A5 Western Transport Corridor
Public Inquiry Report
New Buildings to Aughnacloy February 2012
— Volume 1 — 2 Table of Contents
Volume 1 Page
Index of Objectors 4 (Alphabetical)
Chapter 1 Introduction 19
Chapter 2 Description Of Scheme 21
Strategic Inquiry Report 23
Chapter 3 The Case For The Department Strategic 25
Chapter 4 Cross Examination Of Departmental 35 Witnesses Strategic
Chapter 5 Presentation Of Objections At Strategic Inquiry 37
Chapter 6 Common Issues 201
Volume 2
Chapter 7 Section 1 Inquiry Report 5
Chapter 8 Section 2 Inquiry Report 111
Chapter 9 Section 3 Inquiry Report 175
Chapter 10 Endorsements – Strategic 287
Chapter 11 Conclusions, Recommendations & Acknowledgements 293
Volume 3
Appendix 1 Standard Letters & Objector Listings 5
Appendix 2 Inquiry Appearances Listing 23
Appendix 3 List Of Departmental Documentation 37
Appendix 4 Objector Listing (Numerical) 39
Appendix 5 Inspectors’ Correspondence 57
Appendix 6 Endorsement Listing (Alphabetical) 63
Appendix 7 Statutory Consultee Listing 65
Appendix 8 List Of Abbreviations 67
3 Index of Objectors
Surname / Forename / Strategic Local Vol / Page Business Representative Reference Reference A & B Contracts OA-1115 02-071 1/148, 2/165 Acheson Ruth OA-1294 1/192 Adams David & OA-1081 02-004 2/116 Christopher Adams Denise OA-1049 01-079 1/114, 2/44 Adams John Mark OA-1050 01-080 1/115, 188. 2/45 Allen David 03-130 2/229 Allen Elizabeth, James, OA-1164 03-081 1/169, 188. 2/229 David & Mavis Allen John OA-970 1/77 Allen Thomas & Helen OA-1153 03-069 1/166, 188. 2/219 Alternative A5 Represented by OA-982 1/89 Alliance Hoy & Dorman Consulting Engineers An Taisce - Represented by Ian OA-038 1/49 National Trust for Lumley, James Nix Ireland & Attracta Ui Bhroin Anderson Paula OA-1025 1/100 Armstrong Alan OA-1114 02-068 1/148, 2/163 Armstrong David & Lavinia OA-1186 03-139 1/176, 182. 2/185 Armstrong Muriel 03-017 2/185 Armstrong William Thomas OA-1138 03-027 1/159, 182. 2/191 Armstrong William, Margaret & 03-656 2/273 Billie Jo Ash Avenue Represented by 01-003 2/12 Residents Sean Molloy Aughnacloy Represented by Liz OA-1172 03-096 1/171 Development Salter Association Aughnacloy Represented by OA-1142 03-037 1/161, 2/200 Presbyterian Robert Brush Church Baghi Linda & Masoud 01-095 2/67
4 Surname / Forename / Strategic Local Vol / Page Business Representative Reference Reference Baird Mervyn & Olive 01-093 2/63 Ballygawley Represented by OA-1193 03-654 1/179 Development Jim Tallon Association Ballygawley Brian Keown OA-1123 03-006 1/151 Veterinary Practice Ballygawley Represented by OA-1144 03-040 1/162 Traders Isobel Coote & Dillon Morris Barrett Paul & Elaine OA-1160 03-077 1/168, 188. 2/226 Baskin Robert OA-1091 02-026 1/141, 2/130 Beattie James 03-667 2/278 Beggs Leslie OA-1198 03-095 1/182, 2/236 Beggs William Norman OA-1191 03-372 1/178, 188. 2/271 Beggs William Thomas OA-1095 02-031 1/141, 188. 2/136 Bell Mervyn Alexander OA-1162 03-079 1/168, 188. 2/228 Bell Stanley OA-1030 02-084 1/103 2/170 Best Doreen OA-1130 03-015 1/157. 2/184 Bingham Edward 03-117 2/248 Bingham Gladys Emily OA-1192 03-481 1/179 2/272 Bingham Robert Noel 03-128 2/258 Blee Cathal OA-1043 01-063 1/112, 186. 2/27 Blee Pat OA-1238 1/186 Blee Kathleen 01-062 2/27 Boggs Robert 02-015 2/124 Bonner Martin 02-014 2/123 Boyd Norman OA-1242 03-082 1/188 2/230 Boyd Steven OA-1052 01-082 1/115, 188. 2/48 Boyd Trevor OA-1012 1/98 Boyd William OA-1051 01-081 1/115, 188. 2/46 Boyd William Cecil OA-1161 03-078 1/168, 188. 2/227 Boyle Michaela (MLA) 01-094 2/64 Bradley Sean OA-1105 02-053 1/144, 184. 2/151 Bratton Tom & Pamela 02-022 2/128 Briggs John OA-1068 01-118 1/125 2/89
5 Surname / Forename / Strategic Local Vol / Page Business Representative Reference Reference Bruce Robin & Jean OA-1064 01-107 1/122 2/76 Brush Samuel (Councillor) OA-1126 03-009 1/153 Brush David OA-1181 03-132 1/174 2/261 Brush Noel OA-1290 03-118 1/180 2/249 Brush Robert OA-003 03-657 1/40 2/273 Brush Victor OA-1182 03-133 1/174 2/261 Bryson Timothy 01-060 2/26 Buchanan Alan OA-1247 02-066 1/190 2/162 Buchanan Alistair OA-1211 1/182 Buchanan Margaret OA-1157 03-074 1/167, 188 2/224 Buchanan John & Sharon OA-1118 03-001 1/149 2/177 Burns Edward & John OA-1063 01-106 1/122 2/74 Busby Raymond & 03-122 2/253 Dorothy Byrne Joe (MLA) 01-094 2/64 Cairns Noel 02-045 2/146 Caldwell Mary 01-109 2/79 Campbell Bryan OA-1218 02-033 1/185 2/138 Campbell Sara OA-1190 03-371 1/178 2/270 Carlin Sean 01-100 2/68 Castlederg Anglers Gary Irvine 02-075 2/168 Club Cauneze Eric OA-1026 1/100 Christie Jane OA-004 1/40 Christie Kathleen OA-338 1/56 2/8 Christie Leslie OA-1000 01-077 1/97, 184. 2/41 Christie Victor OA-981 01-127 1/88 2/96 Clarke Violet Iris 03-121 2/252 Clarke Derek & Andrenna OA-1046 01-075 1/113 2/39 Cleery Liam & Jacqueline 01-097 2/67 Clotworthy Ian OA-009 1/44 Colhoun Derek OA-1103 02-051 1/144, 182. 2/149 Conwell John & Bridget 01-004 2/14 Cooper Alfred 02-072 2/166
6 Surname / Forename / Strategic Local Vol / Page Business Representative Reference Reference Cooper Colin & Suzanne 03-370 2/270 Coote Darren OA-1176 03-107 1/172, 2/242 Coote Eric Samuel OA-1141 03-036 1/161, 2/199 Coote Joy OA-027 1/48 Coote Phillip OA-1174 03-105 1/172, 2/241 Coote Wildridge John OA-1175 03-106 1/172 2/241 Corr Vivien OA-033 1/48 Crosbie James & David OA-1104 02-052 1/144, 2/150 Crosbie Raymond OA-1107 02-055 1/145, 184. 2/153, 202 Crumley Billy & Norman OA-1059 01-090 1/119, 184. 2/59 Crumlish Jude OA-1056 01-087 1/118, 184. 2/55 Cullen Jordan OA-1119 03-002 1/149 Cummings Heather & Robin OA-1206 01-005 1/182, 2/14 Curran Raymond OA-1231 02-034 1/185, 2/138 Daly Leo 03-297 2/270 Darragh Solomon OA-1204 02-049 1/182, 2/148 Davidson Alastair 03-090 2/234 Devine Gerard OA-1108 02-057 1/145, 184. 2/155 Dickson Martha Emily 03-149 2/267 Doherty Alec OA-1045 01-074 1/113, 2/38 Doherty Pat (MLA) 01-003 2/64 Donnell John (Councillor) OA-503 1/60 Donnell Derrick, Sylvia & OA-963 01-086 1/71, 184. 2/53 Hall Donnelly Bill OA-036 1/48 Dooher Patrick OA-1299 01-068 1/192, 2/31 Duddy Family OA-900 1/64 Duff Winston OA-1029 03-658 1/103, 2/274 Dunbar David, William & OA-1097 02-041 1/142, 184. 2/143 Arthur Dunbar John OA-1080 02-003 1/133, 189. 2/115 Dunbar Mary OA-008 1/44 Eisenhart Thomas OA-983 1/93 Elkin David 02-020 2/127
7 Surname / Forename / Strategic Local Vol / Page Business Representative Reference Reference Elliott James & Caroline OA-1071 01-122 1/128, 2/93 Ellis Family 02-047 2/147 Eskra Community Represented by 03-150 2/268 Association Ltd Gerry McCaffrey Evans Glen 03-085 2/232 Farnan Darren RA-043 2/291 Ferguson David 03-664 2/277 Ferguson John 03-665 2/277 Fitzsimmons Ernie & Linda 03-123 2/253 Forbes William 01-008 2/18 Foster James OA-1076 01-137 1/131, 2/100 Friends of the Earth James Orr OA-967 1/75 Fulton Ian OA-502 1/59 Fulton Robert 02-013 2/122 Fulton William & Robin OA-1058 01-089 1/119, 184. 2/57 Fyffe Margaret OA-1212 02-039 1/182, 2/142 Galbraith Mary OA-1041 01-059 1/111, 2/25 Gallagher Joseph OA-1167 03-087 1/170, 2/233 Gallagher Mr & Mrs Joseph OA-1090 02-025 1/141, 188. 2/130 Gallen Eugene 01-099 2/68 Gamble Richard & Sydney OA-1295 01-009 1/192, 2/19 Gamble (22 Robert Samuel OA-1048 01-078 1/114, 188. 2/42 Dunnalong Road) Gamble (37 Robert Samuel OA-006 1/42 Dunnalong Road) Gibson Brian & Jacinta 03-119 2/250 Gibson Oliver 03-088 2/233 Giles Frederick & OA-1154 03-071 1/166, 188. 2/220 Barbara Giles Nigel OA-1195 03-152 1/182, 2/269 Giles Ronald W Charles 03-148 2/267 Giles William Robert 03-113 2/245 Gilheany Declan 02-037 2/141 Gilmore Robert Stanley OA-1137 02-040 1/159, 2/142 Gilmour Ian and Sarah OA-1102 02-050 1/143, 182. 2/149
