpinning better regional development.

Regional Planning Guidelines for the Border Region, 2004: The proposed scheme is consistent with the Guidelines by facilitating better transportation through international, intra-regional and inter- regional links, supporting the development of the Cavan links (NSS), and the strengthening of the network of towns and villages, which the proposed scheme will facilitate.

County Cavan Development Plan 2003 – 2009. Schedule 7 of the Plan (page 107) specifically refers to the scheme as one of the National Primary Roads Development Objectives: ‘The proposed 7km road realignment from North of Butlers Bridge to Staghall’. The Designated Local Area Town Plan for Belturbet contains the following specific objectives:

- To secure the development of the N3 link between Belturbet and Butlers Bridge.

17 - To complete upgrading of all local traffic link roads to the re- developed N3 route.

MS Spain concluded that the N3 Butlers Bridge to Belturbet Road Improvement Scheme was in accordance with national, regional and local policies and was in the interests of the proper planning and sustainable development of County Cavan.

4.2.3. Mrs Sinead Whyte, Associate, Arup Menzies, Environmental Consultancy.

Ms Whyte circulated a Brief of Evidence, the main points of which are summarised as follows:

Arup Menzies was commissioned to conduct a detailed assessment of the air quality impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed scheme.

The baseline air quality monitoring of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons, indicate that the area currently experiences good air quality.

The impact of traffic-derived emissions from the proposed scheme on ambient air quality was assessed using the UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) screening model for the years 2008 and 2023. The assessment showed that the predicted ambient air concentrations were below the relevant limit values with the proposed road development in place. The impact of the scheme on greenhouse gases will amount to an increase of 0.009% of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is not considered significant.

The levels of dust emissions generated by road construction works will be monitored using Bergerhoff Gauges or similar.

4.2.4. Mr Chris Dilworth, Director with responsibility for Noise and Vibration with AWN Consulting.

Mr Dilworth circulated a Brief of Evidence dealing with Noise and Vibration Issues, the main points of which are summarised as follows:

AWN Consulting carried out an appraisal of the noise and vibration impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed scheme. The NRA document ‘Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National Schemes’, published in 2005 was followed and a proprietary software package for predicting noise levels was used.

18 The predicted noise values at noise sensitive locations, for the “worst case” scenario are within the most stringent criteria in the NRA Guidelines. Predicted traffic noise levels indicate levels greater than the target criterion at nine of the receiver locations for the design year 2023.

Ground vibrations produced by road traffic are unlikely to cause perceptible structural vibration in properties. Mr Dilworth outlined a number of typical control and compliance measures as mitigation measures for noise and vibration. Noise barriers are required at nine of the receiver locations. Mr Dilworth indicated that the resultant predicted noise levels, with the specified mitigation measures in place, are in compliance with the NRA Guidelines and he did not envisage that vibration would be of significance once the development is operational.

4.2.5. Ms Siobhan Deery, Senior Archaeologist, Margaret Gowen & Co. Ltd. Archaeological Consultants.

Ms Deery circulated a Brief of Evidence dealing with archaeology and cultural heritage, the main points of which are summarised as follows:

Ms Deery carried out an archaeological and cultural impact assessment on the proposed scheme. This included a review of all published and publicly available documentation, together with an inspection of the entire length of the proposed road by two experienced archaeologists in July 2001 and September 2004.

The proposed route has a direct impact on the location of a stone sculpture (Site 101 as referred in Section 10.3.4 of the EIS), which dates to approximately 1825 -1850. The sculpture was unlawfully removed to a nearby location. In addition, a number of areas of high archaeological potential were identified in relation to proximity to recorded monuments, recorded stray find locations, wetland/ lacustrine environments (e.g. Lough Annagh and Lough Putiaghan), and to low lying archaeological features identified by field inspection or aerial photography.

Ms Deery listed a number of mitigation measures including the relocation of the stone sculpture (ID1), an underwater archaeological assessment in the vicinity of the proposed temporary bridge crossing for the River Erne, archaeological test excavation throughout the land acquisition area of the proposed development in the areas of archaeological and cultural heritage potential, monitoring of soil stripping or ground preparation work by a suitably qualified archaeologist in areas not comprehensively tested, and either preservation in-situ or preservation by record.

Ms Deery indicated that a Project Archaeologist had been appointed for the proposed scheme.

19

4.2.6. Ms Jackie Jordan, Architectural Heritage Consultant, Margaret Gowen & Company Ltd., Archaeological Consultants.

Ms Jordan circulated a Brief of Evidence dealing with architectural heritage, the main points of which are summarised as follows:

She carried out an architectural heritage impact assessment for the proposed scheme. This was based on a desk study of available documents, combined with a comprehensive inspection of the land acquisition area, carried out in September 2004.

One structure lies in the path of the proposed scheme and is scheduled for removal. This is a small stone bridge at Kilnaleck and Annagh, which is of local architectural heritage merit. (Ref. No. 26, Section 11.52, Volume 1, EIS).

It is recommended that a survey of the bridge, prior to its removal be undertaken in order to provide “a record of the past”.

In relation to the properties whose boundaries or entrances will be affected by the proposed scheme, the archaeological heritage impact is not considered significant and mitigation is not considered necessary.

4.2.7. Mr Craig Bullock, Optimize Consultants.

Mr Bullock circulated a Brief of Evidence dealing with community impacts, the main points of which are summarised as follows:

Mr Bullock was appointed by Arup Consulting Engineers to examine the impacts of the proposed scheme on the social and economic functioning of the local community. The assessment was undertaken in line with the ‘Advice Notes on Current Practice in the Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements (2003)’ and the ‘Guidelines on the Information to be Contained In Environmental Impact Statements (2002)’, published by the EPA, and also with the ‘Guidelines on Community Effects’ in the UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), updated 2000.

The assessment was based on background research, combined with local observation and consultation with various parties.

The proposed scheme will facilitate continued economic growth by providing an important strategic transport connection in the Border region.

20 Belturbet town has a population of just under 1,300 persons and the area around Belturbet is lightly populated with settlement largely represented by isolated houses and farms.

The key community impacts of the proposed road improvement scheme are:

- Shorter journey times and reduced road hazard. - Reduced levels of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV’s) on the existing N3 through Belturbet with consequent reduced congestion in the town. - Loss of direct link to Belturbet for residents in Putiaghan Lane at Chainage 5+900. - In terms of community severance, there should be a reduction in severance along the existing N3 in Kilconny And along the N54 - Improved cohesion between the two halves of Belturbet - Safer access in the area of Armagh Lough - Negative impact due to the loss of passing trade to petrol stations, cafes and grocery stores in the town. - Improved access to town Cavan and an improved environment in the town centre of Belturbet.

Mr Bullock listed a number of recommended mitigation measures including provision of gated access for cyclists and pedestrians to the severed lanes at Chainages 5 +900 and 2 +800, in order to maintain amenity benefits and minimise car dependence. In addition, efforts should be made to minimise the amount of construction traffic passing through Belturbet by providing access along the new alignment where possible.

On balance, Mr Bullock concluded that the overall impact of the road at both regional and local level is positive allowing for the recommended mitigation measures.

At this point, Mr Evans circulated an Amended Errata (Document Number 12 submitted at the Oral Hearing) to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

4.2.8. Mr Thomas Burns, Landscape Architect and Partner, Brady, Shipman Martin.

Mr Burns circulated a Brief of Evidence dealing with landscape and visual aspects, the main points of which are summarised as follows:

The methodology used to carry out the landscape and visual impact assessment had regard to the EPA Guidelines and Advice Notes on EIS.

21 The landscape is characterised by small to medium farms located on the typically low and rolling relief of the drumlin belt: - Strong tree-lined hedgerows, small areas of woodland and interspersed with rivers and lakes.

The proposed route cuts through dense landscape features including a number of drumlins, areas of wet woodland and scrub, agricultural land, along the shore of Putiaghan Lough, an elevated saddle between two drumlins at Straheglin, and the River Erne in a relatively open setting.

No area identified in the ‘Inventory of Outstanding Landscapes in Ireland, An Foras Forbatha, 1977, lies within the vicinity of the proposed route.

Potentially significant landscape and visual impacts arise from tree and hedgerow removal, from general construction disturbance, from embankments and other structures such as bridges and noise barriers, from lighting at junctions and from traffic during operation.

The Cavan County Development Plan 2003 – 2009 lists the protection of open views at Armagh Lake - Scenic View Point (SV9).

The deep cuttings at Armagh Hill (Chainage 1 +200 to 1 +500) and at Aghnaguig Hill (Chainage 1 +900 to 2 + 200) will result in a permanent change within the local drumlin character.

The construction of the road will result in a locally significant impact along approximately 500m of the River Erne (Chainage 3 +900 to 4 +400). The intrusion of the road will permanently alter the remote character of this section of the river leading to an initial perceived loss of overall landscape quality. The loss of woodland and the intrusion of the proposed road at Putiaghan Lough (Chainage 4 +800 to 5 +100) will be particularly significant. The three-span bridge across the River Erne will impact on views up and down river but the structure has sufficient individualistic character to become a local feature for this section of the River Erne.

Some 81 properties were identified along the proposed route as having potential for some degree of visual impact (Table 9.4, Volume 1, EIS). 13 properties will have profound negative construction impact and 5 properties will have significant negative construction impact. In the medium to longer term it is considered that 6 properties will have significant negative impact while 3 properties will continue to have profound negative impact.

The most significant visual impacts arise at properties no 35, 39 and 40 on Figure 9.3, Volume 1, EIS.

22

Two high noise mitigation barriers will give rise to increased visual intrusion and a sense of enclosure on the inspected properties (Figures 7.2.2 and 7.2.3, Volume 1, EIS).

General landscape measures will be applied over the entire scheme as a general mitigation measure in relation to landscape and visual impact. Species selected for tree, shrub and hedge planting will generally be of nature species including alder, ash, birch, blackthorn, hawthorn, hazel, holly, oak, scots pine and willow.

Specific mitigation measures, as outlined in Figure 9.5.3 of Volume1, EIS include protection and retention of mature oak planting to the east of the existing and proposed N3; measures to minimise disturbance on the area of wet woodland (Chainage 1 + 200 to 2 + 200); planting in the vicinity of residential properties; planting of road embankments on the approaches to the River Erne crossing (Chainage 5 + 900 to 6 + 800); and planting on the Southwest side of the route (from Chainage 6 + 750 to the end of the scheme) to visually screen St Mary’s Church and graveyard.

4.2.9. Mr Paul Quigley, Geotechnical Engineer, Arup Consulting Engineers.

Mr Quigley circulated a Brief of Evidence dealing with geotechnical aspects, the main points of which are summarised as follows:

The assessment is based on a desk study of available information, together with the findings of a preliminary site investigation consisting of boreholes, cores, laboratory testing, probing, visual inspections and reconnaissance.

The underlying bedrock of the area consists of turbidic deposits of shales, sandstones and siltstones of the Coronea Formation in the area round Butlers Bridge. Towards Belturbet the bedrock moves into calcareous sanstones, shales and limestones known as the Monaghan succession.

In relation to overburden, the principal soil types are glacial tills, glacial and glacio-fluvial sands and gravels, and some alluvial and peat deposits that lie at or near the surface, often in low lying areas.

There will be an overall shortfall of material from cuttings and excavations that would be suitable for use on embankments as a general fill. All suitable excavated material will be used within fill sections of the route.

In areas where soft soils are present suitable embankment designs and construction techniques will be required. These may include complete

23 excavation of the soft material or the use of piles, piled rafts, preloading or the use of lightweight fill.

Suitable drainage measures may be required where there is a risk of seepage through glacial and fluvio-glacial deposits.

In response to the Inspector, Mr Evans, for the Council, clarified that there was no indication that blasting would be required.

Mr Quigley concluded that while there were likely to be a number of residual impacts, there were no major geotechnical impacts in relation to the scheme.

24 DAY 2 OF ORAL HEARING ( 21ST September 2005)

4.2.10. Mr John Bligh, Senior Agricultural Consultant, Philip Farrelly & Partners, Agricultural Consultants.

Mr Bligh circulated a Brief of Evidence dealing with the impact of the proposed scheme on agriculture, the main points of which are summarised as follows:

25 farms are directly affected by the proposed scheme and the impact was assessed in each case.

The farms were categorised according to a number of criteria and a summary of individual farm assessments is contained in Table 12.6, Volume 1, EIS.

Table 12.2, Volume 1, EIS categorises the level of impact on farms in relation to various criteria. From the above, on 1 farm, the agricultural impact is classified as “severe” and on 5 farms the impact is classified as “moderate”. Following recommended mitigation measures, the overall residual impact would be severe on one farm, major on one farm and moderate on 11 farms.

Mr Bligh concluded that the impact of the scheme would be felt by individual farmers and farm units rather than nationally or regionally. The area of land being acquired for the road is insignificant in terms of the agricultural area in County Cavan.

Mr Bligh circulated an Addendum to the Brief, which added the impact on Plot 146 at Cormacmullen, due to the adoption of the alternative access layout. The impact is classified as minor. In addition, Mr Bligh revised the impact on Plot 110 upwards from minor to moderate.

4.2.11. Mr Richard Nairn, Chartered Environmentalist and Managing Director, Natura Environmental Consultants Ltd.

Mr Nairn circulated a Brief of Evidence dealing with impact on ecology (i.e. flora and fauna), the main points of which are summarised as follows:

The assessment was based on a desk study, on high-resolution aerial photographs and on field surveys carried out in June 2001 and February 2004. Habitats were classified using the Heritage Council publication ‘A Guide to Habitats in Ireland (2000). Consultation took place with the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) and the Northern Regional Fisheries Board (NRFB). The water quality of a tributary of the River Erne was assessed and a Biological Quality index (Q value) was assigned

25 to each site sampled. The water chemistry of four lakes was analysed for some hydrochemical parameters. Ecological sites were evaluated on the basis of the criteria described in the ‘NRA Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of National Road Schemes’.

The route crosses the designated area called the Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC), which has statutory protection under the EU Habitats Directive. The area is also a designated Natural Heritage Area (NHA) and part of it is a Special Protection Area (SPA) for birds under the EU Birds Directive. Approximately 1.4km of the route will traverse parts of the cSAC. The cSAC includes two types of habitats listed, in Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive. These are “Natural Eutrophic Lakes” such as Annagh Lough and “Bog Woodland”. The latter is a Priority Annex 1 Habitat. Maintaining the conservation status of the Annex 1 Habitats is a requirement of the Habitats Directive. Other, undesignated areas of ecological value affected by the proposed route are referred to as ecological sites. Three such sites are affected by the proposed scheme and there are stated as of moderate to high local ecological value.