8 Surname / Forename / Strategic Local Vol / Page Business Representative Reference Reference Givan Robert & Margaret 03-023 2/189 Green Action Represented by OA-973 1/82 John Wright Greer Diane OA-020 1/46 Grimsley William OA-951 1/70 Guthrie Stephen & Sarah OA-1053 01-083 1/116, 2/51 Hackett Eamon OA-1158 03-075 1/168, 188. 2/225 Hackett Kieran OA-1226 1/185 Hackett Patricia 03-143 2/265 Hacketts Represented by OA-1230 03-050 1/185, 2/202 (Newtownsaville) Paul Hackett Hadden David OA-1067 01-117 1/125, 2/88 Hadden Lucille OA-1066 01-116 1/124, 2/87 Hamilton Robert OA-1196 02-021 1/182, 2/127 Harvey Edward OA-1111 02-061 1/146, 188. 2/159 Hassard Charlotte OA-977 1/85 Hassard John Hamilton OA-980 1/86, 188. 2/169 Hassard S OA-978 1/86 Hassard Sara E OA-979 1/86 Hatrick Barbara OA-1069 01-119 1/126, 2/91 Hatrick John OA-1027 1/102 Hawkes Kenneth OA-1173 03-102 1/172, 190. 2/239 Hawkes Stephen OA-499 1/58 Heaney Gerald OA-1222 02-035 1/185, 2/139 Hegarty PJ OA-1065 01-115 1/124, 2/86 Henderson Cecil OA-1060 01-091 1/119, 184. 2/61 Henderson Hazel OA-1085 02-012 1/136, 2/122 Heslip Lawrence 03-034 2/196 Horisk Mary Teresa OA-1256 1/190 Houston Maud OA-1134 03-022 1/158, 2/189 Houston Sidney 03-021 2/188 Hoy & Dorman Martin Hoy 2/8 Hume Mandy & Liam 01-096 2/67 Johnston Robert Stephen OA-1171 03-093 1/171, 182. 2/235 Kee Jonathan OA-966 1/73 Kee Steven & Melanie OA-1151 03-066 1/165, 186, 187. 2/216 9 Surname / Forename / Strategic Local Vol / Page Business Representative Reference Reference Kelly Frank & Ciaran 03-070 2/219 Kelly Catherine OA-1228 03-103 1/185 Kelly Patrick 2/8 Kemps Alan & Heather OA-1112 02-062 1/147, 182. 2/159 Kerr Ross & Julie OA-1040 01-058 1/111, 2/24 Keys Leonard & Shirley OA-1170 03-092 1/171, 2/235 Killen James Ronald 01-142 2/102 Kirk Pat 01-010 2/20 Kirwan John OA-012 1/45 Kwasniewska Laura OA-1033 02-080 1/104, 2/169 Kyle Tom OA-1253 03-016 1/190, 2/184 Kyle Family OA-1289 03-032 2/194 Lake Malcolm OA-001 02-083 1/37, 2/170 Law William OA-1165 03-083 1/169, 2/230 Lawless Colm OA-965 1/73 Lennox John & Helen OA-1075 01-136 1/130, 192. 2/98 Lockhart William & Mary 03-127 2/257 Longwell Derek OA-1100 02-044 1/143, 184. 2/145 Loughlin Rodney 02-046 2/146 Loughs Agency John McCartney & OA-1034 1/109 Declan Lawlor Love Dorothy OA-1047 01-076 1/113, 2/41 Love Victor OA-1059 01-090 1/119, 184. 2/59 Lowry Barbara OA-1072 01-123 1/128, 2/8, 93 Lowry David OA-1073 01-124 1/129, 2/93 Lowry Joe OA-1225 02-036 1/185, 2/140 Lynch Aidan OA-1215 03-065 1/185, 2/216 Lynch Jack OA-1028 1/102 Lynd Drew & Diane OA-1159 03-076 1/168, 188 2/225 Lindsay Family OA-1243 01-002 1/190, 2/10 Lynn John OA-1190 03-371 1/178, 2/270 MacLaine Alistair OA-1139 03-029 1/160 Magee Mervyn OA-1254 03-099 1/190, 2/238 Maguire Frank & Maura OA-1096 02-038 1/142, 2/141
10 Surname / Forename / Strategic Local Vol / Page Business Representative Reference Reference Maguire Mary, and OA-1044 01-072 1/112, 192 2/36 representatives of Patricia Monaghan (deceased) Maguire Ruari OA-1189 03-153 1/178, 2/269 Martin Cecil OA-1042 01-061 1/111, 186. 2/26 Matthews David OA-1092 02-027 1/141, 188. 2/131 Matthews Phillip OA-1241 1/188 McAleer Hugh & Pauline OA-1224 03-051 1/185, 2/202 McAleer Pat 03-124 2/254 McAskie Caldwell OA-1101 02-048 1/143, 182. 2/147 McAskie Joyce 02-079 2/168 McAskie Richard 02-077 2/168 McBride Harry & Myrtle OA-1183 03-134 1/175, 2/262 McCafferty John 01-139 2/102 McCaffrey Colette OA-1187 03-140 1/177, 2/264 McCaffrey Seamus 03-141 2/264 McCallion Patricia OA-950 1/69 McCallion William OA-948 1/69 McCarron Peter OA-972 1/77 McCarron Seamus OA-1234 03-064 1/185, 2/215 McCaughey Cathal 03-129 2/259 McCaughey Eugene OA-1221 1/185 McCaughey Patrick 03-126 2/256 McClean Ciaran OA-007 03-659 1/42, 2/274 McClean Padraig OA-010 1/44 McClean Patrick J OA-039 1/51 McClean Paul & Nicola OA-1188 03-144 1/177, 2/265 McClelland George OA-1184 03-135 1/175, 2/263 McCluskey Margaret OA-1023 1/99 McCracken D O McCracken & OA-1249 03-010 1/190, 2/182 Sons McCrea Alan & Derek OA-1245 01-001 1/190, 2/9 McCrea William Noel & 01-114 2/85 Graham Richard
11 Surname / Forename / Strategic Local Vol / Page Business Representative Reference Reference McCrory Deborah 01-094 2/64 McDowell Cyril OA-1251 03-100 2/238 McDowell Frederick OA-1163 03-080 1/168, 2/228 McDowell Frederick, Cyril & OA-1252 03-100 1/188, 190. 2/238 Kenneth McFarland Crawford OA-1084 02-011 1/136, 2/121 McFarland James OA-1200 02-001 1/182, 2/114 McFarland Noel OA-1255 03-098 1/190, 2/237 McFarland Fleming OA-1086 02-016 1/138, 2/124 McGarvey Damien & Paul 03-114 2/245 McGarvey Michael & Celine 03-116 2/247 McGarvey Clare 03-115 2/246 McGee Brian OA-1236 03-063 1/186, 2/214 McGee Stephen OA-1235 03-060 1/186, 2/211 McGettigan Declan 01-140 2/21 McGinley Terry 03-660 2/275 McGinn Colm OA-040 1/51 McGirr John James OA-1132 03-019 1/158, 2/186 McGleenon Brian OA-037 1/49 McGonagle Aidan OA-1079 1/132 McGonagle Aidan & James OA-1074 01-125 1/130, 2/94 McGonigle William & Joan 03-039 2/201 McGonnell Anthony OA-1194 1/180 (Councillor) McGrady Emmett OA-1220 03-061 1/185, 2/212 McKay B OA-1214 1/182 McKean James OA-1298 01-071 1/192, 2/34 McKean Robert & Frances OA-1055 01-103 1/118, 120, 188. 2/69 McKean Helen OA-1077 01-144 1/132, 2/102 McKean Stephen 01-120 2/92 McKelvey Richard OA-1088 02-019 1/190, 2/126 McKenna B 03-145 2/266 McKenna Brendan OA-1135 03-024 1/158, 2/190 McKenna Geraldine OA-1150 03-059 1/164, 185. 2/210
12 Surname / Forename / Strategic Local Vol / Page Business Representative Reference Reference McKenna Sean OA-1233 1/185 McKenna Thomas James 03-062 2/213 McKinley Nicholas OA-1099 02-043 1/143, 184. 2/144 McKinley Raymond & OA-1094 02-030 1/141, 188. 2/135 Margaret McKinley Robert, David & OA-1098 02-042 1/143, 184. 2/144 Valerie McMullan Ian & Gillian OA-1054 01-084 1/117, 2/51 McNamee Patrick OA-1082 02-009 1/134, 184. 2/120 McShane John OA-1300 01-007 2/16 McShane Peter OA-1293 01-067 1/192, 2/30 McSorley Kevin OA-949 1/69 McSorley Represented by 03-052 2/203 Enterprises Ltd Marie Therese McSorley Meegan Aidan OA-1216 03-130 1/185 Meegan Malachy 03-130 2/260 Meegan Patrick OA-1229 1/185 Mehaffey William 01-092 2/62 Mellon Patrick 03-094 2/236 Millar Arlene & Euan 03-104 2/240 Millar Albert 02-008 2/119 Millar David Ian 01-104 2/71 Mitchell Keith & Julie OA-1156 03-073 1/167, 188. 2/223 Mitchell Robert 01-135 2/97 Moffitt George OA-1213 1/182 Moore Alan 03-120 2/251 Moore Thomas OA-1168 03-089 1/170, 2/234 Morrow Samuel OA-1120 03-003 1/150, 190. 2/178 Mosgrove Keith & Alison OA-1127 03-011 1/156, 189. 2/183 Mountjoy Represented by OA-1113 02-063 1/147, 2/160 Presbyterian John Colhoun Church Mulligan Robert (Councillor) OA-1035 03-661 1/109, 2/275 Murphy Ciaran 01-108 2/78
13 Surname / Forename / Strategic Local Vol / Page Business Representative Reference Reference Murray William OA-1166 03-084 1/170, 2/231 Murtland Robert OA-464 1/56 Neeson Ann Marie 01-101 2/68 Niven John OA-501 1/59 Niven Ruth OA-500 1/58 Nixon Diane OA-962 1/71 O’Donnell Barry 03-115 2/246 O’Hagan Patrick & Elizabeth OA-1219 03-053 1/185, 2/204 O’Hagan Pauline & John OA-1203 03-028 1/182, 2/192 O’Kane John Ecklin OA-1292 01-073 1/192, 2/37 O’Leidhin Eoin OA-959 1/70 O’Neill Emmett OA-1140 03-030 1/161, 2/193 O’Neill Kieran & Amanda OA-1237 03-054 1/186, 2/205 O’Neill Pat OA-1239 02-032 1/186, 2/136 O’Neill Thomas 01-110 2/80 O’Neill Liam & Geraldine 01-111 2/82 O’Neill Ursula 01-112 2/83 O’Neill’s Pharmacy Shane OA-1145 03-044 1/163 Parker Glenn 01-113 2/84 Parr Mervyn OA-1178 03-110 1/173, 2/243 Patrick David & John 02-024 2/130 Patterson Adrian & Lorna OA-1297 01-069 1/192, 2/32 Patterson Samuel Henry 03-147 2/266 Pinkerton Brian & Richard OA-1089 02-023 1/140, 189. 2/128 Pinkerton Joseph Sidney OA-1117 02-076 1/149, 188. 2/168 Porter (25 Cashty Carol OA-975 1/84 Road) Porter (23 Mrs C OA-1083 02-010 1/134, 2/120 Gortnacreagh Road) Porter Mervyn Boyd OA-1087 02-018 1/140, 2/125 Prendiville Bernice OA-552 1/61 Quinn Eamon OA-1133 03-020 1/158, 2/188 Quinn Terry 02-065 2/161
14 Surname / Forename / Strategic Local Vol / Page Business Representative Reference Reference Rainey Margaret OA-939 1/67 Rainey George OA-938 03-662 1/66, 2/276 Rankin Geoffrey OA-1078 01-145 1/132 2/102 Rankin Robert OA-1296 01-070 1/192, 2/33 Rea Kenneth OA-1185 03-136 1/176, 2/263 Rea Wesley OA-1131 03-018 1/157, 2/186 Reid Maurice Alexander 03-151 2/268 Riverside Building OA-1070 01-121 1/127, 2/92 & Development Ltd. Robinson Colin 03-112 2/243 Robinson John OA-1208 02-007 1/182, 2/118 Robinson William & Neville OA-1143 03-038 1/162, 2/200 RSPB Lynne Peoples OA-062 1/55 Russell Alan 02-005 2/117 Russell Malcolm John 02-017 2/125 Russell Mark 02-069 2/164 Russell Paul 02-070 2/164 Ryan Michael 03-142 2/265 Save Newgrange Vincent Salafia OA-984 1/96 Sayers Stanley 02-078 2/169 Scott Conor OA-051 1/55 Sharma Family OA-1217 01-064 1/185, 2/29 Sherrard Noel 03-138 2/263 Sherry Mary 03-086 2/232 Short Irwin OA-1124 03-007 1/152, 2/180 Short Audrey 03-049 2/201 Simpson Geoffrey OA-011 1/45 Simpson John Malvern & OA-1169 03-091 1/171, 2/234 Helen Simpson June OA-976 1/85 Simpson Malcolm & Joan OA-1155 03-072 1/167, 188. 2/221 Smyth Gordon & Aubrey OA-1106 02-054 1/144, 184. 2/152 Smyth John OA-019 02-082 1/46, 2/170
15 Surname / Forename / Strategic Local Vol / Page Business Representative Reference Reference Smyth Lynne OA-002 1/39 Smyth Mervyn 02-029 2/134 Smyth Austin (Professor) OA-947 1/67 Smyth RJ OA-1116 02-073 1/148, 2/167 Smyth Ross & Gordon OA-566 1/63 Smyth Peter 02-067 2/163 Sproule Timothy OA-1093 02-028 1/141, 188, 2/133 St Patrick’s Michael Seery OA-1177 03-108 1/172, 2/243 Archdiocesan Trust (Reverend) Starrs Barney & Teresa OA-1148 03-057 1/164, 186, 187. 2/208 Starrs Brian & Pauline OA-1147 03-056 1/164, 186, 187. 2/207 Starrs John & Marion OA-1146 03-055 1/163, 186, 187. 2/206 Steele Nigel Thomas OA-1136 03-025 1/159, 2/191 Stephen Wood Stephen Wood OA-049 1/53 Consultancy Steritt Robin (Robert) OA-1109 02-058 1/146, 184. 2/156 Stewart Joan OA-1129 03-013 1/157 Stewart Keith 03-097 2/237 Stewart Mary Irene OA-1180 03-131 1/173, 2/260 Stewart Trevor OA-1122 03-005 1/151, 2/180 Stinson Family OA-1301 03-663 1/180, 2/276 Suitor Family OA-1125 03-008 1/153 Sullivan Jerrieann OA-960 1/70 Sweeney R 01-141 2/102 Swenarton Shirley 03-035 2/197 Taggart Camilla OA-022 1/47 Taggart James Lewis OA-1179 03-125 1/173, 2/255 Teague Ann OA-1209 02-064 1/182, 2/161 The Swans and the J Byrne & Peter OA-1002 1/97 Snails Ltd Sweetman Thompson Andrew 02-006 2/118 Thompson Group Elvin and Alan 01-105 2/72 Companies Thompson Throne David OA-1057 01-088 1/118, 184, 2/56
16 Surname / Forename / Strategic Local Vol / Page Business Representative Reference Reference Throne Mr & Mrs OA-1061 01-102 1/119, 188, 2/68 Christopher Todd Matthew OA-964 1/72 Tourish Wendy 01-098 2/67 Trustees of Represented by 03-031 2/194 Mulnahorne LOL Gary Lee 1644 Trustees of the Represented by 03-033 2/196 Church of Ireland Gary Lee Diocese of Armagh Tyrone Sand & George Kelly 02-074 2/167 Gravel Ulster Angling Jim Haughey OA-969 1/76 Federation Ulster Farmers John Thompson OA-1036 1/110 Union Walmsley Stephen OA-1199 02-002 1/182, 2/115 Ward Hugh & Kathleen OA-1149 03-058 1/164, 185, 187. 2/210 Ward William & Mary OA-1291 01-066 1/192, 2/30 Watterson Tom & Henrietta OA-1152 03-068 1/165, 188, 2/218 Wauchob John OA-1240 02-059 1/188, 2/157 Wauchob Olive OA-1110 02-060 1/146, 188, 2/158 Williams Charlie OA-005 1/41 Wilson David OA-1257 1/190 Wilson Geraldine & Ian OA-1128 03-012 1/156, 2/179 Wilson John & Anna OA-1121 03-004 1/150, 2/179 Wilson Mark OA-1248 03-101 1/190, 2/239 Wilson Bert OA-1202 1/182 Winters Ed OA-048 1/52 Witherow David OA-1205 01-006 1/182, 2/16 Woods Gerald 03-137 2/263 Woods Liam OA-1227 03-130 1/185 Woods Seamus & Paula OA-1232 03-067 1/185, 2/217
17 18 CHAPTER 1 1.5 At the meeting a number objectors called for Introduction a postponement of the whole Inquiry process because of their late receipt of relevant Departmental documentation. After careful 1.1 consideration it was decided not to accede to the th On the 4 of March 2011 Mr John Mageean was request for the following reasons: appointed by the Department as Lead Inspector for the Inquiry with the following terms of wwIf necessary, arrangements would be reference: made to allow the objectors concerned additional time for their presentation within § A5 Western Transport Corridor: to hold the timetable proposed for the entire Inquiry Inquiries into the Environmental Statement, process; Draft Direction Order, Notice of Intention to wwPostponement would inconvenience the make a Vesting Order and Draft Stopping- majority of objectors who had already up of Private Accesses Order prepared by earmarked attendance according to the the Department for the proposal and to proposed timetable. coordinate a single report thereon and make recommendations to the Department. 1.6 1.2 A note of the meeting was sent to all participants. The Inquiry process was split into four parts. The 1.7 first part related to the overarching strategic issues covered the entire length of the Scheme. The Due to illness Mr Mageean had to withdraw remaining issues were to be dealt with at Section as Lead Inspector prior to the opening of the Inquiries as follows: strategic element of the Inquiry. Mr Chambers was appointed in his place on the 6th of May 2011 § Section 1 New Buildings to Sion Mills; with the same terms of reference; Mr J Cargo was § Section 2 Sion Mills to south of Omagh; appointed to hear the Section1 Inquiry and Mr Mageean appointed to assist with the strategic § Section 3 South of Omagh to Aughnacloy. matters. The revised allocation of responsibilities was as follows: 1.3 § Strategic Mr Chambers assisted by Mr The Department appointed Mr SK Chambers, Mageean and Mr Gillespie; Mr M Shanks, Ms E Brady, Mr WF Gillespie, Mr B Sleith and Mr DL McAvoy to hold the Section § Section 1 Mr Cargo assisted by Mr Gillespie; Inquiries as follows: § Section 2 Mr Shanks assisted by Mr Sleith; § Section 1 Mr Chambers assisted by Mr § Section 3 Ms Brady assisted by Mr McAvoy. Gillespie; § Section 2 Mr Shanks assisted by Mr Sleith; 1.8 § Section 3 Ms Brady assisted by Mr McAvoy. The following pre-inquiry meetings were held to explain the procedural matters and to arrange 1.4 timetables for appearances at the Inquiries: Mr Mageean convened a pre-inquiry meeting § Section 1 Fir Trees Hotel, Omagh which was held in the Mellon Country Hotel on 7 April 2011; the 6th of April 2011. The purpose of the meeting was to explain the procedural matters relevant § Section 2 Mellon Country Hotel, Omagh to the initial part of the Inquiry dealing with the 6 April 2011; overarching strategic matters and to arrange a § Section 3 Kelly’s Inn, Garvaghey timetable for appearances at the Inquiry. 11 April 2011.