Mammal and bird species are typical of the habitats represented along the route and no nationally rare species was recorded. An active badger sett was recorded at Chainage 5 + 650.

Data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicates that the River Erne is moderately polluted. Chemical analysis of the lakes indicates that they are slightly alkaline with high conductivity.

A total of 4.26ha of wetland habitats will be removed within the cSAC. This constitutes a severe negative impact. There will be no direct impacts on Annex 1 Habitats.

At Aghnaguig (Chainage 1 + 600 to 1 + 800), the proposed route will traverse the southwestern lane of a peat-filled inter-drumlin depression with a mosaic of wetland habitats which includes an area of “Bog woodland” habitat, which is listed as a Priority Habitat on Annex 1 of the EU Habitats Directive. There will be no impact on the Bog Woodland Habitat (Area WN7, Fig 17.2, Volume 1, EIS) although there will be some impact on adjacent woodland habitats (e.g. wet willow alder-ash woodland, WN6, Fig 17.2). The Annex 1 Priority Habitat is shown as Area PF2 and is the hatched area coloured mauve on Figure 17.2, Volume 1, EIS. This area is within the area shaded green that comprises Bog Woodland WN7. The remainder of Bog Woodland area WN7 is not an Annex 1 Priority Habitat. Subject to the mitigation resources in the hydrology section of the EIS, there will be no adverse impact on the integrity of the cSAC.

26

There will be adverse impacts on other ecological sites along the route due to the construction and operation of the proposed route. There will be a major negative impact on a Wet Willow Alder-ash Woodland at Bessbrook, at Chainage 2 + 610 to 2 +880 (Area WN6, Figure 17.3, Volume 1, EIS).

The proposed road has been designated to avoid as many impacts on the Lough Oughter system as possible. During the EIS process sections of the route at Aghnaguig (Chainage 1 + 600 to 1 + 800) were realigned in 2004 to minimise impacts on a mosaic of wetland habitats. There will be no direct impacts on the area of bog woodland, which will be bridged.

A number of specific and general mitigation measures are proposed, which include; for example:

- Bridging the road at Aghnaguig (Chainage 1 + 600 to 1 + 700) - Instream works and the installation of a bailey bridge at the River Erne crossing to take place between June and September, which is outside the salmonid breeding season. - A qualified ecologist will be engaged to liaise with the contractor with regard to implementing the ecological mitigation measures, in particular for the bridge at Aghnaguig. - To compensate for the loss of wetland habitats at Aghnaguig (Chainage 1 + 600 to 1 + 800) an existing conifer plantation within this wetland complex will be purchased and clearfelled, to enable this area to be restored to a wetland habitat. - New areas of semi-natural habitat will be created (Table 17.12, Volume 1, EIS). - Where feasible, no removal of hedgerows or trees during the months March to June inclusive to avoid impacts on breeding birds. - Siltation/retention ponds, silt traps, bunds and hydrocarbon and grit interceptors shall be used to minimise contamination of water bodies. - Attenuation ponds (i.e. storage ponds) will be installed at appropriate sections along the route.

Mr Nairn concluded that there will be some residual impacts at a number of ecological sites. There will be a severe negative impact on the Lough Oughter System cSAC due to the loss of 4.26Ha of semi-natural habitat. This will be mitigated by the purchase of lands for habitat compensation. Provided there are no permanent indirect impacts on the hydrology of the lakes, the River Erne and the Bog Woodland Priority Annex 1 Habitat at Aghnaguig, there will be no permanent adverse impact on the overall integrity of the cSAC. The major negative impact at Bessbrook caused by the loss of wet woodland will be reduced over time by compensatory planting. There will be disturbance to fauna (hedges, other mammals,

27 bats, fish, etc) during construction of the scheme but provided the mitigation measures are implemented, these impacts will be of temporary duration only.

4.2.12. Ms Eileen McCarthy, Hydrogeologist and Director, Minirex Environmental Limited.

Ms McCarthy circulated a Brief of Evidence dealing with hydrogeological impact assessment of the proposed scheme on Aghnaguig Bog wetland, the main points of which are summarised as follows:

Minirex carried out a detailed assessment of the potential hydrogeological impact of the proposed scheme on Aghnaguig Bog wetland. This was necessary because of the proximity of the proposed scheme to the Annex 1 Habitat, which has the potential to be sensitive to changes in the hydrological regime.

The Aghnaguig Bog woodland and wetlands catchment is outlined in Fig 16.1 of Volume 1 of the EIS. The wetland area is 33 ha and accounts for 20% of the total catchment area. The Annex 1 Priority Habitat is approximately 5ha and accounts for 3% of the total catchment area.

The bedrock geology consists of green greywackes, red shales and minor spilitic lavas of the Coronea Formation. The subsoils geology is composed of predominantly boulder clay and peat is recorded at certain locations.

Eleven drains have been identified within the water catchment of Aghnaguig Bog woodland and wetlands. Drain D6 drains a spring and the central wetland into D1, which circumnavigates the wetlands area (Appendix D1 Figure in Appendix A.12, Volume 2, EIS).

A number of springs have been mapped in the study area. Springs S1, S2 and S5 are the most significant springs and these are shown on Figure Appendix D1 in Appendix A.12 of Volume 2, EIS.

An extensive groundwater and surface monitoring network has been used to provide temporal and factual data on water levels and water chemistry. The areas of sphagnum Growth are consistent with the Central Basin and the Southeastern Basin (Figure Appendix E1 in Appendix A.13 of Volume 2, EIS).

Predicted impacts of the proposed scheme relate to:

- Groundwater dewatering by cuts. These cuts should not have a significant impact on Aghnaguig Bog Wetland.

28

- Groundwater division by fills. Potentially significant hydraulic impacts could result from Fill 2 in particular (Chainage 1 + 560 to 1 + 840).

- Construction of Fill 2 and the proposed bridge structure at Aghnaguig Bog. Most of Fill 2 will be piled. The Annex 1 Priority Habitat occurs downstream of the bridge structure and Fill 2b (Chainage 1 + 700 to 1 + 830). The construction of Fill 2 and the associated bridge structure is identified as a potential major significant impact on the hydrology of the central basin including the priority habitats. This impact can be mitigated by modification of engineering design along the length of Fill 2, as outlined in Section 16.5.2 of Volume 1 of the EIS.

- Aquifer compression and reduction in storage/permeability. The bedrock that underlies the site is a poor aquifer that is able to handle bearing stresses of the proposed road. There will be no negative impact on aquifer permeability or storage.

- Groundwater hydrochemical changes by cuts and fills. Mitigation measures are proposed in Section 16.5.4 of Volume 1 of the EIS in this regard.

- Local Road Realignments within the catchment of Aghnaguig Bog. These local access roads will not have a significant impact on Aghnaguig Bog woodland and wetlands.

- Reduction in wetland catchment and groundwater recharge. The 2% reduction in the Aghnaguig Bog hydrological catchment caused by the scheme is not considered significant in terms of water balance to impact net water levels and storage.

- Storm runoff from the hard surface of the road. This has the potential to be a negative impact on the wetland.

- Accidental road spillages. This is identified as a potential impact on Aghnaguig Bog woodland and wetlands.

Mitigation measures are identified in relation to the predicted impacts on the hydrogeology of the area arising from the proposed road scheme. These are contained in Section 16.5, Volume 1 of the EIS. In particular, the groundworks phase of the construction of fill 2 (Chainage 1 + 500 to 1 + 840) should be monitored by both a geotechnical engineer and a wetland hydrogeologist in order to manage and monitor the mitigation measures. It is recommended that a closed drainage system be installed along the

29 length of wetland between Chainage 0 + 800 to 2 + 200, to prevent any leakage of potential contaminants into the groundwater that may eventually discharge to the wetland.

The recharge catchment to Aghnaguig Bog woodland and wetlands will be reduced by 1.8%. With the mitigation measures outlined in Section 16.5 of the EIS, there will not be any significant negative residual impacts on Aghnaguig Bog woodland and wetlands.

Mr Evans, for the Council, circulated Document Number 19, a letter dated 3rd August 2005 from Aoife O’Shea, Development Applications Unit, Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government. The letter requests further information on sub-surface flow patterns and the type, location and depth of piling in and adjacent to the wetland area (at Aghnaguig Bog). The letter suggests that mitigation measures to be employed at the construction stage should be agreed between the scheme promoters and the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) in order to protect the existing Annex 1 Priority Habitat.

4.2.13. The Inspector cross-examined Mr Evans, for the Council whose replies are summarised as follows:

- The decision to incorporate Route CSK46 was taken in November 2004.

- The date for submissions to An Bord Pleanala regarding the EIS was up to Friday 22nd July 2005.

4.2.14. The Inspector questioned Ms Spain, for the Council whose replies may be summarised as follows:

- The Cavan County Development Plan 2003 – 2009 was adopted in March 2003 and the Belturbet Local Area Plan is integral to and part of the County Development Plan.

4.2.15. The Inspector resumed his questioning of Mr Evans:

- The proposed provision of footpaths is described in Section 4.4.7 of the EIS.

- He would arrange drawings showing the proposed provision of footpaths marked on Figures 4.1 to 4.5.

- The scheme may be advanced as a Design/Build type contract. This is mentioned in Section 4.2 of Volume 1 of the EIS. The Employer’s Requirements include the EIS and any conditions attached to any of

30 the statutory approvals for the scheme. Where the contractor proposed to depart to a significant extent from the specimen design, a revised EIS would be required. To his knowledge, the determination of whether or not a revised EIS is required, is determined by An Bord Pleanala.

- The dimensions of the proposed underpass at Chainage 7 + 100 will match the dimensions of the existing underpass at that location.

- The term ‘environmental fencing’ is used where fencing is being applied to perform an environmental role such as noise barriers or badger-proof fencing.

- The mitigation measures in relation to dust impact during construction are summarised Chapter 20 of Volume 1 of the EIS. They are referenced in Section 20.4.1 under Air Quality. Levels of dust deposition recorded on Bergerhoff Gauges will be compared to the German TA Luft standard of 350 mg/m2/day of dust deposition. Such gauges are subject to interference and need to be appropriately located.

4.2.16. The Inspector cross-examined Ms Deery, for the Council, whose replies can be summarised as follows:

- The appointment of a Project Archaeologist will ensure that the mitigation measures are carried out in accordance with best practice. The mitigation measures are listed in Section 10.5.3 of Volume 1 of the EIS. The measures include blanket centreline testing of the entire route.

- The Project Archaeologist for the scheme is Mr Niall Roycroft and he is employed by Cavan County Council.

- Sites encountered are fully recorded in situ. If sites are found to be of significance then preservation in situ is usually recommended. This involves recording and subsequent covering up of the site. Relocation of an archaeological site was another option.

4.2.17. The Inspector questioned Mr Quigley, for the Council, whose replies can be summarised as follows:

- Approximately 20,000 m3 of peat is likely to excavated, subject to detailed site investigations. Some of this excavated material will be disposed of off-site, in landfills, or other development projects or in quarries.

31 4.2.18. The Inspector resumed his questioning of Mr Evans whose replies can be summarised as follows:

- Responsibility for risk management in relation to excavated peat material resides with the contractor. Those types of issues should be covered by project Health and Safety procedures (e.g. Project Supervisor Design Stage and Project Supervisor Construction Stage procedures). He was in a position to give a commitment that the issue of managing excavated peat material would be addressed in the Health & Safety Plan for the project.

- There is no direct evidence of rock and there is no expectation that rock will be encountered. The option of blasting rock remains a possibility.

4.2.19. The Inspector questioned Mr Dilworth, for the Council, whose replies can be summarised as follows:

- Where rock blasting was required, standard procedures would typically be followed in setting limits for peak pressure for noise levels and for vibration limits. These include the NRA ‘Guidelines for Treatment of Noise and Vibration on National Road Schemes’. Such limits are reproduced in Table 7.14 of Volume 1 of the EIS.

- Where a vibration monitor is not set to differentiate between the frequencies of vibration, the lower figure for peak particle velocity is taken (i.e. 8mm/s).

4.2.20. The Inspector resumed his questioning of Mr Evans, whose replies can be summarised as follows:

- The original design at Cormacmullen as shown on Fig 4.2 of Volume 1, EIS. The revised layout and the current proposed scheme is shown on Fig 4.12. The lands required for both options was included in the CPO. They were now requesting the removal of certain plots, as per the Errata Sheet circulated, from the CPO.

4.2.21. The Inspector then cross-examined Mr Nairn whose replies can be summarised as follows:

- The sites referred to as “ecological sites” are located outside the cSACs.

4.2.22. The Inspector resumed his questioning of Mr Evans, whose replies can be summarised as follows:

32 - Where the depth of peat is shallow, (i.e. 1 to 2m), the peat is generally removed and replaced.

4.2.23. Mr Peter Sweetman, representing An Taisce, cross-examined Ms Spain and Mr Nairn for the Council, whose replies can be summarised as follows:

- Ms Spain – The Development Plan states that The Planning Authority shall submit all development in Special Areas of Conservation to rigorous assessment. Development that may detract from the intrinsic value of the site will not be allowed.

Ms Spain had signed a certificate to date that the proposed scheme complied with the County Development Plan. In her opinion the proposal complied with the County Development Plan. If a development detracted from the intrinsic value of a Priority Habitat, it would not be allowed.

In relation to how she assessed whether or not the proposed development may detract from the intrinsic value of the site, she analysed the EIS in this regard. An application for development within a cSAC would be vigorously assessed in relation to whether it detracted from the intrinsic value of the site.

- Mr Nairn – The meeting with the National Parks & Wildlife Service (NPWS) referred to in the letter from the Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG), dated 3rd August 2005, did not take place.

4.2.24. Mr Ned Nagle, on behalf of Mr Denis Storey made a submission to the Oral Hearing.

Mr Storey has approximately 58 acres of land of which it is proposed to take 10 acres. On the house side of the proposed road, an area approximately 5 metres wide is proposed for planting and on the severed lands side, the area proposed for planting is 10 metres wide. These widths, which account for approximately 2 acres, are totally unnecessary.