19 1.9 Following publication of the Environmental Statement and Draft Orders, 2585 objections, of which 629 were subsequently withdrawn, and 42 representations in support of the Scheme were received. We are satisfied that all parties were given full opportunity to make relevant representations and to question Departmental witnesses.
1.10 Prior to the opening of the Inquiry we made a number of unaccompanied site visits. Subsequent to the closure of the Inquiry, we made some further unaccompanied site visits in addition to joint site visits with objectors and Departmental staff.
1.11 An Inquiry report is not intended to be a verbatim record of the proceedings. In our Report a summary only of the relevant written and oral statements has been recorded but we wish to stress that full consideration was given to all evidence put to the Inquiry in each case. We have allowed the individual style of each Inspector to be reflected in the way in which the evidence has been summarised.
1.12 Throughout the Inquiry process and indeed subsequent to the Hearings, negotiations continued between the Department and some objectors resulting in certain changes to the Department’s proposals. While we welcome these attempts to reach agreement, the consequence was that our report has had to deal with a fluid situation.
1.13 We are aware that the situation in relation to funding for the Scheme has changed since completion of the Inquiry. Our report has been produced on the basis of the information and evidence presented before and during the Inquiry process.
20 CHAPTER 2 In total it is proposed to provide 40 over bridges and 37 under bridges as part of the works. This excludes accommodation structures to provide Description of Scheme access to severed lands. 2.1 Existing Situation Approximately 1,200 hectares of land would be required for the construction of the Scheme The existing A5 Western Transport Corridor which includes 1,146 hectares of agricultural is substandard over 38% of its length, being land. Approximately 250 hectares of the total deficient in terms of carriageway cross section, landtake would be required temporarily during forward visibility and / or horizontal and vertical the construction phase with the remainder within section. There are 1368 at grade junctions / private the permanent highways boundary. The Scheme accesses along the route. The private accesses would necessitate the demolition of 7 residential include commercial, residential and agricultural properties. use. These accesses and junctions create conflict between the road users and contribute to the Subject to satisfactory completion of the statutory accident potential along the route. There have processes and availability of necessary funding, been 15 fatal accidents along the A5 between it was anticipated that construction would 2005 and 2009 (14 within the extent of the commence in 2012 and be completed in 2015. Scheme).
The existing A5 passes through many settlements along its length which has implications for road users in terms of journey times and road safety and also for residents of settlements in terms of environmental impacts.
The A4 South Western Transport Corridor, which in combination with the A5 carries the vast majority of traffic between Belfast and County Tyrone, has recently been upgraded to dual carriageway status between Ballygawley and Dungannon and this serves to highlight further the deficiencies in the existing A5 route.
The Proposal The proposed Scheme comprises 85km of new trunk road including 82km of new dual carriageway. At the northern and southern ends the Scheme would terminate with single carriageway bypasses of New Buildings and to the southeast of Aughnacloy, before tying into the existing A5.
The road would affect 100 side roads which would mostly be accommodated by the provision of under or over bridges or by realigning the side road into another minor road. A small number of roads would be stopped-up; these are typically roads with very low traffic flows and where an alternative road is not very long.
21
Strategic Inquiry Report New Buildings to Aughnacloy
Lead Inspector: S. Kevin Chambers Assistant Inspector: William F. Gillespie Assistant Inspector: John Mageean 23 24 CHAPTER 3 3.1.2 On-line Solution An on-line dual carriageway solution was The Case for the considered to be unsuitable because of the following factors: Department Strategic The Department’s documentation in support § Number of settlements; of its case is listed in Appendix 3 together with § Number of accesses; summary documents published and presented at § Sub standard nature of existing A5; the Inquiry by the Department’s witnesses. § Utilities; 3.1 Policy and Procedure - Mr § Safety during construction; § Disruption and delays to traffic during Conor Loughrey, Roads Service construction.
3.1.1 Introduction 3.1.3 ‘2 +1’ Solution The A5 Western Transport Corridor (A5WTC) is A 2+1 solution was also considered unsuitable. one of 5 Key Transport Corridors as identified Due to changes in the design standards (Technical in the Regional Development Strategy (RDS) and Directive 70/08), the landtake and associated costs other policy documents. The Programme for required to facilitate an on-line 2+1 carriageway Government 2008-2011 and Investment Strategy would be more than that required for an off-line 2008-2018 highlights growing the economy as the dual carriageway. This is due to the need to provide Northern Ireland Executive’s key priority. The need additional parallel roads to accommodate the and desire to balance regional infrastructure is many accesses located along the existing route. also recognised, as well as the need to protect the Furthermore in terms of road safety and journey environment. Upgrading the A5 Western Transport times the benefits of a dual carriageway are greater Corridor to dual carriageway status is positive in than those of a 2+1 solution. relation to growing the economy and balancing regional infrastructure and negative in terms of 3.1.4 Railway Solution protecting the environment. The adverse effect on the environment is recognised and was a key part The need to improve the transport infrastructure of the route selection. across the region, which includes both roads and public transport, is identified in many documents At its meeting on the 17th of July 2007, the North and this is reflected in both the Regional South Ministerial Council (NSMC) noted the Development Strategy (RDS) and Regional Irish Government’s intention to make available Transportation Strategy (RTS) (both current live a contribution of £400M to help fund the major versions as well as draft revision documents). roads programme within Northern Ireland The associated proposals, based on estimated providing dual carriageway standard on routes availability of funding at the time, are reflected serving the North West Gateway and on the in the Regional Strategic Transport Network Eastern Seaboard Corridor between Belfast and Transport Plan (RSTN TP) and more recently in the Larne. The Northern Ireland Executive confirmed Investment Delivery Plan (IDP) for Roads and IDP its acceptance in principle to taking forward these for Public Transport which were published in 2008. two major road projects Improvements to public transport are therefore The Northern Ireland Executive reaffirmed its outside the scope of the A5WTC Scheme, and commitment to the project in early 2011 and this indeed Roads Service. This is reflected in the was reflected in its inclusion in the final budget budget, which was agreed by the Northern Ireland which was agreed by the Executive on the 4th of Executive on 4 March 2011, and which identifies March 2011. At the North South Ministerial Council separate funding packages for roads and public meeting, held on the 21st of January 2011, the Irish transport Government reaffirmed its commitment to the project. The main element of the RSTN did not include a rail link to serve the west. 25 3.1.5 Project Governance/ The Environmental Statement, Notice of Intention Deliverance to Make a Vesting Order, Notice of Intention to Make a Direction Order and Notice of Intention In November 2007 Roads Service appointed to Make a Stopping-up Order (Private Accesses) consultants Mouchel from its framework contract were published during week commencing on to take forward the project. Mouchel were 15th of November 2010 and this commenced the supported by cost consultants Chandler KBS, as formal consultation period for the Scheme which well as procurement experts Rowsell Wright. ran until the 21st of January 2011. Subsequent The selected procurement process adopted an addenda to the Environmental Statement, to ‘Early Contractor Involvement’ approach with reflect minor amendments, were issued during the contractors appointed earlier in the process consultation period. than typically would be the case. This brought Notices relating to the Environmental Statement the contractor procurement phase of the project were also published in Irish Republic newspapers ahead of the statutory procedures process thus during week commencing on the 15th of removing about 9 months from the overall project November 2010. delivery timeframe. It also allowed the contractors to provide valuable input to the design and to A further addendum was published on the 22nd of provide advice and costs on construction-related March 2011 to highlight changes to the noise and issues. air quality sections of the Environmental Statement as a result of updating the traffic model. While this To assist delivery, the project was split into three identified a number of local changes to conditions, sections early in the design stage and it was in overall regional terms the changes were not decided to maintain this model for the contractor’s significant. 2585 letters / signatories to petitions design / advice (Phase 1) and construction were received in relation to the formal consultation (Phase 2) stages. This led to the appointment, in period associated with the publication of the Draft November 2009, of three contracting consortia to Orders and Environmental Statement. the project. Owing to the number and nature of the objections The section boundaries and received, the Department considered that a Public appointed consortia are as follows: Inquiry should be held and this was announced by the Minister in February 2011. The Department § Section 1: New Buildings - Sion Mills (Balfour subsequently formally appointed a team of Beatty / BAM / FP McCann); Inspectors to hear the Inquiries. § Section 2: Sion Mills - South of Omagh (Roadbridge / Sisk / PT McWilliams); Copies of the Environmental Statement, Draft Direction Order, Draft Vesting Order and Draft § Section 3: South of Omagh - Aughnacloy Stopping-up of Private Accesses Order were (Graham / Farrans). also made available for inspection at public local offices. 3.1.6 Consultation Since the commencement of the Scheme a A formal Notice of Intention to hold a Public number of public consultation events and Inquiry was published during week ending the exhibitions have been held at various dates and 18th of February 2011. A further Notice was locations in order to advise interested parties of published during week ending the 11th of March the current position and to gather information that 2011 to provide additional details. Each objector would assist the design going forward. was subsequently invited to the appropriate pre- inquiry meetings as well as being issued with a Public events were held at 4 locations along the copy of the Departmental Statement. route in April 2008, February 2009, July 2009 and November 2010 and these were attended by over Responses to all submissions have been issued 6000 people. and these essentially form the Department’s rebuttal statements.