There is a further problem in relation to access for farm machinery, associated with the proposed underpass beside the farmyard to link into the existing underpass beside the roundabout. An access should be provided across the proposed new road. Gates should be provided at around Chainage 6 + 800 to 6 + 900 to ease the management of the farm.

The existing underpass is approximately 3.8m by 3.8m, with an entrance gradient of about 1 in 10. It is not possible to get machinery through this.

33 Many underpasses across the county are 4.5 to 4.75m high and between 4.5 and 5m wide.

It should be possible to provide an access across the proposed new road between Chainage 6 + 800 and 6 + 900 given that the level of the proposed road and the existing round level are “at grade”.

Mr Evans responded by stating that it was not intended that the proposed underpass accommodate machinery access. He acknowledges that the access provided underneath the River Erne Bridge was at a location which is less suitable for the operational aspects of the farm.

One of the design objectives for the scheme was to restrict the number of road accesses, in the interests of road safety. There is an alternative access provided at the River Erne Bridge.

The narrow plots at each side of the proposed road are required for construction purposes and also for landscaping purposes. These plots include 134b.107; 134b.106; 134b.108; 134b.105; 134b.104 and 134a.102.

In response to the Inspector, Mr Evans stated that the strip of land on the western side was wider as there was a requirement for more dense planting. Because this strip was wider it was chosen for construction access purposes.

Mr Nagel commented that agreement had been reached with Cavan County Council that the wedge areas at the river in plots 134b.106 and 134b.107 would be given back to Mr Storey. In his opinion the strip areas alongside the road were surplus to requirements.

4.2.25. Mr Sweetman resumed his cross-examination of Mr Evans and Mr Bullock for the Council. Their replies are summarised as follows:

Mr Evans – Figure C3167, part of Document Number 21, shows the details of what is proposed where the proposed N3 intersects with the existing L5527, Putiaghan Road. Currently residents along Putiaghan Road, south of the proposed road, access Belturbet via county road L5527. It is proposed that this road will be cul-de-sac’d and a hammerhead turning area provided on the Belturbet side and a direct pedestrian/cyclist access provided at the new road. Vehicular access from Putiaghan Road, which is South of the proposed N3, is provided at the Northern (i.e. Western) and Southern (i.e. Eastern) ends of the road. However, the roads to the East (i.e. North) of the proposed scheme will be closed.

The Putiaghan road access to Belturbet is substandard. Two cars would have difficulty passing. The junction of this road with the existing N3 is

34 not optimal. It was decided that the best option was to prevent direct access to this road (i.e. L5527) for vehicular traffic.

Mr Bullock – The impacts of the scheme on Putiaghan Upper and on Putiaghan Lower, and the issue of severance is referred to in the EIS.

Mr Evans – At the location of the junction with Putiaghan road, at Chainage 5 + 900, the proposed N3 is on a 2 to 3m high embankment. A clearance of approximately 0.75m is required for road construction, leaving between 1.25m and 2m of embankment.

A number of design options were considered at this junction:

- A grade separated junction. This would not normally be used in such a situation.

- An at-grade junction. It was decided not to allow vehicular access to prevent the minor road being used for “rat-running”.

- Pedestrian underbridge. Such facilities are not generally used as people do not like to travel through them.

- Pedestrian at-grade access. This is the general approach taken in dealing with pedestrians on a road with this level of traffic.

Under the proposed arrangement, pedestrians would walk up the left-hand shoulder of the new, relatively flat access road to the proposed N3. They would then cross the N3, a busy National Primary Road, to the pedestrian link on to Putiaghan Road on the far side. This would be a ‘non-gated’ access sufficiently wide and with a grade suitable for pedestrians and cyclists to comfortably make their manoeuvre.

The AADT traffic on the N3 will be about 10,000 to 11,000 in the year 2023. A choice had to be made between the acknowledged community severance issue and overall road safety.

Ms Bernadette Ceelan stated that she lived in Putiaghan Lower. Her two children frequently travel the Putiaghan Road, by foot, by bicycle and on their horses.

Mr Evans – The elaborate arrangement with the S-bend at Chainage 4 + 500 is required due to the existing vertical profile of the road L5527. The design proposed allows the steep gradient to soften out. He acknowledged the increased journey length of about 200m for Eileen McCaffrey where she wished to visit her neighbours on L5527. A pedestrian access is proposed from Chainage 4 + 600 on the east (i.e. north) of the proposed

35 N3 to Putiaghan Lough at Chainage 4 + 900. There is a pedestrian access across the N3 at approximately Chainage 4 + 800. There is no pedestrian access indicated across the N3 at Chainage 4 + 650, but such an access could easily be provided.

Mr Sweetman pointed out that there is a horse enterprise at Eileen McCaffrey’s house, which is accessed by local children on foot.

Mr Bullock – His experience is that nobody walks on L5527.

4.2.26. Mr Phil Fitzpatrick made a submission which is summarised as follows:

He lived on L5527 and was horrified when he learnt that the road had been cut into two cul-de-sacs. The road was of importance to walkers, cyclists, and horses. He gathered 150 signatures in 4 days in protest to the road closures.

4.2.27. Ms Bernadette Ceelan made a submission which is summarised as follows:

The closure of the Putiaghan road at both ends is total devastation for her. Her lifeline for the past few years was the 7.00am morning walks with her neighbours. Her family walk and cycle the lane and her children rode their horses on it. Others push prams and elderly couples walk their pets on the road and sit by the river. There are a lot of walkers on Putiaghan Road. There was no way she would let her children out with the new road in place and she would have to drive them everywhere. She took umbrage at the statement that they didn’t walk the road.

Mr. Bullock – He had not seen anybody walking on four or five separate occasions. He supposed that he had been there for two hours in total.

Mrs. Ceelan indicated that she would not allow her children anywhere near the new road on foot, by bicycle or on horses.

4.2.28. Ms Janet Moore made a submission which is summarised as follows:

She lived on the L5527 at about Chainage 4 + 650. The L5527 is part of the Kingfisher Cycleway. She walks the road on a daily basis and people regularly walked the road, both young and old. She could not understand why they could not be accommodated with an underpass or an overpass.

4.2.29. Mr Sean Fitzpatrick made a submission which is summarised as follows:

He was the owner of Fitzpatrick’s Holiday Cottages, which was in business for 30 years on L5527. The main attractions were family-

36 orientated fishing, walking, cycling and horse riding. The undisturbed, safe road to Belturbet was an invaluable asset. Disabled groups, girl guides etc. had been successfully attracted to the business over the years. Peace and tranquillity were the main attractions and part of the selling point of his enterprise. An underpass was required.

4.2.30. Fr Corry made a submission which is summarised as follows:

He did not live on the road but there was disappointment on the part of the extended community in relation to this special scenic road. Putiaghan Road is the most popular of the five different walking routes in Belturbet and is a big attraction in the community. The entire walk will be completely undermined. It is part of the Kingfisher Trail from Cavan to Clones and this will be destroyed for cyclists and walkers.

4.2.31. Mr Paul Ceelan made a submission which is summarised as follows:

He lived west of the proposed N3 at Chainage 4 + 700. The proposed road was a major road, a connection between Dublin and Donegal with major traffic. It currently takes two minutes to bring his children into Belturbet. When the road is completed it will take 10 minutes. An underpass would be good for security and would not cost any more.

Mr Evans- The development of the proposed road follows the principles laid down in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) published by the NRA. A grade-separated junction would not be considered appropriate at this location given the levels of traffic on the major and minor roads.

4.2.32. Ms Eileen McCaffrey made a submission which is summarised as follows:

She lived in Plot 39 at Chainage 4 + 500 on L5527. She joined with her neighbours, a small group of people living on L5527 that branches into L5529. The proposal meant total community severance and isolation from neighbours and friends. The road is their amenity and one of Belturbet’s greatest assets. She walks with her neighbours every morning at 7.00am before work. Everyday there are children on the road riding their horses. Her family had chosen to live on the lane at Chainage 4 + 500, not just for the peace and tranquillity of the area, but also for the facility the lane offered their business of breeding, trekking, training and riding out horses. Access gates are just not on.

37 DAY 3 OF ORAL HEARING (22ND September 2005).

Mr Evans circulated Document Number 24, which show the proposed footpaths highlighted in colour on a set of the plan profile drawings (Fig 4.1 to 4.6). He also circulated Document number 25 which describes the nomenclature (i.e. legend) for monitoring installations associated with the hydrogeology investigations. He also circulated other documents including a copy of Figures 17.1 to 17.4 with the areas covered by the cSAC shaded in colour (Document Number 28). He also circulated a set of landscape drawings (Document Number 29) which illustrate the mitigation measures referred to by his colleague Mr. Burns, of Brady Shipman Martin, who dealt with landscape and visual assessment of the proposed scheme.

Mr Evans referred to a situation where the contractor sought to vary the scheme. In his opinion the contractor would request Cavan County Council, as the Road Authority, to approach An Bord Pleanala to determine whether and EIS was required.

The Inspector indicated that in his opinion Cavan County Council was the appropriate authority to determine the need or otherwise for a supplementary EIS but that the Board might be written to for an opinion.

Mr Sweetman considered that the Board was the consenting authority and would determine the matter.

The Inspector asked Mr Evans if the installation of an additional structure such as an underpass would warrant a review of the EIA process. Mr Evans commented that contractors were very cautious about making changes that caused significant deviation from the specimen design because of statutory approval implications. In his opinion an underpass would raise the issue of a further statutory approval.

Mr Sweetman indicated that he was representing Martin & Rea and wished to withdraw objections to the CPO. Document Number 30, listing the clients whose objections were being withdrawn, was circulated. All of the objections represented by Martin & Rea were withdrawn.

Mr Evans summarised the remaining objections:

- Mr Sweetman - An Taisce - The Residents Group - Mr Denis Storey, represented by Mr Ned Nagle (Plot No. 134) - Agnes and Denis McCaffrey, represented by Mr Corr (Plot No. 117) - Mr Sean Fitzpatrick (Plot No 129)

38

In addition there were letters from:

- The Northern Regional Fisheries Board - The Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG)

4.2.33. Mr Denis Storey made a submission to the Oral Hearing, which is summarised as follows:

The landscaping is intended to provide a visual screening to St Mary’s Church (to the west) and to themselves (to the east). St Mary’s Church is already screened and they did not want the screening on their side.

4.2.34. The Inspector cross-examined Mr Burns, for the Council, whose replies can be summarised as follows:

The road cuts through the saddle (i.e. the low point) between the two drumlins at Straheglin. This was preferable than cutting through the top of the drumlin where the result would give a ‘missing tooth’ effect.

The route cuts through the drumlin at Annagh Hill, as shown on Fig 17.1 (Document Number 23). Such cuttings are to be expected within the drumlin landscapes of Cavan and Monaghan. The routing of the road through Annagh Hill, between Chainage 1 + 500 and 1 + 700, will result in significant landscape impact, with a depth of cutting in excess of 11m. This is stated in Section 9.4.1 of Volume 1 of the EIS.

The route also cuts through the side of the drumlin at Aghnaguig with the steeper cutting on the southeast side (Chainage 1 + 800 to 2 + 000). This is also classified as having a significant landscape impact, and is illustrated in Fig 17.2. A step has been introduced in the 18m cutting for stability reasons. To pinpoint Annagh Hill as one particular impact would be to give it too much relevance and would oversimplify the landscape.

The thin green lines on Figures 9.1 to 9.4 outline the areas that are actually planted in the vicinity of the proposed road. He did not walk all of the route and the bog woodland area would have been picked up from aerial photographs.

4.2.35. Mr Sweetman cross-examined Mr Evans, for the Council, whose replies are summarised as follows:

There is a recommendation in the EIS under the heading “Community Impacts” to put a car park at the hammerhead junction on L5527 where it

39 is cut off (i.e. near Chainage 4 + 500 to 4 + 600), as a mitigation measure. This would facilitate fishermen in particular visiting Putiaghan Lough. The measure states that consideration should be given to car parking and a footpath to the lake.

Mr Sweetman pointed out that there was no indication of a car park in the drawings or in the Non-Technical Summary and this was misleading. His clients wished to know whether or not there was going to be a car park at that location. The people who live there are entitled to know what is proposed in clear and precise terms.

Mr Evans – There is no definitive proposal to provide a car park. There is sufficient land acquired to provide a car park so it is a possible mitigation measure.

Mr Sweetman commented that the EIS should contain the mitigation measures proposed. The EIS shall contain the design of the project and a Non-Technical Summary.

Mr Evans – The purpose of an EIS is to provide sufficient information to allow the significant impacts of the scheme to be assessed. It is not possible to describe every aspect of a 7km long road project in a Non- Technical Summary.

Mrs Eileen McCaffrey indicated that she lived in Plot 39, at Chainage 4 + 500 on Figure 4.4, Volume 1, EIS. She was not informed at any stage that the area was being considered for a car park.

Mr Sweetman asked why the map submitted in the Non-Technical Summary was incorrect.

Mr Evans responded that car parking could be provided by widening the hammerhead on either side. All of the mitigation measures are summarised in Chapter 20 of Volume 1, EIS. The scheme is visually represented on the Drawings and is described in writing in the EIS. Both descriptions should be taken together. The detail provided in the EIS is sufficient to describe the scheme and the impacts of the scheme.

Mr. Ciaran McCaffrey pointed out that his land had been taken for the hammerhead junction. The County Council had informed him that the land was needed for planting and there was no mention of a car park.

Mr Sweetman asked how Mr Fitzpatrick was expected to take his boats to and from Putiaghan Lake to his Holiday Homes.

40 Mr Fitzpatrick pointed out that boats were currently taken from the car park area in the cul-de-sac (i.e. between Chainage 4 + 700 and 4 + 800). He had a right-of-way access to the land.

Mr Evans pointed out that the proposed footpath (shown shaded on Fig 4.4 handed in as Document Number 24), would provide equivalent access to what is there at the moment. He was in a position to give a commitment that the footpath would be sufficiently wide to enable the current tractor access that Mr Fitzpatrick requires to the lake.

Mr Sweetman referred to language in paragraph 8.1 in the Non-Technical Summary, which referred to noise impact.

Mr Evans considered the paragraph to be a good summation of the issues. He pointed out that L10 18 Hours values were converted to LDen values. This arose as a result of a 2002 EU Directive which seeks to homogenise noise values across the Member States. LDen stands for level, day, evening and night and is the preferred indicator for long-term annoyance and nuisance arising out of noise levels. The LDen value would be typically 5 to 10 decibels below the corresponding L10 18 Hours value of 68, in relation to the warrant for double glazing in the UK. The NRA Guidelines sets a limit value of 63 LDen.

4.2.36. Mr Sweetman then cross-examined Mr Dilworth, for the Council, whose replies are summarised as follows:

The noise levels, as set out in the NRA Guidelines, will apply at construction phase. These are LAEQ values over a one-hour period, as referred in Table 7.13 of Volume 1 of the EIS, which in turn is a reproduction of the NRA Guideline values.

Mr Sweetman pointed out that Bord Pleanala’s standard noise levels are 45 night-time and 55 daytime.

Mr Dilworth pointed out that these levels did not apply to construction activity.

Mr Sweetman pointed out that a noise level of 70 dBA outside your house over a two-year construction period would be considered long-term.

4.2.37. Mr Sweetman cross-examined Mr Richard Nairn, whose replies are summarised as follows:

Bog woodland (WN7) refers to birch growing on peat, and is a widespread type of habitat in Ireland. This differs from priority bog woodland habitat as defined by the Habitats Directive. Four sub-types of bog woodland are

41 defined in the Interpretation Manual of EU Habitats (Document Number 31). The only type found within the cSAC is sub-type 44.A1 “Sphagnum birch woods”. This is shown as the area shaded in red in Figure 17.2 (Document number 23) within the bog woodland area (WN7) shown in the green solid colour. WN7 is bog woodland but it is not a priority habitat as defined in the Habitats Directive.

A wet peaty substrate is one of the characterising features of a priority habitat but the presence of sphagnum is the critical one. The other sub- types, scots pine mire woods (44.A2); mountain pine bog woods (44.A3); and mire spruce woods (44.A4), do not apply here.

It is not sufficient to say that all coniferous and broad-leaved forests as a humid to wet peaty substrate would be classified as Priority Annex 1 Habitat since that definition could apply to virtually any piece of re- colonising birch or cut-away bog in the country.

The WN7 area is coniferous or broad-leaved wood forest on humid to wet peaty substrate. Every criteria of the first sentence (i.e. 91D0) are fulfilled. The communities are generally dominated by Betula Pubescens but he did not accept that as sufficient to warrant the area being classified as a Priority Habitat.

In response to the Inspector, Mr Nairn clarified the areas as follows in Figure 17.2, Volume 1, EIS:

- WN6 is wet woodland and is shown cross-hatched in green. It is not a priority habitat.

- WN7 contains a birch dominated woodland and is shown as solid green shading. It is not a priority habitat.

- In the central part of WN7 there is an area shaded red, which conforms with the description of bog woodland as described in the Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats, as 91D0.

Mr Sweetman contended that the Lough Oughter Bog Complex site was a Natura 2000 site as approved by the European Commission.

Mr Nairn referred to Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) of 1992: “the competent national authority shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned…..where the site concerns a priority natural habitat site…..the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary

42 importance for the environment or further to an opinion from the Commission to other reasons of overriding public interest”.

Mr Evans pointed out that consideration was given to the priority habitat and the effect of the project on the integrity of the CSAC during the course of the development of the scheme. It has not been possible to avoid the cSAC. They had tried to avoid the priority habitat and minimise the extent of habitat, which would be removed from the cSAC. This lead to alternative route CSK46, which avoids the priority habitat. The bridge structure was located to avoid any indirect impact on the priority habitat. The scheme therefore does not affect the integrity of the cSAC. The Directive states that you could only consider affecting the integrity of the cSAC for a reason of overriding national importance.

The original route, routeB/B3 despite extensive habitat removal, was adjudged to have avoided the priority habitat.

Had they adjudged that the route did affect the integrity of the cSAC, Mr. Evans quoted from Article 6.4 of the Directive and indicated that an opinion would be required from the Commission where the site concerned hosted a priority natural habitat.

4.2.38. The Inspector questioned Mr Evans, for the Council, whose replies are summarised as follows:

An underpass at or around Chainage 5 + 900 is not included in the scheme. It would not be possible to include an underpass in the CPO lands between Chainage 5 + 800 and 5 + 900. There is some land at the southwestern end of the scheme (at Chainage 4 +700 to 4 + 900 in Figure 4.5, Volume 1, EIS) where there is significant vertical difference in levels to allow a clearance of 2.2m. The footpath from L5527 to Putiaghan Lough could then be accessed (see Figure 4.5 Document Number 24).

In his opinion an underpass is not warranted, given the volume of pedestrian movements. In addition there is the issue of the undesirability that pedestrians generally demonstrate to use underpasses and there could be occasional flooding of the underpass.

In terms of buildability, the area around Chainage 5 + 700 (i.e. near Putiaghan Road) is not suitable for an underpass for a number of reasons:

- The lack of clearance between the proposed road level and the existing ground level.

- The levels of CPO land to provide the necessary ramps

43 - The drainage problems which could require permanent pumping.

He was not in a position to indicate the difference in level between the base of an underpass and the top water level at Putiaghan Lough.

Mr Evans then circulated Document Number 32, a letter from Gaynor, Corr & Associates, on behalf of Agnes & Denis McCaffrey, withdrawing the objection to the scheme (Plot No 117).

4.2.39. Mr Evans made a closing submission on behalf of the Council, the main points of which are summarised as follows:

In relation to the objection submitted by Mr Sean Fitzpatrick, access is being provided from L5527 to L5529. Access is then available to Putiaghan Lough via a proposed 3m surface dressed footpath from the cul- de-sac’d end of L5527.

In relation to the objection submitted by Mr Peter Sweetman, a comprehensive EIS was prepared in relation to nature conservation and landscape.

In relation to the objection from Mr Denis Storey,

- Accommodation works can be negotiated as part of the land purchase negotiations.

- Surface water run-off will be collected and all natural drainage flow paths will be collected ensuring that any lands adjacent to the road are drained adequately.

- Permanent access to the severed lands will be provided by an underpass at Chainage 7 + 100 and under the River Erne Bridge crossing at Chainage 6 + 600.

- The landowner is entitled to seek compensation for the impact of the proposed road as part of the compulsory purchase negotiations.

In relation to the objection submitted by Ms Bernadette Ceelan on behalf of the Putiaghan Group, pedestrian and cyclist access will be provided from the cul-de-sac section of L5527 to the proposed N3 at Chainage 5 + 900. L5527 is substandard and is not suitable for use as a preferred route to Belturbet town from the proposed N3.

In relation to the objection submitted by Mr Ian Lumley, on behalf of An Taisce:

44 - The issue of an integrated multi-model transport strategy is a Government policy matter and is outside the scope of this enquiry.

- The proposed scheme is consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

- A comprehensive EIS has been prepared in accordance with all relevant EU and Irish legislative requirements. All feasible alternative routes were considered in the context of designated areas and priority habitats around the area of the River Erne and the Lough Oughter system.

- Sourcing of materials for the construction of the scheme will be a matter for the Contractor, subject to appropriate statutory requirements.

In relation to the submission from the Northern Regional Fisheries Board:

- The importance of the environment through which the proposed route passes has been acknowledged throughout the EIS.

- Access will be maintained to the River Erne and the Loughs along the scheme.

- The requirement for an EIS for the two bridges in excess of 100m in length, is satisfied by their inclusion in the EIS for the proposed road scheme. Consultations will be ongoing with the NRFB throughout the construction of the proposed scheme.

- The permanent crossing of the River Erne will provide a clear span of the River.

- The mitigation measures, as outlined in Sections 14.5 and 17.5.1 of the EIS, will be undertaken as part of the scheme.

- Monitoring of Aghnaguig Bog will continue throughout the construction of the scheme and post construction as outlined in Section 16.7 in Volume 1 of the EIS.

- It is not possible to move Pier 1 of the bridge at Aghnaguig more than 20m away from drain D6. A fenced buffer zone to D6 can be provided if required. Drain D11 passes under the proposed road and will need to be culverted.

- The appropriate use of settlement ponds, silt traps, bunds, etc. will be undertaken as part of the scheme. The engagement of a qualified

45 environmental scientist/ecologist will be considered for the construction stage of the scheme.

- All bridges and culverts will be designed in consultation with the NRFB.

Mr Evans circulated copies of letters, from Arup Consulting Engineers, dated 30th August and 16th September 2005, to the DEHLG.

Cavan County Council proposed this scheme to remove a sub-standard section of the N3 which has an exceptionally high accident rate and to replace it with a properly engineered alignment with improved safety characteristics.

The conservationist approach in the County Development Plan, in dealing with Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), had been followed.

To mitigate the severance of L5527 a slip road was proposed from the South at Chainage 5 + 900, together with gated access for pedestrians and cyclists. The severance issue at Putiaghan should not distract from the highly positive balance of community impacts overall.

General noise limits for the construction of the scheme are set out in Table 7.13 of Volume 1, EIS. Where blasting is carried out, the maximum peak overpressure level when measured at the façade of any sensitive receptor shall not exceed 120dB (Max peak). The vibration limits, as set out in Table 7.14 of Volume 1, EIS will be adhered to. Independent monitoring of noise and vibration levels will be carried out.

Archaeological test excavation will be carried out at the former location of the stone sculpture, as agreed with the National Monuments Section of the DEHLG.

No properties will be removed by the proposed scheme. A small stone bridge at Chainage 1 + 300 at Kilnaleck/Annagh will be removed.

The nature and extent of soft subsoil deposits, including peat, will be determined following a detailed site investigation. Where the soft soil is shallow it shall be excavated and replaced with suitable fill material. Sealed articulated trailers can be used to transport peat on public highways. Excavated peat will be removed and stockpiled on competent flat ground. The excavated peat can be put to a number of uses:

- Re-use in landscaping

- Improving agricultural land

46 The proposed scheme will not have any significant residual impact on Aghnaguig Bog wetland in terms of hydrogeology or hydrology.

The central part of the Central Basin is characterised by the presence of sphagnum moss in low nutrient and acid ph conditions. The areas adjacent to the priority habitat have higher nutrients and more alkaline ph conditions due to interference from drains D1, D6 and D11, which seasonally inundate the wetland. The designation of priority habitat does not apply to these areas.

The proposed scheme will have no adverse impact on the integrity of the CSAC. Two types of bog woodland are present within the cSAC:

- Type 1 is an Annex1 Priority Habitat 91D0 – birch dominated with localised large areas of sphagnum moss.

- Type 2, labelled WN7 in Fig 17.2, Volume 1, EIS, - birch dominated over grass dominated ground flora. This does not conform with the definition of priority habitat.

The Priority Habitat will not be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed scheme and the integrity of the cSAC will not be adversely affected.

Two options were considered to provide access from the lane at Cormacmullan near Chainage 2 + 200, (Figures 4.2 and 4.12 Volume 1, EIS). The arrangement on Figure 4.12 is the option now proposed. As a result, the following CPO plots are not required:

107a.106 107b.104 107b.105 109a.102 109a.104

The local authority recommends that these plots be removed from the CPO.

The areas on both sides of the mainline from Chainage 6 + 700 to the Staghall roundabout are required for visual screening of the church and graveyard and for landscape integration. A 10-metre strip is proposed to the western side of the proposed scheme and plots 134c.102; 134b.104 and 134b.105 are required for this purpose. Plots 134b.108, 134b.106 and 134b.107 are required for access and working space during construction. These plots can be returned to the landowner following the completion of the scheme. The strip of land required for planting on the eastern side of

47 the scheme was reduced to 5m. The lands required are plots 134d.101, 134c.104 and 134b.103. Plots 134c.103, 134d.102 and 134c.106 are required for construction purposes and they can be returned to the landowner following the completion of the scheme.

In relation to the correspondence received by An Bord Pleanala from the DEHLG, the information continued in the EIS is adequate to allow the significant impacts of the proposed scheme to be assessed.

A number of bridge options were considered for Aghnaguig Bog. The proposed bridge avoids any significant impacts on the integrity of the SAC.

Analysis indicates that no significant queues will occur at the proposed L5527/N3 junction and at the modified Staghall roundabout, even at peak hour volumes in 2023.

- It is proposed to include space for two to four cars within the hammerhead junction at Chainage 4 + 550 on Fig 4.4, Volume 1, EIS.

4.2.40. Mr Peter Sweetman made a closing submission on behalf of himself and An Taisce, the main points of which are summarised as follows:

The proposed development materially contravenes the County Development Plan since Mr Nairn indicated that the development constituted a severe negative impact. A severe negative impact is not allowed in the Cavan County Development Plan.

Sealed articulated trailers for transporting peat on public roads have turned over between Ballincloy and Bangor Ennis in Co Mayo.

Bog woodlands are a Priority habitat. The proposed scheme happens to cross a Natura 2000 site.

The major impact on the Putiaghan Group is on walkers. The community severance issue has not been dealt with.

There is no evidence to back the assertion from the Council side, that the NPWS agreed that the preferred solution for the bridge at Aghnaguig Bog has been chosen.

Mr Sweetman looked forward to the Board’s refusal of the scheme. He commented that the proceedings were more pleasant in the absence of barristers.

48 4.2.41. Mr Michael Fitzpatrick made a closing submission, on behalf of the Northern Regional Fisheries Board, the main points of which are summarised as follows:

They welcomed the appointment of a liaison officer and a resident on-site ecologist to deal with matters of flora, fauna and fish. The Board had to intervene on several occasions during the construction of the Cavan Bypass scheme. They hoped to be fully consulted during the course of construction of the scheme.

4.2.42. Ms Eileen McCaffrey on behalf of herself and her community made a closing submission, the main points of which are summarised as follows:

She asked Mr Evans to re-consider the community severance impact of the scheme. The L5527 is a huge amenity for Belturbet and a gateway at the road is not the answer.

The Oral Hearing concluded.

49 5.0 ASSESSMENT OF ISSUES

5.1. INTRODUCTION.

The assessment of issues in relation to the N3 Butlers Bridge to Belturbet Road Improvement Schem, for which an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared, includes issues related to the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO). The key issues are summarised hereunder.

5.2. NEED FOR PROJECT

The proposed scheme is required to address the inadequacies of the existing N3 from Butlers Bridge to Belturbet, which accommodated traffic levels of between approximately 5000 and 6000 in 2004. The existing stretch of road is characterised by very poor horizontal alignment, a number of dangerous bends, limited provision of hard shoulders and few overtaking opportunities. In addition, there are numerous direct accesses onto the road, which can result in congestion and safety issues. The road does not provide an adequate level of service (LOS) at an appropriate design speed for a National Primary Road.