26 Throughout the entire process, which commenced Programme - Major Works Planning, Assessment in 2007, both the Roads Service Board and the and Delivery Contract 2009. Three letters of Regional Development Committee were kept award were issued by Roads Service to Mouchel informed of progress, with approval from the during the commission period which has enabled Roads Service Board being obtained at key stages Mouchel to complete the preliminary design and along the way in accordance with appropriate draft orders phase and the public Inquiry phase as internal procedures. At its meeting on the 20th well as complete the procurement strategy phase. of October 2010, the Regional Development Committee approved the policy merits of the 3.2.2 Project Brief Draft Direction Order and Stopping-up of Private Accesses Order associated with the A5 project. The requirements of the commission were as set The Vesting Order and Environmental Statement out in the A5 Route Corridor Study Consultancy do not result in creation of statutory rules and Services Brief which was issued to Mouchel therefore do not require similar levels of approval at the time of award. This brief defined the from the Committee. objectives, scope, timescale, services required and management and financial requirements of the commission. 3.1.7 Conclusion Taking into account the agreement made between Most of the brief requirements were typical of the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish any consultancy services commission for a major Government to upgrade the A5 Western Transport infrastructure project. However the scale of the Corridor to a high standard dual carriageway, the project and the timeframe for delivery required Department has concluded that the Scheme, as some specific areas to require more considered reflected in the Draft Orders and Environmental attention in achieving this point in the project, i.e. Statement, offers the best solution when § Strategic Route Appraisal; considered against the key assessment criteria of § Public Consultation; safety, economics, environment, integration and accessibility. § Statutory Procedures; and § Procurement Strategy. The upgrading of the A5 Western Transport Corridor to dual carriageway status would This evidence focuses on these 4 areas together significantly improve both the duration and with a number of areas of the project management reliability of journey times as well as road safety of the overall delivery which demonstrate the care on this route. This in turn would promote the and diligence with which the team has developed economic regeneration of the west of the province and delivered the Draft Orders and Environmental thereby contributing to key objectives as outlined Statement for the proposed A5WTC. in the Northern Ireland Executive’s Programme for In addition a project website (www.a5wtc.com) Government. was set up where data and documents were available for viewing or downloading free of 3.2 Scheme Development up to charge. Publication of Draft Orders 3.2.3 Strategic Route Appraisal Mr Peter Edwards, Mouchel The approach to route appraisal in Northern Consultants Ireland is defined in Roads Service Policy & Procedure Guidance (RSPPG) E030 Major Works 3.2.1 Commission Award Schemes: Inception to Construction (September Mouchel was awarded this commission under the 2009) whilst the methodologies to carry out Roads Service Major Works Planning, Assessment and report the appraisal are contained in the and Delivery Contract 2005 and subsequently Design Manual for Roads and Bridges: Volume 5: continued the commission under the Consultancy Assessment and Preparation of Roads Schemes Services for the Assistance in the Delivery of the and Volume 11: Environmental Assessment. Roads Service Strategic Road Improvement (SRI)
27 Although the route appraisal process follows that The engineering study area was determined by set out in RSPPG, the procedures and gateways references to mapping, carrying out site visits and in RSPPG do not align with the early contractor taking into account areas of settlement, very high involvement approach being adopted for this and steep ground, major watercourses and the Scheme. The assessment is a staged process with border. This boundary was an initial assessment three clear reporting stages which correlate with and was refined during the assessment period to the deliverables defined in RSPPG. Satisfactory reflect a greater knowledge of particular locations. delivery of a stage results in the instruction to proceed to the next stage. For this project, in The environmental study area needed to be terms of project appraisal, the following Gateways sufficiently large to capture all constraints that have been achieved: may be affected by any road alignment. Initial assessments identified that the limits to the east § Gateway 0: the submission and approval of the should be into the Sperrins range and also follow Stage 1 Assessment Report any watercourses upstream for a reasonable (Preliminary Options) which was achieved in distance and to the west should cross the border September 2008; and in the vicinity of Strabane and the River Foyle to § Gateway 1: the submission and approval of the ensure all transboundary impacts were identified. Stage 2 Assessment Report Further south, the limits were identified by the (Preferred Options) which was achieved in July high ground of Bessy Bell. South of Omagh 2009. the environmental study area was closer to the engineering study area and crossed the border Currently, the Stage 3 Assessment has been at Aughnacloy to capture any transboundary carried out with the publication of the constraints. Environmental Statement and draft Orders in November 2010 and the Draft Scheme 3.2.5 Stage 1 Scheme Assessment Assessment Report in March 2011. The Inquiries (Preliminary Options) into the Environmental Statement and the Draft The Design Manual for Roads & Bridges requires Orders are part of this process as the project is the Stage 1 Assessment of road improvements progressing towards Gateway 2. to identify and consider broadly defined In parallel with the statutory procedures, the improvement strategies referencing major features project team has prepared a Draft Economic as appropriate. Three principal improvement Appraisal Report and sought the various technical strategies were identified, namely: standards approvals required at this stage of the § West of the existing A5; Scheme. § Utilising the existing A5 corridor; 3.2.4 Defining the Study Areas § East of the existing A5. One of the initial tasks on the project was to These three strategies were developed into a define the study areas for both engineering large number of corridors that could improve the and environmental purposes. The engineering link between Londonderry, Strabane, Omagh study area was defined as the area within which and Aughnacloy, and at the same time provide it was felt that a dual carriageway road could strategic links to and between County Monaghan be built which met the needs of the brief. The and County Donegal. environmental study area also included the various All the corridor links were evaluated against the zones of influence that could be impacted upon by major constraints discussed in the Preliminary any new road and hence is much larger than the Options Report. A total of 29 links were removed engineering study area. from further consideration. The remaining feasible corridor options were subject to further review and a corridor began to emerge as worthy of a more detailed Stage 2 Scheme assessment.
28 3.2.6 Stage 2 Scheme Assessment The Scheme cost is still estimated to be within the (Preferred Options) budget range of £650m to £850m and has a positive benefit-cost ratio. Four routes were developed for assessment in each of the 4 sections of the project. Following detailed investigations a Preferred Route emerged 3.3 Traffic Forecasting and for each section to be progressed through a Stage Economics 3 assessment. Mr David Hardcastle, Mouchel 3.2.7 Stage 3 Assessment (Proposed Consultants Scheme) The Stage 3 assessment was to identify clearly the 3.3.1 Existing Traffic Conditions in advantages and disadvantages in environmental, the A5 Corridor engineering, economic and traffic terms of Section 1: the 24 hour average weekday traffic the Preferred Route. Prior to its finalisation, (AWT) for May 2008 was between 12,500 and environmental survey data, ground investigation 15,200 vehicles per day. The highest AWT flow data, drainage surveys and flood monitoring was 19.600 vehicles on the A38 Lifford Bridge were updated. These along with comments from between Lifford and Strabane. landowners and other stakeholders resulted in the Section 2: the A5 carried the highest flow in this consideration and development of 31 alternatives area with the 24 hour AWT flow for May 2008 at to the proposed route. Of these a total of 11 were between 12,200 and 15,200 vehicles per day. adopted as variants and incorporated into the Scheme, on the basis of which the draft statutory Section 3: the 24 hour AWT was between 10,800 orders were prepared. and 12,500 vehicles to the north of the A4 and between 6,850 and 8,850 vehicles to the south. 3.2.8 Conclusions The identification of the engineering and 3.3.2 Accidents environmental study areas, the constraints within Section 1: between Londonderry and Sion Mills, these areas, the selection of route corridors and approx. 28km, 123 personal injury accidents (PIAs) the development of options within these corridors were recorded for the period 2005 to 2009. The were all carried out in accordance with the overall accident rates (link and junction combined) appropriate criteria and methodologies identified were assessed to be consistently lower than the within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges UK average. and associated standards and legislation. Section 2: between Sion Mills and Omagh, a The Scheme, as developed from the Preferred length of approximately 27km, a total of 80 PIAs Route, meets the requirements of the overall including 5 fatal accidents were recorded. The project objectives, namely: combined link and junction accidents rates were assessed to be consistently about one half or less To improve road safety; of the equivalent UK average. To improve the road network in the west of the Section 3: between Omagh and Aughnacloy Province and North / South links; (34km) 117 PIAs were recorded for the period, § To reduce journey travel times along the A5 including 9 fatal accidents. The combined link Western Transport Corridor; and junction were assessed to be about half the § To provide increased overtaking opportunities UK average for the A5 stretch between Omagh for motorists along the A5 Western Transport and the urban area of Aughnacloy. The combined Corridor; and rate between the A4 and Aughnacloy was slightly higher than the UK average. § To develop the final proposals in the light of environmental, engineering, economic and traffic considerations.
29 3.3.3 Development of the Base Year 3.3.5 Traffic Growth Assumptions Model Roads Service had previously used the Northern The development of a traffic model for the A5 Ireland Strategic Transport Model (NISTRM) corridor involved a number of stages, the design to provide traffic forecasts for road schemes in of which was guided by the advice provided on Northern Ireland. However, the base data and growth model development and Scheme appraisal by the assumptions for this are now somewhat dated Department for Transport (DfT) through its Web- and it was decided that these were not sufficiently based Transport Analysis Guide (WebTAG) site. robust for the assessment of the Scheme.
The principal stages in the model development Instead it was decided to develop a new process were as follows: forecasting system based on a bespoke version of the Department for Transport’s Trip End Model § Development of a model zone system; Program (DfT TEMPRO) system which is based § Analysis of available traffic data; on the UK National Traffic Model (NTM). TEMPRO § Surveys and data collection; and NTM cover England and Wales but do not extend to Northern Ireland. § Model building and calibration; and § Model validation. A version of TEMPRO (called TEMPRO-NI) was then developed specifically for Northern lreland For consistency with other Roads Service models, and forecasting for the A5WTC. This used the the A5WTC model was developed using the GB economic growth assumptions, but with local Centre for the Urban Built Environment (CUBE) predictions of populations and employment. The (Version 4.1.1) suite of programs. conversion of the TEMPRO software and data was The availability and coverage of existing traffic undertaken with the guidance and assistance of surveys completed in the vicinity of the A5 during the DfT (and their consultants) who made available the last 5 years were taken into account. But source versions of the software and datasets. as further origin-destination data were needed, additional surveys were undertaken. 3.3.6 Economic Evaluation The economic assessment of the Scheme 3.3.4 Traffic Forecasting involved a matrix-based appraisal using the The traffic forecasting stage involved the Transport Users Benefit Appraisal (TUBA) estimation and modelling of traffic demands program. This took data from the traffic model in future years, with and without the proposed in the form of trip, time, distance and travel cost A5WTC. The forecasts provided information matrices. Costs associated with the do-minimum for the highway design process and for the and do-something schemes were also input to the environmental and economic assessments of the program, from which TUBA calculated the savings bypass options. The development of the traffic attributable to the Scheme. model forecasting procedures is described more These user benefits were measured in terms of fully in the Traffic Forecasting Report. time, fuel and vehicle operating cost savings. It was assumed in preparing the traffic forecasts In the TUBA assessment, all costs and benefits that the Scheme would be completed and open arising in different years were discounted to a to traffic in 2015, which was nominated as the common base year, in this case 2002. Separate Scheme opening year. A design year of 2030 was analysis was also required to gauge the benefits also adopted, 15 years into the life of the Scheme. arising from accident savings. Summing the present values of costs and subtracting these from the present value of benefits gave the ‘net present value’ of the Scheme.