The existing N3 in Belturbet town acts as a bottleneck to through traffic on the National Primary Route and causes traffic congestion in the town centre.

The existing N3 between north of Butlers Bridge (i.e. Kilnaleck) to the Staghall roundabout has experienced over 100 traffic incidents, including 8 fatalities from 1991 to 2004. The accident data highlights the need to improve the existing stretch of road and to reduce the level of road traffic accident risk.

I am satisfied that the existing N3 is substandard and poses an unacceptable traffic accident risk. The horizontal alignment is poor, there are numerous dangerous bends, there are several direct accesses onto the road and the traffic accident statistics indicate over 100 traffic incidents, including 8 fatalities, over the period 1991 to 2004. I am also satisfied that it does not provide an adequate level of service at an appropriate design speed for a National Primary Road.

In addition, I am satisfied that the route of the N3 through the centre of Belturbet town acts as a bottleneck to National Primary through traffic and results in traffic congestion in the town centre.

I am satisfied that improvements incorporating realignment and widening of the existing N3 is not a practical option to provide the required level of service to cater for predicted increases in traffic volumes.

I am satisfied that the N3 Butlers Bridge to Belturbet Road Improvement Scheme, which is the subject of the Compulsory Purchase Order and of the application for

50 approval of the road project, is required in the interests of traffic safety and in the wider interests of the economic and social development of the area.

5.3. SUITABILITY OF PROPOSED PROJECT.

The Environmental and Engineering Studies Preliminary Report of June 1997 developed and evaluated a number of route options in terms of engineering, traffic, economic performance and environmental impact. These are set out in Section 3.5 of Volume 1 of the EIS. The preferred route B/B3 was modified by local realignments, the most significant of which was local realignment CSK46 at Aghnaguig Bog.

The proposed road improvement scheme is designed as a standard rural single carriageway road with a design speed of 100kph. The cross-section consists of 2 number 3.65m carriageways, 2 number 2.5m hard shoulders and 2 number 3.0m wide verges.

The southern end of the route, approximately 1.8km north of the village of Butlers Bridge, connects with the end of the completed Cavan By-Pass Scheme. The northern end of the route connects with the existing Staghall roundabout west of Belturbet town.

It is proposed to develop the N3 Butlers Bridge to Belturbet Road Improvement Scheme to a high standard of single carriageway with hard shoulders and verges and with a Level of Service (LOS) “D”.

I am satisfied that the scheme proposals reflect an appropriate solution to accommodate projected traffic volumes of 12,512 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) in the year 2023.

I am satisfied that Route B/B3, as shown on Figures 4.1 to 4.6, subject to the access layout on Fig 4.12 replacing the junction layout at Cormacmullan shown on Fig 4.2, represents an appropriate solution.

I am satisfied that the indicative cross-section for the proposed N3, as shown on Fig 4.9 and that the cross-sections of the proposed bridge structures at Aghnaguig Bog and over the River Erne, as shown on Fig 4.7 and 4.8, respectively, represent an appropriate solution.

I am generally satisfied that the lands to be acquired, which are the subject of the CPO, are required for the permanent works and for temporary works.

5.4. PLANNING ISSUES.

The improvement of the N3 is listed as an objective in a number of national and regional planning policy documents. The National Development Plan 2000 –

51 2006 identifies improvement works to the Dublin to Derry N3 route as a priority infrastructural project. The National Spatial Strategy and the Regional Planning Guidelines identify the need to improve access and linkages generally in order to underpin regional development.

The Cavan County Development Plan 2003 – 2009 specifically lists the 7km road realignment scheme as one of the National Primary Roads Development Objectives. The Development Plan was adopted by Cavan County Council in March 2003.

During the course of the Oral hearing, Mr Sweetman, for An Taisce, raised issues in relation to the lack of consistency of the proposed scheme with the County Development Plan, particularly in the context of Special Areas of Conservation. The Senior Planner, Ms Tara Spain has certified that the proposed development has been rigorously assessed and is, in her opinion, in compliance with the County Development Plan.

Mr Sweetman pointed to the section in the Development Plan which states that development that may detract from the intrinsic value of the site will not be allowed. Evidence was given by a number of witnesses, for the Council, in relation to design aspects of the proposed route in the vicinity of Aghnaguig Bog in relation to mitigation measures to ensure that the proposed development would not detract from the intrinsic value of the site.

I am satisfied, on the basis of the EIS and of the evidence presented by Mr Nairn in particular at the Oral Hearing, that the proposed development will not detract from the intrinsic value of the Lough Oughter candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) through which the route passes. I am further satisfied that the footprint of the proposed route does not pass through the Annex 1, Priority Habitat (Reference 91D0) in the EU Habitats Directive. I am generally satisfied that the mitigation measures proposed, as per Document Number 37 circulated at the Oral Hearing, will significantly reduce the risk that the proposed scheme will detract from the intrinsic value of the candidate Special Area of Conservation or will impact on the Annex 1, Priority Habitat at Aghnaguig Bog.

I am satisfied that the proposed scheme is consistent with the Cavan County Council Development Plan which was adopted by Cavan County Council n March 2003.

5.5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), dated May 2005, was prepared by Arup Consulting Engineers, using a combination of in-house personnel and external specialists. The EIS comprises two volumes:

Volume 1 – Environmental Impact Statement. This includes the main test

52 and Figures and the Non-Technical Summary.

Volume 2 – Appendices.

Section 50(1)(a) of the Roads Act, 1993 indicates the type of road development that requires an EIS, where such development is being carried out by a public authority. The construction of a new bridge, which would be 100m or more in length, requires an EIS.

Mr Lumley, in his submission to the Board suggested that the EIS should be assessed for compliance with the requirements of the Directive.

Mr Sweetman, in his submission, contended that the EIS was inadequate with regard to nature conservation and landscape.

The information to be included in an EIS is described in Section 50 of the Roads Act, 1993:

a) A description of the proposed road development comprising information on the site, design and size of the proposed road development.

b) A description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects.

c) The data required to identify and assess the main effects which the proposed road development is likely to have on the environment.

d) An outline of the main alternatives studied by the road authority concerned and an indication of the main reasons for this choice, taking into account the environmental effects.

e) A summary in non-technical language of the above information.

An EIS also requires a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed development, including in particular:

- Human beings, fauna and flora

- Soil, water, air, climatic factors and the landscape.

- Material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, and the cultural heritage.

- The inter-relationship between the above factors.

53 The impacts on the environment are addressed in Chapters 6 to 18, as follows:

Chapter 6 Community Impacts Chapter 7 Noise & Vibration Chapter 8 Air Quality Chapter 9 Landscape and Visual Assessment Chapter 10 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Chapter 11 Architectural Heritage Chapter 12 Material Assets – Agricultural Properties Chapter 13 Material Assets – Non-agricultural Properties Chapter 14 Hydrology Chapter 15 Soils & Geology Chapter 16 Hydrogeology Chapter 17 Flora, Fauna & Fisheries Chapter 18 Climate

Chapter 19 of the EIS deals with the interaction of effects. Chapters 20 and 21 deal with Summary of Mitigation and Summary of Residual Impacts, respectively.

5.5.1. Chapter 1: Introduction.

This chapter outlines the planning process and the consultations which took place with the public, with landowners and with Government departments, national and local interest groups.

5.5.2. Chapter 2: Appraisal Methodology

This chapter outline the overall methodology for preparation of the EIS, including the use of significance criteria.

5.5.3. Chapter 3: Scheme Background

This chapter describes the planning and policy context for the scheme, the need for the proposed road development and the development of the scheme including alternatives considered.

5.5.4. Chapter 4: Description of Proposed Road Development

This chapter gives a description of the proposed road development including construction requirements.

5.5.5. Chapter 5: Traffic

This chapter assesses the impact on traffic as a result of the proposed improvement scheme.

54

5.5.6. Chapter 6: Community Impacts

This chapter assesses the impact of the proposed scheme on the community and on socio-economics. The existing socio-economic environment and the socio- economic impacts of the proposed scheme, included community severance, are described. A number of mitigation measures are recommended, including:

- Gated access for cyclists and pedestrians to severed lanes at Chainage 5 +900 and 2 + 800

- Provision of access to Putiaghan Lough via the cul-de-sac section of the L5527

- Efforts should be made to minimise the amount of construction traffic passing through Belturbet by providing access along the new alignment where possible.

5.5.7. Chapter 7: Noise & Vibration

This chapter assesses the impacts of noise and vibration associated with both the construction and operational phases of the proposed scheme. The existing noise levels at 24 measurement locations were determined in terms of LAEQ and LA10. Operational noise impacts are determined using a computer-based prediction model. The expected maximum traffic noise level is greater than 60dBLDen and greater than the levels predicted for the do-minimum scenario, at 6 locations for the year 2008 and at 9 locations for the year 2023. Mitigating measures are described for each of the locations to bring the predicted noise level in each case to 60dBLDen.

The chapter also assesses construction noise impacts and concludes that predicted values of the worst-case scenarios are well within the most stringent criteria as set out in the NRA Guidelines.

In relation to vibration, the chapter concludes that the proposed road scheme is not expected to give rise to vibration that is either significantly intrusive or capable of giving rise to structural or cosmetic damage. Table 7.14 shows the allowable vibration levels during construction.

5.5.8. Chapter 8: Air Quality

This chapter assesses the impact of the proposed development on air quality in the vicinity. The section concludes that increases in air pollutants caused by the development are well within the current air quality standards (AQSs) set out in the 2002 Regulations.

55 Dust generation is indicated as a likely impact during the construction phase of the scheme. The EIS concludes that the residual impact of construction activities on air quality will not be significant once the mitigation measures outlined are implemented.

5.5.9. Chapter 9: Landscape & Visual Assessment

This chapter deals with the analysis of plans and sections of the proposed route together with aerial photography, site visits and review of various publications. The significance criteria used for landscape and visual impact assessment are based on the EPA Guidelines on EIS, 2002. Landscape and Visual impacts for the construction and operational phases of the proposed scheme are described, in Table 9.4 as imperceptible, slight, moderate, significant and profound. Specific mitigation measures along the route are recommended including natural re- colonisation and planting. The EIS concludes that the proposed route will permanently alter the remote setting of a short section along the River Erne and more particularly the rural quality at Putiaghan Lough between Chainage 4 + 000 and 4 + 800. The residual impact at Reference Locations 35, 39 and 40 are considered profound.

5.5.10. Chapter 10: Archaeology and Cultural Heritage.

This chapter outlines the archaeological and cultural heritage issues associated with the proposed road scheme. The route runs directly through one known archaeological site (RMP site CV015057), a decorated stone wall marker dated circa 1825-50. This stone sculpture was moved approximately 250m south of its RMP location. The original location of the site will be affected by the road construction. The EIS concludes that the impact of the proposed development on the site will be slight. Proposed mitigation measures include an archaeological investigation of the original site of the stone sculpture in addition to a blanket testing of all areas of archaeological potential. The EIS concludes that no residual impacts will result since all archaeological issues will be resolved at the pre- construction and construction stages of the project.

5.5.11. Chapter 11: Architectural Heritage

This chapter assesses the architectural heritage impact of the proposed scheme. The Draft Guideline in the Assessment and Mitigation of the Architectural Heritage for a Road Scheme were adhered to. A total of 25 properties along or within approximately 100m of the proposed scheme were identified. Of these, 10 were deemed to be of architectural merit. No properties will be removed by the proposed scheme. A small stone bridge at Chainage 1 + 030, which is of architectural heritage merit, will be removed by the scheme. The EIS concludes that none of the properties whose boundaries will be affected by the scheme are of sufficient architectural heritage unit to require mitigation and that there are no residual impacts in relation to architectural heritage.

56

5.5.12. Chapter 12: Material Assets – Agricultural Properties

This chapter assesses the impact on individual farms of the proposed scheme. The scheme, which traverses through mainly agricultural land, will impact directly on 24 farms. There are no specialist dairy farms along the route. The agricultural impact on one of the farms is described as severe. A major degree of impact is assessed on 5 farms and a moderate degree of impact is assessed for 6 farms. One farm with horses (equine enterprise) will experience a severe overall impact. The EIS concludes that the overall residual impact will be severe or major on 2 of the 24 farms. These are an equestrian farm and a mixed dairy farm.

5.5.13. Chapter 13: Material Assets - Non-Agricultural Properties

This chapter assesses the impact of the proposed scheme on non-agricultural properties. It is proposed that 1 residential property will be acquired to accommodate the proposed scheme (Plot No 124, shown in Fig 13.3 near Chainage 4 + 800). As mitigation, access to all properties will be maintained at all times during the construction phase. Any temporary lands required for construction works have been included in the CPO landtake.

5.5.14. Chapter 14: Hydrology

This chapter describes the existing hydrology within the study area and details the methodology used to design the drainage for the proposed road scheme. It also assesses the potential impacts of the scheme on the hydrology. The Office of Public Works (OPW) and the Northern Regional Fisheries Board (NRFB) were consulted in relation to the drainage of the scheme. Culverts along the proposed road scheme are designed for a 1 in 100 year return period with a minimum diameter of 900mm specified. At Aghnaguig Bog the EIS states that the surface water hydrology will not be interfered with, ensuring that the existing habitats will persist. A bridge of minimum length 109m is to be built across the Bog. Settlement ponds, silt traps and bunds will be used to minimise siltation of the bog. Attenuation ponds will be provided with low level outfall and a higher level outfall for larger events.

5.5.15. Chapter 15: Soils & Geology

This chapter describes the ground conditions along the proposed scheme and assesses the impact of the scheme on the surrounding soils and geology. The underlying bedrock of the area consists of Ordovician/Silurian age turbidite deposits of shales, sandstones and siltstones of the Coronea Formation and also calcareous sandstones, shales and limestone of Courcayan age known as the Monaghan Recession. The overburden geology consists of glacial deposits (i.e. till deposits of gravel and boulder clay with fluvioglacial sands and gravels) and more recent deposits of peat, silt and lacustrine clays in low lying areas.

57

The EIS indicates that it is likely that the majority of the glacial soils will be suitable for re-use, particularly if material is excavated and placed during dry (i.e. summer) months. The EIS acknowledges that excavated materials, which are unsuitable for re-use, will need to be disposed of off-site.

5.5.16. Chapter 16 Hydrogeology

This chapter is an assessment of the hydrogeological impact of the proposed scheme in the townlands of Aghnaguig and Annagh. The existing hydrological/hydrogeological regime is characterised from the topographical, geological, geographical, hydraulic and hydrotechnical acquired data.

The proposed road scheme traverses through two cuts (Cuts 1 and 2) within the catchment of Aghnaguig Bog woodland and wetlands. The EIS concludes that Cut 1 is not likely to have a significant direct hydrogeological impact on Aghnaguig Bog. Cut 2 has a maximum cut depth of 18.5m, which would just intercept the water table at circa 49m OD. This cut occurs at a minimum distance of circa 30m from the cSAC boundary and circa 90m from the Annex 1 Priority Habitat in the Central Basin. The EIS concludes that Cut 2 will not have a direct hydraulic impact on the cSAC designated area at Aghnaguig Bog. It may have a minor indirect negative impact on Aghnaguig Bog wetland via interference to the spring discharge to drain D1. The potential hydraulic impacts from fill areas are damage to the existing drainage network, particularly drains D6 and D11. The construction of Fill 2 and the associated bridge structure could have a major negative impact on the Central Basin including the Priority Habitat.

A number of mitigation measures are recommended in the EIS including:

- The engagement of a wetland hydrogeological specialist to visit the site on a frequent basis during the progress of construction and after construction to monitor water levels and chemistry.

- The employment of an experienced geotechnical engineer to supervise and monitor all works within the cSAC boundary between Chainage 1 + 560 and 1 + 840.

- Location of Pier 1 as far away as possible from drain D6.

- The construction of the embankment at Fill 2 should occur during the drier months of April to September.

- Where materials are used for the Fills at Aghnaguig Bog, neutral or inert materials should be used.

58 - The inclusion of a comprehensive monitoring programme to cover the pre- development stage, the construction phase and the post-construction stage of the proposed development. The monitoring to include water levels and hydrochemistry at monthly intervals.

- The EIS acknowledge a 1.8% reduction in the recharge catchment to Aghnaguig Bog woodland and wetland but considers this reduction insignificant. The hydraulic impact on Aghnaguig Bog is not considered significant.

5.5.17. Chapter 17: Flora, Fauna & Fisheries

This chapter assesses the impact of the proposed scheme on the flora, fauna and fisheries within the study area. The EIS was carried out in compliance with the ‘Guidelines or the information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements’, EPA, 2000 and the ‘Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts on National Road Schemes’, NRA, 2004.

Consultation took place with the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) of the DEHLG in relation to the potential impacts of the scheme traversing the cSAC area.

Section 17.3.2 of the EIS details the designated conservation areas as follows:

- The Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs Special Area of Conservation, cSAC (Site Code 000007), a wetlands area, which forms part of the drainage system of the River Erne. The boundary of the cSAC is highly convoluted, indented and fragmented.

- An Annex 1 Priority Habitat, Bog Woodland (91D0) located within the cSAC at Aghnaguig Bog.

- The Lough Oughter wetland complex, a designated Natural Heritage Area (dNHA)

- Part of the Lough Oughter cSAC, a designated Special Protection Area (SPA) for birds (SPA Site Code 49). The proposed route does not traverse the SPA.

None of the plant species removed by the proposed scheme are protected under the Flora Protection Order, 1999.

A number of areas along the route have been identified as areas of local ecological value (i.e. ecological sites), and the route traverses a number of habitats which are considered of low to moderate ecological value.

59 The EIS describes the fauna in the area which comprise birds, mammals (e.g. otters, badgers and bats) and protected terrestrial invertebrates.

Section 17.38 deals with the aquatic environment and with the protected aquatic fauna in the area, including white-clawed crayfish, lamprey, freshwater pearl mussel and whorl snails. Table 17.7 summarises the fisheries value of the main water bodies along the proposed route, which has a rating of moderate to high local value.

The EIS acknowledges the direct impact of the scheme on the Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs cSAC. Approximately 1.4km of the proposed route passes through the cSAC at seven different locations and will cause the removal of 4.26ha of habitats. It is important that Annex 1 Priority Habitat in Aghnaguig Bog is not adversely impacted. The EIS concludes that, provided the mitigation measures are fully implemented there will be no impact on the Annex 1 habitats and the integrity of the cSAC will be maintained.

Specific mitigation measures are outlined for the designated conservation areas including:

- Bridge structure over the Aghnaguig Bog complex.

- Fencing off the construction working area, which will be kept to a minimum.

- Construction works within the watercourses to be undertaken with consultation with the NRFB and the NPWS.

- Ecological compensatory planting and natural rejuvenation areas throughout the scheme to compensate for the landtake of habitat area.

5.5.18. Chapter 18: Climate.

This chapter assesses the impact of the scheme on climate, particularly in the context of Ireland’s obligation under Kyoto Protocol.

The EIS contends that the impact on climate of construction activities is not considered significant. The scheme will give rise to an increase of 0.009% of CO2 emissions compared with the “Do-Minimum” scenario for the year 2003. This impact is not considered significant.

5.5.19. Chapter 19: Inter-relationship and Interaction of Effects

This chapter assess the likely inter-relationship and interaction of the various effects on the environment. These include the following inter-related or cumulative impacts:

60 - Community Impacts and Noise and Vibration

- Community Impacts and Landscape & Visual

- Noise and Vibration and Material Assets

- Noise and Vibration and Air Quality

- Noise and Vibration and Flora, Fauna and Fisheries

- Noise and Vibration and Community

- Noise and Vibration and Archaeological Heritage

- Air Quality and Noise and Vibration

- Air Quality and Architectural Heritage

- Air Quality and Climate

- Air Quality and Landscape and Visual and Material Assets

- Landscape and Visual and Community

- Landscape and Visual and Material Assets – Non-Agricultural Properties

- Landscape and Visual and Hydrology

- Landscape and Visual and Flora, Fauna and Fisheries

- Landscape and Visual and Soil and Geology

- Landscape and Visual and Noise and Vibration

- Landscape and Visual and Air Quality

- Archaeology, Architecture and Cultural Heritage and Hydrology

- Archaeology, Architecture and Cultural Heritage and Noise and Vibration and Air Quality

- Material Assets – Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Properties and Noise and Vibration and Air Quality

- Hydrology and Hydrogeology and Archaeology

61

- Hydrology and Hydrogeology and Flora, Fauna and Fisheries

- Hydrology and Hydrogeology and Landscape and Visual

- Hydrology and Hydrogeology and Soils and Geology.

- Soils and Geology and Noise and Vibration

- Soils and Geology and Landscape and Visual

- Soils and Geology and Hydrogeology

- Flora, Fauna and Fisheries and Landscape and Visual Assessment

- Flora, Fauna and Fisheries and Hydrology

- Flora, Fauna and Fisheries and Noise and Vibration

- Climate and Air Quality

5.5.20. Chapter 20: Summary of Mitigation

This chapter provides a summary of these mitigation measures for the proposed road scheme as a whole. The chapter is essentially a collation of the mitigation measures identified in chapter 6 to 18.

I am satisfied that the EIS complies with Section 50 of the Roads Act, 1993 in relation to the content of the EIS and the information which should be included.

5.6. KEY IMPACTS OF PROPOSED SCHEME

The impacts of the proposed scheme are addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), prepared by Arup Consulting Engineers and in the evidence presented during the course of the Oral Hearing.

Some of the objections to the CPO and the observations submitted in relation to the EIS were withdrawn during the course of the Oral Hearing.

The following issues are of particular concern, and these were elaborated further during the course of the Oral Hearing.

Objection Key Issue(s) of Concern Bernadette Ceelan & - Extinguishments of Public Rights of Way others (Community Impact)

62 Sean Fitzpatrick - As Above (Community Impact)

Mr Denis Storey - Effect of Road Drainage (Hydrology) - Access to lands, impact on farming and on dwelling houses and farm buildings (Material Assets – Agricultural and Landscape and Visual)

Ian Lumley - Designated areas and Priority Habitats (Flora, Fauna and Fisheries)

Northern Regional - Impact on cSAC (Flora, Fauna and Fisheries) Fisheries Board - Access to lakes (Community Impacts) (NRFB) Mr Peter Sweetman - Nature Conservation (Flora, Fauna and Fisheries) - Landscape (Landscape and Visual)

5.6.1. Other Environmental Issues:

The other environmental aspects and other environmental issues are addressed under the following headings:

- Noise and Vibration. This aspect is addressed in Chapter 7 of the EIS and was described by Mr Chris Dilworth in his Brief of Evidence at the Oral Hearing. I am generally satisfied that the impact of noise and vibration can be considered acceptable if the appropriate Guidance in Tables 7.13 and 7.14 are complied with.

- Air Quality. This aspect is addressed in Chapter 8 of the EIS and was described by Ms Sinead Whyte in her Brief of Evidence at the Oral Hearing. I am generally satisfied that the impact of the scheme on air quality is not considered significant.

- Archaeology. This aspect is address in Chapter 10 of the EIS and was described by Ms Siobhan Deery in her Brief of Evidence at the Oral Hearing. The key impact on archaeology relates to the original site of the stone sculpture (Site 1D1 in Section 10.3.4 of Volume 1, EIS). I am generally satisfied that the impact on archaeology will be significantly mitigated by the appointment of the Project Archaeologist for the scheme.

- Architecture and Cultural Heritage. This impact is addressed in Chapter 11 of the EIS and was addressed by Ms Jackie Jordan in her Brief of Evidence at the Oral Hearing. I am satisfied that the architectural heritage impact is not considered significant. I note the

63 recommendation that a survey of the small stone bridge at Kilnaleck and Annagh should be undertaken in order to provide a record of the past.

- Material Assets – Non-Agricultural. This aspect is addressed in Chapter 13 of the EIS. I am satisfied that the proposed measures, which include maintenance of access to all properties at all times during the construction phase will significantly mitigate the impact on non-agricultural properties impacted by the scheme.

- Geology. This aspect is addressed in Chapter 15 of the EIS and was addressed by Mr Paul Quigley in his Brief of Evidence at the Oral Hearing. I note that excavated materials which are considered unsuitable for re-use will need to be disposed of off-site. Such materials could include peat. Off-site storage and placement of peat could potentially pose a risk of slippage of such materials. I consider that a risk analysis should be undertaken where peat is being excavated and deposited off-site.

- Hydrogeology. This aspect is addressed in Chapter 16 of the EIS and was addressed by Ms Eileen McCarthy in her Brief of Evidence at the Oral Hearing. I note a difference of opinion in relation to whether or not the reduction in the recharge catchment to Aghnaguig Bog woodland and wetland should be considered significant or not significant. This issue is considered further under the heading “Hydrology”.

- Climate. This aspect is addressed in Chapter 18 of the EIS and was addressed by Ms Sinead White in her Brief of Evidence at the Oral Hearing. I am satisfied that the impact of the scheme on climate is not considered significant.

The environmental issues of particular concern or significance, as reflected by the remaining objections and by the submissions at the Oral Hearing, are elaborated further in the following sections.

5.6.2. Community Impacts

This issue is addressed in Chapter 6 of the EIS and was described by Mr Craig Bullock in his Brief of Evidence at the Oral Hearing.

This issue remains as an outstanding point of objection to the CPO by Ms Bernadette Ceelan and others, and by Mr Sean Fitzpatrick, and was elaborated at length during the course of the Oral Hearing.

64 Mr Evans, for the Council, contended that the permanent extinguishment of a number of rights-of-way was necessary to accommodate the proposed road scheme and to avoid the creation of an additional traffic hazard. The key areas of contention are the cul-de-sacs on local roads L5527 (Putiaghan Road) and L5529 (near Eileen McCaffrey’s equine enterprise). These road closures are illustrated on Figure 3167 and 3166, respectively in Document Number 21, circulated at the Oral Hearing. A number of submissions were made at the Oral Hearing seeking the provision of an underpass at approximately Chainage 5 + 900 to allow the continuing uninterrupted use of Putiaghan Road by the local community. Mr Bullock, in his evidence, pointed out that the lane was not widely used by pedestrians and cyclists during the course of his site visits. This was vigorously refuted by a number of people including Mr Phil Fitzpatrick, Ms Bernadette Ceelan, Ms Janet Moore, Mr Sean Fitzpatrick, Fr Corry and Ms Eileen McCaffrey. Mr Paul Ceelan made the point that the additional time for him to take his children into Belturbet would be 8 minutes (i.e. from 2 minutes at the moment to 10 minutes after the road scheme is in place). Mr Sean Fitzpatrick was concerned in relation to access for his boats to Putiaghan Lake from his Holiday Homes complex. I am generally satisfied that the local road L5527, known as Putiaghan Road, is widely used by walkers, by people walking dogs, by cyclists and by people riding horses. I am also satisfied that the road closures on L5527 will have a significant impact on the local community in the area.

I note that vehicular access will be provided from the severed ends of L5527 southwest of the proposed route, at Chainage 5 + 900 and also at Chainage 4 + 400.

The scheme proposals included a “hammerhead” turning area off L5527, close to Ms Eileen McCaffrey’s equine enterprise. Mr Sweetman, for the objectors, argued that the provision of car parking at this hammerhead area was not shown on the drawings and was not referenced in the Non-Technical Summary.

Mr Evans, for the Council, pointed out that car parking for 2 to 4 cars could be provided within the hammerhead junction at Chainage 4 + 550. I am satisfied that this represents a practical approach if car parking is required at this junction, particularly for persons visiting Putiaghan Lake. I am satisfied that the fact that this is not explicitly referenced in the documents does not affect the validity of the EIS or the Non-Technical Summary.

Mr Evans, for the Council, pointed out that access to Putiaghan Lough would be provided via a 3m footpath from the cul-de-sac’d end of L5527 from approximately Chainage 4 + 600. I am generally satisfied that this provision will allow adequate access to Putiaghan Lake including access for boats.

In relation to the community severance issue, Mr Evans pointed out that an underpass near Chainage 5 + 700 (i.e. near Putiaghan Road) is not feasible for a number of reasons, including:

65

- The lack of vertical clearance and therefore consequent drainage problems

- The lack of land taken in the CPO

- The small volume of pedestrian traffic which would not warrant such a structure

- The undesirability that pedestrians generally demonstrate to use underpasses.