30 The Economic Appraisal Report sets out the result detailed investigation of environmental data of the appraisal. The Scheme has a Benefit Cost bases, published information of relevance to Ratio (BCR) of 1.99, provides a substantial benefit the environment associated with the study area, of £80.5M and delivers an appreciable level of information available on the internet and other wider economic benefit. Sensitivity tests have documentary information. Site surveys included been undertaken (based on WebTAG uncertainty wide-ranging walkover surveys to more focused principles), which have provided a range of BCR observation and recording of specific parts of the between 1.8 and 2.6. This has demonstrated that corridor. the economic case for the Scheme remains robust over a range of alternative growth assumptions, Stage 3 which include the latest (draft) TEMPRO growth The third stage involved detailed assessment predictions. of the Preferred Route in accordance with the requirements of EC Council Directive 85/337/ 3.4 Environmental EEC as amended by EC Council Directive 97/11/ Statement EC and Directive No. 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and Council and required by Part V Mr Paul Reid, Mouchel Consultants of The Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 as substituted by the Roads (Environmental Impact 3.4.1 Planning, Design and Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999 Assessment and amended by The Roads (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) Environmental information has played an 2007. This stage concluded with the publication important part throughout the planning, design of the Environmental Statement for the Scheme in and assessment of the Scheme. November 2010. Stage 1 An addendum to the Environmental Statement was published in March 2011. This provided Inputs during the first stage involved the updated information relating to air quality and collection and evaluation of environmental data traffic-related noise and vibration prepared in light by a team comprising members with expertise of updated information relating to predicted flows and experience related to a wide range of of vehicles within the defined traffic study area. environmental aspects. The team included consultants and specialists in air quality, The third stage commenced with a review by archaeology, built heritage, contaminated land, the environment team of the Preferred Route geology and geotechnics, aquatic ecology, and environmental data relating to the existing terrestrial ecology, protected species, ornithology, environment within the vicinity structured under noise and vibration, landscape, surface water the following environmental topic headings quality and hydrology, hydrogeology and detailed in Section 1, Part 1 of Volume 11 of the planning and land use. Data collection comprised Design Manual for Roads & Bridges. desk-based studies of published documents and records, a review of internet based data, 3.4.2 Air Quality preliminary site visits and consultation with statutory consultees and a range of Local Air Quality: the assessment investigated environmental organisations and groups. changes in concentration of nitrogen dioxide and particulates, two of the principal pollutants Stage 2 associated with vehicular emissions and which are accepted as indicators of detrimental or beneficial The second stage involved more detailed surveys change. Concentrations were calculated relative and analysis by the environmental team. This to sensitive receptors (a) people living within 200m involved further consultation with statutory of the existing road network and of the Scheme consultees and other environmental organisations and (b) locations where significant numbers of the and groups. Further desk-based work included public and more vulnerable members of the public a review of previously collected data and more regularly congregate such as hospitals, schools
31 and care homes. The results demonstrated that the principal landscape zones. Six urban centres many more receptors would be subject to slight were also identified. These locally distinctive zones reductions in concentrations than would be and the urban centres were analysed in detail and subject to slight increases and that concentrations formed the basis for the detailed assessment of would be well below thresholds adopted in impacts. National Air Quality Standards as indicators of potential risk to human health. The assessment concluded that of the 38 rural sub-zones, 2 would be subject to large Regional Emissions: the assessment involved adverse impact, 7 would be subject to moderate a comparison of annual emissions of carbon, adverse impact and 16 would be subject to hydrocarbons, particulate matter and oxides of slight detrimental impact whilst the impact on nitrogen emitted by traffic associated with parts the remaining 13 would be neutral. It was also of the road network predicted to be subject to concluded that impact on the five urban areas defined changes in volumes of traffic. The results would be neutral other than on the western margin demonstrated that there would be a higher order of Strabane where the impact would be large and of emissions with the Scheme in place. But it was adverse. Relating the predicted impacts to the considered inappropriate to isolate the Scheme road corridor and its immediate surroundings the as a net contributor and thus preclude the benefit length of corridor that would be subject to large of a development project in the overall public landscape impact amounts to 7% of the total interest. corridor. There would moderate impact for some 24.5% of the corridor and slight impact for some Ecologically Sensitive Sites: nitrogen deposition 68.5% of the total corridor. rates were calculated at nationally and / or internationally designated sites to establish if Visual Impacts: the introduction of a new deposition attributable to the Scheme would prove dual carriageway into the countryside, in some detrimental to the habitat types which constituted instances close to settlements, and unavoidably the basis for the designation. It was established close to dispersed houses and farms, would that there would be no material difference in involve changes in views from property. The deposition rates. proposed road would form a new, sometimes significant element, within existing views such 3.4.3 Cultural Heritage that there would be a detrimental impact on visual amenity. Mitigation in the form of the The assessment identified that two of the planting proposals and localised modifications archaeological sites– Strabane Canal and Lisdoart to earthworks would serve to filter or screen Rath – would be subject to direct impact while elements of the road, including moving traffic, there would be an impact on the setting of for many of the receptors identified. Many of the Harry Avery’s Castle, Beltany Tombs and Errigal people affected, particularly those subject to Keerogue Church and graveyard. All are protected marked change, would find the change individually under the Historic Monuments and Archaeological significant. Objects (NI) Order 1995. There would be a significant impact on Castletown House, a The total number of receptors who the Grade 1 listed building. It was considered that assessment has predicted would be affected exceptional circumstances applied and that the by the Scheme and the orders of impact are as Scheme would not be in conflict with Planning follows: Policy Statement 6. § Large adverse – 140; 3.4.4 Landscape Effects § Moderate adverse – 266; Landscape Character: the landscape character § Slight adverse – 866; assessment identified 12 broad character zones § Neutral – 2601; which were then sub-divided into a total of 38 § Slight Beneficial – 45. sub-zones representing locally distinctive parts of
32 3.4.5 Ecology and Nature between the percentage of people bothered by Conservation vibration nuisance and traffic related noise and (b) proposed low-noise surfacing, it was predicted Assessments were undertaken in relation to the that between 0 and 22% of receptors would be following: bothered “very much” or “quite a lot” – some 6 § Natura 2000 sites, including Special Areas of receptors in the context of the total road corridor. Conservation (SACs) and Special § Protection Areas (SPAs); 3.4.7 Geology and Soils § Nationally designated sites comprising Areas Geological Resources: the proposed road would of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs); cross or pass close to the fringe of the following areas of deglacial deposits included in the national § Locally designated sites; schedule of Earth Science Conservation Review § Aquatic habitats and fauna; Sites: § Terrestrial habitats and fauna. § The Foyle Valley Complex at Artigarven, near § The results of the assessments and details of the River Derg, at Deer proposed mitigation measures are set out in § Park near Newtownstewart and in the Strule the Environmental Statement. Valley south of Newtownstewart; and 3.4.6 Noise and Vibration § The Clogher Valley Complex south of Newtownsaville. Construction Related Noise: a total of 1623 residential receptors and 30 other sensitive There would be a direct impact on the integrity of receptors were identified within 300 metres of the geological formation, by virtue of the nature of the anticipated working areas. Standard practice the glacial till. In all instances, the areas affected mitigation measures would be included in the would be small in the context of the defined Construction Environmental Management Plan. area of interest. There may be the opportunity for geological logging in these locations subject Operational Noise: a number of alternatives for to the nature of the deposits and construction mitigation of traffic related noise were considered. methodology. Taking into account the extent of The introduction of low-noise surfacing would the impact, the effect on the integrity of the areas benefit everyone subject to traffic related noise of would be low. more than 3 decibels. As predicted noise levels, allowing for low-noise surfacing, would not exceed Contaminated Sites: construction of the Scheme the 68 decibel criterion in the Noise Regulations would involve the potential disturbance of 27 sites no further measures needed to be introduced. which are either under or immediately adjacent to the route. Results suggest that elevated Construction Related Vibration: the assessment concentrations of contaminants are concentrated identified areas where piling, ground stabilisation, in the known brownfield areas around Strabane. demolition, blasting or extended periods of Mitigation to ensure site staff safety and safeguard breaking out of hard ground may be required and potentially sensitive habitats in the vicinity of such the proximity of sensitive receptors to those areas. sites, would involve more detailed investigations Contractors would be required to implement and sampling by the contractors in advance monitoring and mitigation measures in accordance of construction. This would enable the nature with standard codes of practice. and extent of contaminants to be determined. Operational Vibration: there was little evidence If treatment is necessary further testing and to indicate that ground-borne vibration, at quantitative risk assessment would allow method the level induced by road traffic, would cause statements to be prepared detailing handling, damage to roadside buildings or structures. With removal and disposal measures to ensure that regard to air-borne vibration the assessment site staff, the public and sensitive habitats were was limited to a corridor 40m wide on each side not exposed to risk. Where this involves removal of the carriageway and identified 33 residential of materials, the resultant material would be receptors. Taking account of (a) a correlation
33 disposed of to a suitably licensed facility in § Lands currently worked for sands and gravels; accordance with the Duty of Care provisions under § The curtilage of 54 residential land plots; the Waste & Contaminated Land Order. § The loss of 12 known plots currently subject to Soils: based on information derived from sampling turbary rights. of greenfield sites, it has been established that Effects of Landtake on Agricultural there would be no limitation on the potential for Landowners: the assessment and predicted soils to support proposed planting. impacts on agricultural land as a national resource and individual businesses are detailed in the 3.4.8 Effects on all Travellers Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA). Severance and Local Roads: the availability of Land Used by the Community: the Scheme access would be maintained either by localised would result in the loss of two sports pitches realignment of the local road to a bridge over or which are currently used by the local community beneath the dual carriageway or by diversion to and which would require those who use the establish a link with alternative local roads within facilities to seek alternative arrangements. the vicinity to effect an appropriate crossing of the dual carriageway. Where realignment or alternative Development Land: the Scheme would affect routes would be provided, the length of diversion a number of sites which have received planning would be generally relatively short and would approval for development. not constitute a significant increase in journey distance or time. 3.4.10 Drainage and the Water Relief of Existing Severance: the assessment Environment demonstrated that, based on the reductions in Groundwater: the assessment considered traffic flows on the existing A5, there would be a impacts potentially associated with: noticeable to marked relief of severance, where communities are currently severed by the road. § Earthworks; § Infiltration of pollutants during construction; Long Distance Footpaths, Cycle Routes and Scenic Routes: the assessment demonstrated that § Infiltration of pollutants associated with new severance and impacts on the amenity value collection and discharge of surface water run- of these various resources would vary from slight off from the proposed road; and detrimental to slight and beneficial. § Water abstractions.