I accept Mr Evans’ arguments in relation to the unsuitability of an underpass structure at Chainage 5 + 700. I note that there is a significant difference in levels at approximately Chainage 4 + 800 but I concur with Mr Evans’s contention that an underpass at such a location would be too far from Putiaghan Road. I consider that the mitigation measures proposed, which include pedestrian and cyclist access from the cul-de-sac section of L5527 to the proposed N3 represent a practicable solution in the circumstances.

While I accept that the community impact along Putiaghan Road will be profound, I do not consider such impact sufficient to justify the withholding of approval of the road project or confirmation of the CPO in this case.

5.6.3. Landscape And Visual

This issue is addressed in Chapter 9 of the EIS and was described by Mr Thomas Burns in his Brief of Evidence at the Oral Hearing. During the course of the Oral Hearing a series of 4 figures (i.e. Figure 011-LM1, 011-LM2, 011-LM3 and 011LM4) were submitted as the Landscape Mitigation Plan for the proposed scheme (Document Number 29).

Mr Storey, who owns the land between the River Erne and the Staghall Roundabout contended that too much land was taken for “screen planting” east and west of the main route from approximately Chainage 6 + 600 to 7 + 100.

Mr Peter Sweetman, in his submission to the Board on the EIS, contended that the EIS is inadequate with regard to landscape.

I note Mr Burns evidence during the course of the Oral Hearing, that the proposed routing of the road through Armagh Hill, between Chainage 1 + 150 and 1 + 700 will result in significant landscape impact (Figure 17.5, Volume 1, EIS). In addition, Mr Burns acknowledged that the road would cut 18m through the side of the drumlin at Aghnaguig between Chainage 1 + 800 to 2 + 000. This would also have a significant landscape impact.

66 I am generally satisfied that the measures recommended, which include natural re- colonisation and planting, will significantly mitigate the adverse landscape impact of the scheme.

I acknowledge the profound residual visual impact that will remain at locations 35, 39 and 40 but I contend that such impacts do not justify the withholding of approval of the road project or confirmation of the CPO in this case.

During the course of the Oral Hearing Mr Nagle, for Mr Storey – who owns the lands crossed by the proposed route at Kilconny, contended that the 5m wide and 10m wide strips on the retained and severed sides, respectively, of the proposed route were totally unnecessary. He suggested that these strips were surplus to requirements. The strips on the retained side are Plot Numbers 134c.104 and 134b.103. The strips on the severed side are 134c.104 and 134b.104. Mr Storey contended that St Mary’s Church was already adequately screened.

Mr Evans, for the Council, contended that the wider strip on the western side was required for denser planting.

I concur with Mr Storey’s contention that the scheme will have a significant impact on his agricultural enterprise, given the 10 acres in total being taken from a holding of approximately 58 acres.

However, I also concur with Mr Evans and Mr Burns, for the Council, that the planting of embankments is an appropriate mitigation measure in the vicinity of properties. Landscaping on the southwest side of the mainline between Chainage 6 + 750 and the end of the scheme is recommended as a specific mitigation measure to provide for visual screening from St Mary’s Church and adjoining graveyard.

I am satisfied that the CPO lands at Kilconny between Chainage 6 + 750 and the end of the scheme, including Plot Numbers 134c.104; 134b.103; 134c.104 and 134b.104 are required to develop the proposed road scheme and to incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in relation to landscape and visual impact aspects.

5.6.4. Material Assets – Agricultural

This issue is addressed in Chapter 12 of the EIS and was described by Mr John Bligh in his Brief of Evidence at the Oral Hearing.

Mr Nagle, in his submission on behalf of Mr Storey, contended that access across the proposed new road should be provided at approximately Chainage 6 +850 to facilitate the management of the farm given the level of severance and the extent of the landtake. Mr Nagle contended that it was not possible to get farm

67 machinery through the existing underpass at the Staghall Roundabout. This roundabout is approximately 3.8m by 3.8m.

Mr Evans, for the Council, pointed out that the proposed underpass at approximately Chainage 7 +100, as shown on Fig 4.6 of Volume 1, EIS was not designed to accommodate farm machinery. He acknowledged that the access underneath the River Erne Bridge, at Chainage approximately 6 + 600 would accommodate machinery but was at a less suitable location for the operation of the farm. Mr Evans also pointed out that accommodation works are usually negotiated as part of the land purchase process, and that the landowner is entitled to seek compensation for the impact of the proposed works as part of these CPO negotiations.

I acknowledge the significant impact of the proposed road scheme on Mr Storey’s business. However I consider that the scheme design offers an appropriate solution and I am satisfied that the residual impact on Mr Storey’s property would not justify the withholding of approval of the EIS or confirmation of the CPO in this case.

5.6.5. Hydrology and Flora, Fauna and Fisheries

This issue of hydrology is addressed in Chapter 14 of the EIS and was described by Mr Evans and, in part, by Mr Nairn and Ms McCarthy in their Briefs of Evidence at the Oral Hearing.

The issue of ecology (Flora, Fauna and Fisheries) is addressed in Chapter 17 of the EIS and was described by Mr Nairn in his Brief of Evidence at the Oral Hearing.

These issues are considered together in this section, given the close inter- relationship between the factors.

Mr Evans pointed out the measures designed to prevent any deterioration of the existing hydrological regime and any exacerbation of current flooding issues as a consequence of the proposed road scheme. Settlement ponds, silt traps and bunds will be used to avoid siltation of water bodies. Hydrocarbon and grit interceptors will be utilised to control pollution and runoff. Where existing field drains are intercepted these will be diverted into the road drainage system. The drainage system will provide for channelling surface and sub-grade drainage for the proposed road scheme into the nearest outfall/spillage containment facility. Attenuation ponds located downstream of these facilities will regulate surface water discharges to the environment.

Mr Nagle, in his letters of objection to the CPO and to the EIS, referred to the effect of road drainage design on the lands. Mr Evans asserted that all natural

68 drains would be collected in addition to surface water run-off, thus ensuring that lands adjacent to the road will be drained adequately.

The submission by the Northern Regional Fisheries Board (NRFB) points out that the Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs cSAC is of international ecological value. It seeks the maintenance and even enhancement of access to the watercourses, particularly Putiaghan Lough. Mr Evans, for the Council, indicated that access would be maintained to the River Erne and the Lakes along the scheme. The proposed access to Putiaghan Lough is discussed under Section 5.6.2 above dealing with Community Impacts.

One of the most contentious issues at the Oral Hearing was the impact of the proposed scheme on the candidate Special Area of Conservation and, in particular the Annex 1 Priority Habitat, at Aghnaguig Bog.

Mr Sweetman, for the objectors, asserted that bog woodlands are a Priority Habitat and where a pristine site existed, as in this case, it would have to be considered a Priority Habitat. The proposed scheme was a Natura 2000 site. He disputed Mr Evans assertion that the integrity of the cSAC would not be affected by the scheme. Mr Nairn, for the Council, indicated that there will be direct impacts on the cSAC in that 4.26ha of wetland habitats will be removed with the cSAC. He acknowledged that this constituted a severe negative impact but asserted that there would be no direct impacts on Annex 1 Priority Habitats. Mr Sweetman disputed Mr Nairn’s assertion that the Annex 1 Priority Habitat is the area shaded red on Fig 17.2. Mr Nairn contended that this area, the Priority Habitat, is the area shaded red located with the “bog woodland” area WN7 shaded dark green which, in turn, lies within the wet willow alder-ash woodland area WN6 (to the south, southwest, east and north) and the conifer plantation area WD4 (to the west and northwest). These areas are shown in Fig 17.2 with reference to the legend on Fig 17.0 in Volume 1 of the EIS.

Mr Evans, in his closing statement for the Council asserted that two types of bog woodland are present with the cSAC:

i) Annex 1 Priority Habitat Reference 91D0 – birch dominated with localised large areas of sphagnum moss.

ii) Bog woodland WN7 – birch dominated over grass dominated ground flora.

Mr Evans contended that bog woodland WN7 did not conform with the definition of Priority Habitat.

The Northern Regional Fisheries Board, in their submission to the Board recommended that Pier 1 on the proposed bridge over Aghnaguig Bog should be moved to a location 20m from drain D6. Mr Evans, for the Council pointed out

69 that it was not possible to move Pier 1 more than 20m from drain D6. He indicated that a fenced buffer zone could be provided to D6 if required. He assented that the Priority Habitat would not be either directly or indirectly affected by the proposed scheme and that the integrity of the cSAC would not be adversely affected.

I am not satisfied that Mr Sweetman has adequately demonstrated that the Annex 1 Priority Habitat at Aghnaguig Bog will be adversely affected by the proposed scheme. There is an apparent conflict of opinion between Mr Sweetman and Mr Nairn in relation to the spatial extent of the Priority Habitat. Mr Sweetman appears to be of the view that the bog woodland area denoted WN7 on Fig 17.2 constitutes a Priority Habitat whereas Mr Nairn is quite specific in his evidence that the Priority Habitat is confined to the area shaded red within the green shaded area WN7.

I am generally satisfied that the Priority Habitat, Reference 91D0 – birch dominated with localised large areas of sphagnum moss – will not be affect by the proposed scheme provided the mitigation measures, submitted as Document Number 37 at the Oral Hearing, are adhered to in relation to the works at Aghnaguig Bog. I am also generally satisfied that the integrity of the Lough Oughter and Associated Lakes cSAC will not be adversely affected.

In relation to the other issues:

- I am generally satisfied that access to all watercourses, in particular Putiaghan Lake, will be maintained. I am satisfied that appropriate car parking can be provided, if it is required, for persons who wish to access the lake, at the hammerhead turning area off L5527, close to Ms Eileen McCaffrey’s equestrian enterprise.

- I am satisfied that Mr Storey’s property should not be adversely affected by road drainage design on his lands. Subject to compliance with the mitigation measures listed, I am satisfied that the lands adjacent to the road will be appropriately drained.

- I am generally satisfied that the existing hydrogeological regime in the Lough Oughter area will not be adversely affected, subject to the proposed mitigation measures being complied with .

5.7. STATUTORY PROCESS ISSUES

5.7.1. Application For Approval Of EIS

The public notice was placed in the Anglo-Celt newspaper dated 2nd June 2005. The closing date per receipt of submissions was stated as 22nd July 2005.

70

The period specified in Section 175 (4)(a)(ii), during which a copy of the EIS may be inspected and during which submissions or observations may be made to the Board, is not less than 6 weeks.

I am generally satisfied that the provisions of Section 51 of the Roads Act, as amended by the Planning & Development Act 2000 have been complied with in this regard.

5.7.2. APPLICATION FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE CPO

The public notice was placed in the Anglo-Celt newspaper dated 2nd June 2005. The closing date for receipt of objections was stated as 13th July 2005.

The Housing Act 1966 (Acquisition of Land) Regulations, 2000 specifies that the date before which objections are to reach the Board should be at least 21 days from the date of service of the notice. Where the CPO involves extinguishment of a public right of way these objectors should be given 6 weeks from the date of publication of the newspaper notice of the CPO to lodge objections.

I note the Form of Notice for the CPO as published in the Anglo Celt and I am satisfied that the notice complies with the prescribed form of a CPO as set out in the Housing Act 1966 (Acquisition of Land) Regulations, 2000.

71 6.0 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

6.1. NEED FOR PROJECT

I am satisfied that the existing N3 is substandard and poses an unacceptable traffic accident risk, as follows:

- The existing road does not provide an adequate level of service at an appropriate design speed for a National Primary Road.

- The route of the N3 through the centre of Belturbet town acts as a bottleneck to National Primary through traffic and gives rise to traffic congestion in the town.

- The existing road poses an unacceptable risk to traffic in terms of safety.

I am satisfied that improvements incorporating realignment and widening of the existing N3 is not a practical option to cater for the predicted increases in traffic volumes.

I am satisfied that the N3 Butlers Bridge to Belturbet Road Improvement Scheme, which is the subject of the Compulsory Purchase Order and the application for approval of the EIS, is required in the interests of traffic safety and in the wider interests of the economic and social development of the area.

6.2. SUITABILITY OF PROJECT

I am satisfied that the proposed scheme reflects an appropriate solution to accommodate the projected traffic volumes to the year 2023.

I am generally satisfied that the lands to be acquired, which are the subject of the CPO, are necessary for the permanent works and for temporary construction works.

I am satisfied that a number of Plots are no longer required due to the selection of an alternative access arrangement from the lane at Cormacmullan, near Chainage 2 + 200. The following plots are therefore not required for the construction of the scheme and I am satisfied that they should be removed from the CPO. These Plot Numbers are Plot 107a.106; Plot 107b.104; Plot 107b.105; Plot 109a.102; and Plot 109a.104

6.3. PLANNING ISSUES

I am satisfied that the proposed scheme is consistent with the relevant national, regional and local planning policies, in particular:

72 - The National Spatial Strategy and the Regional Planning Guidelines which identify the need to improve access and linkages, thereby underpinning regional development.

- The County Development Plan 2003 – 2009 which specifically lists the 7km road realignment scheme as one of the National Primary Roads Development Objectives.

I am satisfied, on the basis of the EIS and of the evidence presented by Mr Nairn in particular at the Oral Hearing, that the proposed development will not detract from the intrinsic value of the Lough Oughter and Associated Lakes candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) through which the route passes. I am further satisfied that the footprint of the proposed route does not pass through the Annex 1, Priority Habitat (Reference 91D0) in the EU Habitats Directive. I am generally satisfied that the mitigation measures proposed, as per Document Number 37 circulated at the Oral Hearing, will significantly reduce the risk that the proposed scheme will detract from the intrinsic value of the candidate Special Area of Conservation or will impact on the Annex 1, Priority Habitat at Aghnaguig Bog.

I am satisfied that the proposed scheme is consistent with the Cavan County Council Development Plan which was adopted by Cavan County Council n March 2003.

6.4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

I am satisfied that the EIS complies with Section 50 of the Roads Act, 1993 in relation to the content of the EIS and the information which should be included.

- I am satisfied that the proposed road scheme is appropriately described in relation to the site, and the design and size of the proposed road development.

- I am satisfied that mitigation measures are described for all of the significant adverse impacts identified.

- I am satisfied that the EIS contains the appropriate data to enable the main environmental impacts to be identified.

- I am satisfied that the main alternatives to the proposed scheme were studied by the road authority and that the main reasons for the selection of the preferred route option are indicated, taking into account the environmental effects. In this regard, I am satisfied that Route B/B3 represents the preferred route option in relation to other route options considered. The route options are shown on Fig 3.1, Volume 1, EIS. I note that the scheme promoters considered a possible alternative junction layout at Cormacmullen (Fig 4.12) and this layout, is included in the scheme proposal.

73

- I am satisfied that the information contained in the EIS is summarised in non- technical language in the Non-Technical Summary in Volume 1 of the EIS.

- I am satisfied that all of the listed aspects of the environment which are required to be described, are incorporated in the EIS. I am satisfied, for example, that the impact on human beings are covered under various sections of the EIS including Noise and Vibration, Air Quality, Community Impacts and Landscape and Visual.

6.5. KEY IMPACTS OF PROPOSED SCHEME

6.5.1. Other Environmental Aspects

I am generally satisfied in relation to the following:

- The impact of noise and vibration can be considered acceptable, subject to compliance with the levels specified in Tables 7.13 and 7.14 in Volume 1, EIS.

- The impact of the scheme on air quality and on climate is not considered significant.

- The impact on archaeology will be significantly mitigated by the appointment of a Project Archaeologist for the scheme.

- The architectural heritage impact is not considered significant.

- The proposed measures will significantly mitigate the impact of the scheme at all non-agricultural properties affected by the scheme.

- The impact of the proposed road on geology is likely to be significant, given the depth of earth cuts in the scheme. I do not consider that such impact would justify the withholding of approval of the EIS or confirmation of the CPO in this case.

- The residual impacts on hydrogeology are not considered significant, subject to the recommended mitigation measures and adherence to the proposed construction methodology.

6.5.2. Community Impacts

I am satisfied that the road closures on L5527 will have a significant impact on the local community along Putiaghan Road. I am satisfied that the provision of an underpass at approximately Chainage 5 + 700 is not feasible. I am satisfied that the mitigation measures proposed, which include a pedestrian and cyclist access

74 from L5527 to the proposed N3, represent a practicable solution in the circumstances. I do not consider the community severance impact sufficient to justify the withholding of approval of the project or confirmation of the CPO in this case.

I am satisfied that the hammerhead turning area off L5527, close to Ms Eileen McCaffrey’s equestrian enterprise, can accommodate some car parking. I am satisfied that this represents an appropriate solution for persons who wish to access Putiaghan Lake. I am generally satisfied that appropriate provision has been made for access to Putiaghan Lake, including access for boats.

6.5.3. Landscape and Visual

I am generally satisfied that the proposed mitigation measures, which include natural re-colonisation and planting will significantly mitigate the adverse landscape impact of the scheme. I acknowledge the profound residual impact at three locations but I do not consider such impact sufficient to justify the withholding of approval of the EIS or confirmation of the CPO in this case.

I am satisfied that the CPO lands at Kilconny, between approximately Chainage 6 + 750 and the end of the scheme, are required to develop the proposed road scheme and to incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in relation to landscape and visual impact aspects.

6.5.4. Material Assets – Agricultural

I am generally satisfied that the scheme design seeks to mitigate the impact of the proposed road scheme on agricultural properties and enterprises in the area. I note the residual impact on Mr Storey’s lands but I am satisfied that this is not sufficient to justify the withholding of approval of the EIS on confirmation of the CPO in this case.

6.5.5. Hydrology and Flora, Fauna and Fisheries.

There is an apparent conflict of opinion between Mr Sweetman, for the objectors, and Mr Nairn, for the Council in relation to what areas should be included in the Annex 1 Priority Habitat. I am not satisfied that Mr Sweetman has adequately demonstrated that the Priority Habitat at Aghnaguig Bog will be adversely affected by the proposed scheme. I am generally satisfied that the integrity of the Lough Oughter and Associated Lakes cSAC will not be adversely affected and that the Priority Habitat (Reference 91D0) will not be adversely affected by the scheme, subject to the implementation of the mitigation measures, related to the works at Aghnaguig Bog being adhered to.

75 I am generally satisfied that appropriate measures proposed to maintain accesses to watercourses affected by the proposed scheme, in particular Putiaghan Lough . I am generally satisfied that Mr Storey’s property should not be adversely affected by road drainage design on his lands.

I am generally satisfied that the existing hydrogeological regime in the Lough Oughter area will not be adversely affected, subject to the mitigation measures being adhered to.

6.6. Statutory Procedures

I am generally satisfied that the appropriate procedures for the CPO and for the approval of the EIS, including Public Notices and the appropriate Form of Notice in the case of the CPO, have been complied with.

76 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ON COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER

7.1. RECOMMENDATION

Having examined the Environmental Impact Statement, inspected the site and studied the submissions both written and oral of the promoting Authority, Cavan County Council and the other parties, I recommend that the Board confirm the Compulsory Purchase Order No. 1 of 2005, in respect of the N3 Butlers Bridge to Belturbet Road Improvement Scheme Compulsory Purchase Order 2005, subject to the modification set out below.

7.2. REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR CONFIRMATION OF CPO

Having regard to the current and projected traffic flows on this section of the N3 route and the road network in its vicinity, to the provisions of the National Development Plan and to the provisions of the Cavan County Development Plan, and to the nature of the objections, acquisition by the local authority of the land included in the Compulsory Purchase Order is necessary for the stated purpose and the objections cannot be sustained having regard to the said necessity.

7.3. MODIFICATION

The compulsory purchase order shall be modified to take account of the document entitled “N3 Butlers Bridge to Belturbet Road Improvement, Environmental Impact Statement, Errata, 20th. September 2005”, which was submitted at the Oral Hearing. This document seeks the removal of the following CPO Plot Numbers: 107a.106; 107b.104; 107b.105; 109a.102 and 109a.104.

7.4. REASON:

To take account of updated information in respect of land ownership and other matters and to reflect agreements to the effect that it is not necessary to include some lands previously included in the compulsory purchase order due to the proposed change in access arrangements from the lane at Cormacmullan near Chainage 2 + 200.

77

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ON APPROVAL OF SCHEME IN RESPECT OF WHICH AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WAS PREPARED

8.1. RECOMMENDATION

Having examined the Environmental Impact Statement, inspected the site and studied the submissions both written and oral of the promoting authority, Cavan County Council and the other parties, I recommend that the Board approve the proposed N3 Butlers Bridge to Belturbet Road Improvement Scheme, in respect of which an EIS was prepared

8.2. REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF SCHEME

Having regard to:

- The likely effects on the environment of the proposed road development and the environmental sensitivity of the route of the proposed road,

- The National Spatial Strategy and the Regional Planning Guidelines which identify the need to improve access and linkages generally in order to underpin regional development.

- The provisions of the Cavan County Development Plan 2003 – 2009 in March 2003, which specifically lists the 7km Butlers Bridge to Belturbet road realignment scheme as one of the National Primary Roads Development Objectives.

It is considered that the proposed development, subject to the modifications set out below, is necessary to provide for the future traffic movements between Butlers Bridge and Belturbet, would be consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, would not adversely effect the integrity of the Lough Oughter and Associated Lakes candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) and would not otherwise have significant adverse effects on the environment.

8.3. MODIFICATIONS

1. The proposed development shall be modified to incorporate the mitigation measures set out in the document entitled “Schedule of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments”, submitted at the Oral Hearing by Arup Consulting Engineers for Cavan County Council and dated September 2005

78 Reason: In order to define the mitigation measures to be carried out and to ensure that the development will not have significant adverse effects on the environment

2. Prior to the excavation of peat, the County Council shall arrange for a Risk Assessment to be undertaken by a suitable competent person, addressing the issues of transport, storage and deposition of the excavated material, either on-site or off-site. The development of the scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Risk Assessment.

Reason: To address the risks of leakage, slippage and pollution which could potentially arise in the handling of such material.

3. The County Council shall consult with the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) so that mitigation measures, which are intended to protect the Annex 1 Priority Habitat in Aghnaguig Bog, can be agreed in advance of commencement of the construction works. Such agreed mitigation measures shall be implemented as part of the development works.

Reason: In order to refine the mitigation measures to be carried out and to ensure that the development will not have significant adverse effects on the Annex 1 Priority Habitat in Aghnaguig Bog

Billy Moore, BE, MSc, MBA 6th December 2005

79 APPENDIX A:

LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT ORAL HEARING

1. Witnesses Schedule from Cavan County Council

2. Brief of Evidence – Overall Scheme Michael Evans (Arup Consulting Engineers)

3. Environmental Impact Statement Errata (Arup Consulting Engineers and Cavan County Council)

4. Brief of Evidence – Senior Planner Tara Spain (Cavan County Council)

5. (a) Cavan Town Council, Development Plan Maps for Cavan Town 2003-2009

(b) Cavan Town Council, Development Plan 2003-2009

(c) Cavan Town and Environs Development Plan 2003-2009

(d) Cavan Town Maps and Environs Development Plan 2003-2009

(e) Cavan Town and Environs Development Plan 2003-2009

(f) Cavan Town Maps and Environs Development Plan 2003-2009

(g) County Cavan Development Plan Maps 2003-2009

(h) County Cavan Development Plan 2003-2009

6. Brief of Evidence – Air Quality & Climate Sinead Whyte (Arup Menzies)

7. Brief of Evidence – Noise and Vibration Christopher Dilworth (AWN Consulting)

8. Brief of Evidence-Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Siobhan Deery (Margaret Gowen & Co. Ltd)

9. Brief of Evidence – Architectural Heritage, Jackie Jordan (Margaret Gowen & Co. Ltd)

10. Brief of Evidence – Community Impacts Craig H. Bullock (Optimize Consultants)

80

11. Copy of an A4 Map, Drawing No. C3157, (Drawing Title. Closed Roads Overall Layout) handed in by Cavan County Council.

12. Copy of Corrected Environmental Impact Statement, Errata handed in by Cavan County Council.

13. Brief of Evidence- Landscape (And Visual) Aspects Thomas Burns (Brady Shipman Martin)

14. Brief of Evidence – Geotechnical Aspects Paul Quigley

15. Copy of 6 A4 Maps Drawing Number’s C3151 to C3156, (Drawing Titles: Proposed Scheme on Aerial Photography) - handed by Cavan County Council.

16. Brief of Evidence – Material Assets-Agricultural Properties John Bligh (Philip Farrelly and Partners)

16 (a). Copy of the Addendum to changes in Brief on Agricultural Properties, handed in by Cavan County Council

17. Brief of Evidence – Ecological Richard Nairn (Natura Environmental Consultants)

18. Brief of Evidence-Hydrogeology Eileen McCarthy (Minerex Environmental Limited)

19. Copy of letter dated 3rd August 2005 from Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government to An Bord Pleanála handed in by Cavan County Council.

20. Copy of Route Selection Flow Chart, handed in by Cavan County Council.

21. Copy of 5 A4 Maps, Drawing Numbers C3163 to C3167, (Drawing Titles: Closed Roads overall Layout, and Detailed Scheme Layout Closed Roads Sheet 1, 2, 3, and 4), handed in by Cavan County Council.

22. Copy of the Keep Belturbet Straheglin Putiaghan and Bunn Roads Open Petition.

23. Copy of 4 A1 Maps, Drawings Numbers C3055 to C3058, (Drawing Titles: Ecological Habitat Map), Figures 17.1 to 17.4, handed in by Cavan County Council.

24. Copy of 6 A4 Maps, Drawings Numbers C3110 to C3115, (Drawing Titles:

81 Proposed Scheme Horizontal and Vertical Alignments) Figures 4.1 to 4.6 handed in by Cavan County Council.

25. Copy of Tube and Piezometer Specification, handed in by Cavan County Council.

26. Copy of Landscape and Visual Assessment Table 9.4, handed in by Cavan County Council.

27. Copy of drawing title: Appendix J: Transect 4- Detailed Cross Section along the Proposed N3 Improvement Scheme (Bridge Structure) Drawing Ref: 1244- 008 (Transects), handed in by Cavan County Council.

28. Copy of 4 A4 Maps, Drawings Numbers C3055 to C3058, (Drawing Titles: Ecological Habitat Map), Figures 17.1 to 17.4, handed in by Cavan County Council.

29. Copy of 4 A3 Maps, Figure Numbers OH-LM 1 to OH-LM 4, (Drawing Titles: Landscape Mitigation Plan Sheets 1 to 4), handed in by Cavan County Council.

30. Copy of letter dated 21st September 2005 from Martin and Rea (Consultants in Agriculture and Business) to Billy Moore, Inspector, An Bord Pleanála, withdrawing a number of objections, handed in by Peter Sweetman.

31. Copy of Interpretation Manual of European Habitats, handed in by Cavan County Council.

32. Copy of letter dated 22nd September from Gaynor Corr and Associates Ltd. to An Bord Pleanála, handed in by Cavan County Council.

33. Copy of rebuttals from Michael Evens (Arup Consulting Engineers) to Mr. Sean Fitzpatrick, Mr. Denis Storey, Peter Sweetman and Associates, Northern Regional Fisheries Board, An Taisce and Putiaghan Group, handed in Cavan County Council.

34. Copy of a letter to Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government dated 30th August 2005 from Arup Consulting Engineers, handed in by Cavan County Council.

35. Copy of a letter to Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government dated 16th September 2005 from Arup Consulting Engineers handed in by Cavan County Council.

36. Copy of Closing Statement by Cavan County Council.

37. Copy of Schedule of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments (Arup Consulting Engineers), handed in by Cavan County Council.

82

38. Copy of Compulsory Purchase order under section 76 of and the third schedule to the housing act, 1966, as extended by section 10 of the Local Government (No.2) act, 1960 and amended by section 213 of the planning and development act, 2000 roads acts 1993-2001 handed in by Cavan County Council.

39. Copy of 12 A1 Maps (i) Key Plan, (ii) Sheet 1, Drg. No. N3 DEP-01-Photo, (iii) Sheet 2, Drg. No. N3 DEP-02-Photo, (iv) Sheet 3, Drg.No. N3 DEP-03-Photo, (v) Sheet 4, Drg. No. N3 DEP-04-Photo, (vi) Sheet 5, Drg. No. N3 DEP-04-Photo, (vii) Key Plan Map, (viii) Sheet 1, N3-DEP-01, (ix) Sheet 2, N3-DEP-02, (x) Sheet 3, N3-Dep-03, (xi) Sheet 4, N3-DEP-04 and (xii) Sheet 5, N3-DEP-04, on display at the Oral Hearing and handed in by Cavan County Council.

83

APPENDIX B

PHOTOGRAPHS

84