Driver Stress: the assessment demonstrated In relation to the first two, it was considered that that without the Scheme, driver stress levels on the risk would be low but contractors would have the existing A5 in the design year (2030) would to implement well established control measures to be high for all but the section of the road south of meet obligations under the Groundwater Directive. Ballygawley. Under the Scheme access would be In relation to the third, there would be no material limited to the relatively few junctions proposed. risk of contamination since all discharges would Design standards would be appropriate to the be to surface waters and appropriate preventative road’s principal function as a route for strategic measures would be taken to ensure that there traffic resulting in a reduction in driver stress other would be no infiltration from holding ponds. With than at New Buildings where it would be high. regard to the fourth, it was concluded that any risk would relate to supply rather than quality and if necessary an alternative source would be 3.4.9 Private and Community Assets provided. Private landtake and demolition of Private Property: the principal impacts would relate to: Floodplains: details of studies, surveys, assessments and proposed mitigation measures § The loss of 7 dwellings and 2 commercial are set out in the Flood Risk Assessment. These properties; concluded that the Scheme would have no § The partial loss of working yards for a further significant effect on flood plains or flood risk. two commercial businesses; 34 CHAPTER 4 4.1 Decision to provide a dual carriageway Cross Examination of The decision to provide a dual carriageway was taken at Government level by a North South Departmental Witnesses – Ministerial Agreement announced by communiqué Strategic Inquiry dated the 21st of July 2007 and Roads Service As set out in the timetable for the Inquiry, formal was instructed accordingly. The Department cross-examination of Departmental witnesses confirmed that the provisions of the Green Book followed the presentation of the Department’s Web-based Transport Analysis Guide (WebTag) case. The wide ranging cross-examination by a had been applied in arriving at the decision. number of objectors resulted in some unavoidable The provisions of the Green Book were also overlapping at the Inquiry. A substantial element subsequently applied by Roads Service in of the Department’s response resulted in a re- developing the project and in providing the brief statement of Departmental evidence summarised for the consultant. Roads Service did not examine in Chapter 3. This Chapter therefore sets out upgrading in terms of 2+1in any detail because of a summary of the Department’s responses its restricted brief. which elaborates or supplements its main Without the contribution by the Irish Government evidence rather than a chronological précis of the Department would not have proceeded with the exchanges between the participants. During the dual carriageway. Although justified in terms the course of cross-examination the Department of benefit to cost ratio, it would not have been provided further technical details which were affordable. The traffic model for the Scheme would developed subsequently by objectors in their be capable of assessing alternative proposals. presentations. It was put to the Department that the question “Do The objectors involved in the formal cross- you broadly support the A5 upgrade proposals?” examination were: asked of the public during the consultation § Ms Kathleen Christie; process had a predictable positive response and did not accurately reflect public feeling. The § Mr Brian O’Sullivan BL (instructed by John Department stated that the question should not McGale & Kelly, Solicitors) representing the be taken in isolation. The information provided Alternative A5 Alliance; leading to the question indicated that at that § Mr James Nix BL representing An Taisce time the upgrade was to be of dual carriageway (National Trust of Ireland); standard. Whether it would be “on-line” or “off- § Mr Victor Christie; line” would depend on further comprehensive § Mr Bill Donnelly; studies. § Mr Stanley Bell; 4.2 Economics § Mr William Orbinson QC (instructed by Patrick The economic model took account of government Fahy & Co, Solicitors) representing the Duddy predictions of traffic growth and fuel costs over Family; the period 2015 - 2030, cognisant of recent § Mr James McFarland; increases in fuel costs likely to result in reduced § Mr Stephen Wood; traffic levels.
§ Mr Peter McCarron. The accident rate for the existing A5 was lower We also permitted further questioning of the than that for comparable roads across the UK. Department’s representatives by some objectors Also, the accident rate for a single carriageway in the course of the presentation of their cases. road was much higher than that that for a dual carriageway. The reduction in accidents was converted into an economic benefit which contributed towards the total economic benefit of the Scheme.
35 No account was taken in the Transport Users 4.6 Flooding in the Ballymagorry Area Benefit Analysis (TUBA) of operational / The Department confirmed there would a slight maintenance costs because (a) of the absence risk of increased flooding. In accordance with of hard data and (b) adding 88km of road to the the Design Manual, and with the guidance of the existing 25,000km of road in Northern Ireland Rivers Authority structures would be provided to would be insignificant. In the short term reduced allow floods to inundate and ebb to the flood plain maintenance costs may be expected. over a similar period of time as at present. The Department stated that it was not conventional to include in the cost benefit 4.7 Sustainability appraisal a value factor for loss of agricultural It was put to the Department that the issue of production over the life of the Scheme, suggesting sustainability was integral to the current draft that it would be reflected in land values. Regional Transportation Strategy and that the Although the Scheme would result in some Inquiry should be postponed awaiting the final businesses being by-passed, the macro economic version. The Department stated that neither study concluded that there would be a net benefit European Union nor national provisions precluded to businesses and computed a total benefit of the concept of roads as part of a sustainable some £140M over 60 years. future.
4.3 Independence of Consultants 4.8 Comment In reply to the point that the substantial fees Given the resources available to the Department, paid to the consultants would influence their the documentary and oral evidence on policy, independence, the Department stated that for any strategy and scheme development was project consultants are engaged for their skills painstakingly thorough and comprehensive. and obviously have to be remunerated. Being paid Despite extensive cross-examination by objectors would not affect their professional integrity. Their the evidence was difficult to refute in overall terms. input was subject to public scrutiny. Specific issues are considered in Chapters 5 & 6. The Department explained why the operating and 4.4 Appointment of Contractors maintenance cost of the Scheme was not factored It was put to the Department that the early into the cost benefit appraisal. Since this is an appointment of contractors reflected a pre- associated cost item it would seem, for the sake determined decision by Government to proceed of completeness, that some provision should have with the Scheme. This was refuted by the been made, rather than transferring it to a general Department. Considerable benefit was obtained roads maintenance programme. in having early contractors’ advice during the consultant’s design stage.
4.5 Contaminated Fill The Department affirmed that it had not yet been decided whether any imported fill would be needed for the Scheme and therefore there was no proposal at present to use fill from Cavanacaw gold mine. In any event, the Department confirmed that no contaminated fill would be used on the contract.
36 CHAPTER 5 § Northern Ireland is the most car dependent region in the European Union, with increasing exhaust emission levels; Presentation of Objections at § The Scheme proposal could result in Strategic Inquiry the maintenance of a further 320km of carriageway; Introduction § The Scheme should be reviewed in its It was inevitable with a Scheme of this size and entirety by a competent impartial body and with such a large number of objections that many considerations should include re-instatement common issues would be raised. In order to avoid of the former railway. too much repetition we have dealt in detail with Mr Lake also made a verbal submission to the some of these issues in Chapter 6. In reporting Inquiry, which included the following additional on individual objections where such an issue was points: raised we have summarised the salient features with cross references to Chapter 6. Full details of § The question of the suitability of the venue for each objection and of the Department’s individual the Public Inquiry hearing for those who didn’t response may be obtained, on request, from the have access to a car; Department. § The number of vehicles which currently used We have noted and considered the responses the road on a daily basis (10,000 vehicles from Statutory Consultees. A list of Consultees is per day) did not justify the use of a dual provided in Appendix 7. carriageway; § The need to consider other more urgent 5.1 STRATEGIC OBJECTIONS upgrading schemes, such as the York Street Interchange in Belfast; Objection by Mr Malcolm Lake § The possible detrimental effect of the Scheme on existing businesses; Inquiry Reference: OA-001 § Climate change implications associated with Summary of Objection the proposed Scheme; § Costly work has been initiated without any § The question of considering the road as cost benefit analysis; part of a larger Scheme (i.e. Dublin to Derry / Londonderry) rather than the Scheme as § The project has aroused anxiety and distress proposed. amongst affected land owners; § The impact on farmland will have significant Departmental Response negative cost implications on the local § An economic assessment was included in the workforce in Tyrone. The proposed Scheme Preferred Options Report, published in July will require the use of up to 3,000 acres of 2009. An updated economic assessment will farmland; be included in the draft Scheme Assessment § With developing climate change, agricultural Report, which will be made available on the land should be conserved; project website; § The Scheme is likely to encourage growth in § The Department recognised that the building road traffic with concomitant accidents; of a new road causes anxiety and distress to § Current traffic flows do not justify a dual- those affected by the Scheme. Rural Support carriageway solution; provides help and support to farmers and rural § The proposed road will not reach design families; capacity due to a reduction in oil production; § The Department acknowledged that the § There is concern about the effect of the Scheme would involve loss of agricultural Scheme on a historic monument, land and have specific impacts on agricultural Harry Avery’s Castle; holdings;
37 § The Department further acknowledged that the § We note Mr Lake’s concerns regarding the Scheme, as a component of wider policies, large quantity of land required for the Scheme would be one of the projects contributing to an and the potential affects on a local historic increase in carbon emissions; monument, Harry Avery’s Castle. See also § The Department has undertaken the necessary Chapter 6; assessments in accordance with Web-based § The question of whether current and Transport Analysis Guide (WebTAG) which have predicted traffic flows justify the Scheme has concluded that induced traffic is not likely to been raised by others and we have made a occur to any significant extent; detailed response in Chapter 6; § The Scheme will relieve traffic congestion in § We consider that the “more urgent” schemes major urban areas, leading to a reduction in mentioned are outside the scope and remit of greenhouse gas emissions at these locations this Inquiry; and an improvement in air quality; § We accept that the Scheme is likely to result § The reduction in traffic levels along the existing in an increase in exhaust emission levels in A5 will lead to a corresponding improvement in the area of the Scheme. However, we do not safety; believe that the effects would be significant § The Economic Appraisal for the Scheme in the context of the UK’s commitment to suggests a substantial reduction in the number reduce overall levels of greenhouse gas and cost of accidents in the area of the emissions; Scheme; § We accept Mr Lake’s concerns regarding the § The traffic threshold level for a dual effects on local businesses, and we would carriageway according to the Design Manual ask that the Department liaise closely with for Roads & Bridges is exceeded over most of all businesses likely to be affected to ensure the A5 Route; that such effects will be mitigated as far § The traffic model used for the design of the as possible, with, for example, the use of Scheme was the UK standard Trip End Model appropriate signage; Program adapted for Northern Ireland and the § We consider that the venue chosen for the model took account of the latest demographic Strategic Inquiry was appropriate and and economic forecasts; suitably located. § The Department acknowledged that the Scheme would have a high order impact on Harry Avery’s Castle, but proposed mitigating measures to reduce the impact.
Comment § Mr Lake has raised a number of concerns that were also subsequently raised by others. We accept that the nature, size and scope of this project have raised a significant number of concerns across the local and wider community and that the Scheme has been the cause of anxiety and distress to the most seriously affected land and property owners; § The Department confirmed that an economic assessment was included in the Preferred Options Report (2009);
38 Objection by Mrs Lynne Smyth carefully considered. A round of meetings has taken place with affected landowners. A wide Inquiry Reference: OA-002 range of statutory authorities and others have been consulted throughout the Environmental Summary of Objection Impact Assessment process; § Disgrace that this road should be forced upon § It is acknowledged that the Scheme would people without consultation or agreement; have impacts on the environment and § This road will destroy thousands of acres countryside but it is being promoted in of excellent farmland and wildlife habitat the context of broader national strategies. when global warming and climate change The loss of 2900 acres of land, of which threaten the human race. This is against the 1750 acres comprise the most versatile greenhouse gas emissions targets set by UK land, in this context, would not be a threat Government; nationally or globally. The phenomena of, § Traffic levels on existing A5 do not require a “new roads generate traffic” is taken into scheme of this magnitude. Upgrading part account. The necessary tests in accordance of the A5 would be sufficient. A sustainable with Web-based Transport Analysis Guide transport option should be examined and not (WebTAG) conclude that induced traffic is more roads; not likely to occur on the A5WTC to any significant extent. The new road will also § The Scheme will destroy the natural habitat of relieve congestion in major areas, leading to many species, which are already under threat a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and and protected by law. Devastation to the Foyle improvement in air quality for people nearby. River system, with its rare salmon spawning It is acknowledged that the A5WTC, as a beds is unavoidable; component part of wider policies, would be § The waste of scarce financial resources and one of the projects contributing to an increase the environmental costs, point to a re-think in emissions; of the whole Scheme. It should be halted and § The traffic threshold level for a dual DRD and political leaders should examine carriageway is exceeded over most of the sustainable alternatives. existing A5 route. It is accepted that the Mrs Smyth also submitted a copy of a document volumes in the Ballygawley-Aughnacloy link “Figuring it Out” 2009 prepared by ARK Northern will initially be below the threshold, but is best Ireland, on climate change. to have consistency in standards along the entire route; In her verbal submission to the Hearing, Mrs Smyth made the following additional points: § The Department will adhere to all relevant Northern Ireland legislation and confirmed that § A recent delegation of women from Carteret obligations arising therefrom have informed Island in the South Pacific and from Uganda, the assessments, evaluation of inputs and described the devastation caused in their mitigation measures. The assessments relative areas by extreme weather related to climate to nature conservation and biodiversity change, resulting in crops destroyed and mass interests have shown that the Scheme is evacuation; unlikely to affect the integrity of designated § The Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland sites including the Foyle River Special Area of has allocated £612M for the road network up Conservation (SAC). Potential impacts on the to 2011 and only £195M for public transport. River Foyle system and Atlantic salmon have been identified and appropriate mitigation Departmental Response measures planned. Construction works would § There has been a high level of consultation be timed to avoid the more sensitive periods of with the public on this Scheme since 2008, spawning activity; at various stages. The A5WTC helpline and § Potential environmental impacts have been website have been widely used, and public assessed and reported in the Environmental suggestions and comments have been Statement and mitigation measures identified.
39 The Northern Ireland Executive budget § The Scheme is promoted in the context of outlines the proposed funding for the various broader national policies which relate to future Departments for 4 years ahead. The inclusion planning for the economy, development and of both the A5 and A8 reflects their high infrastructure; priority within the Executive. § The A5WTC will have no impact on the level of funding made available by DRD Comment for maintenance of the road network. The § Mrs Smyth has raised a number of points additional length of 85km is insignificant in the which are common to other objectors, and context of the total network; are covered in some detail in other sections § Winter servicing will continue to be delivered. of the Report; This caters for the needs of 80% of all vehicle kilometres; § We accept that the Scheme would bring disruption to many landowners and have § The A5 Tullyvar Scheme was part of a package impacts on the environment and countryside and that contract was awarded prior to the but adequate safeguards and mitigation Government deciding to take forward the measures would minimise these impacts; A5WTC project. § The additional gas emissions must be set in the wider national context and the overall Comment benefits of this road considered against its § Mr Brush’s understandable concerns disadvantages; have been adequately addressed by the § See also Chapter 6. Departmental response; § See also Chapter 6 regarding the Ballygawley Objection by Mr Robert Brush area.
Inquiry Reference: OA-003 Objection by Ms Jane Christie Summary of Objection Inquiry Reference: OA-004 § Scheme cannot be justified by traffic levels; Summary of Objection § The cost of this road may leave insufficient § Disgrace that this road should be forced upon funding for maintenance of existing roads and people without agreement or meaningful snow / ice clearance; consultation; § Lack of planning co-operation between the § The road will destroy thousands of acres of A5WTC and earlier Tullyvar realignment; farmland and wildlife habitat, when faced with § Loss of valuable productive farmland. global warming that threatens the human race; Departmental Response § The Scheme is contrary to the legally binding greenhouse gas emissions targets set by § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway is United Kingdom Government; exceeded over most of the existing A5. It is § Traffic levels do not justify the A5WTC. accepted that volumes on the Ballygawley- Upgrading parts of existing road would be Aughnacloy link are below the threshold but sufficient for the future road traffic needs of the from an engineering and safety perspective, county; it is better to have consistency of standards along the entire length; § This Scheme will cause devastation to the Foyle River system with its rare salmon § It is acknowledged that the Scheme will spawning beds; involve loss of agricultural land and impacts on agricultural holdings. The overall loss is § It should be halted immediately and our detailed in the Environmental Statement; political leaders should examine a more forward thinking alternative.
40 Departmental Response § The Department accepts its responsibility § There has been extensive consultation with the to conform with all relevant legislation in public and with individual landowners. Public Northern Ireland and continues to meet these consultation events were held in April 2008, obligations on the A5WTC project; February 2009, July 2009 and November 2010. § The assessments relative to nature The A5WTC website and helpline have been conservation and biodiversity interests have widely used. The public’s suggestions and indicated that it is unlikely that the Scheme comments have been fully considered; will affect the integrity of designated sites § Rounds of meetings with affected landholders including the Foyle River Special Area of were held in Autumn 2009, Spring and Conservation (SAC). Potential impacts on the Summer 2010 and also in Autumn 2010; Foyle River system and the Atlantic salmon have been identified and avoided or minimised § A wide range of statutory authorities and through extensive mitigation measures; organisations have been consulted throughout the Environmental Impact Assessment. § Potential environmental impacts have been Meetings have been held with all relevant assessed and reported in the Environmental statutory bodies and local authorities; Statement. This document demonstrates that whilst there are some locations where impacts § It is acknowledged that the Scheme will have would be of a high order, the large majority of impacts on the environment and countryside. impacts would be effectively mitigated; However, it is promoted in the context of broader national strategies which address § The Northern Ireland Executive has published the future economy, development and a budget which includes funding for the infrastructure. The taking of 2900 acres of A5WTC. land, of which 1750 acres are best agricultural land is not a threat nationally or globally; Comment § The necessary tests in accordance with Web- § We consider the Department has adequately based Transport Analysis Guide (WebTAG) addressed the issues raised; have concluded that induced traffic is not § There will be adverse consequences as likely to occur on this project. The A5WTC will a result of the Scheme but the perceived relieve congestion in major urban areas which disadvantages must be weighed against the will lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas greater public good; emissions and improve air quality; § It is acknowledged that the A5WTC as a § In light of the Programme for Government and component of wider policies, would be one budget provisions, any change in direction is of the projects contributing to an increase in an issue for political consideration; emissions; § See also Chapter 6. § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway is exceeded over most of the existing A5. Objection by Mr Charlie Williams It is accepted that traffic volumes on the Ballygawley-Aughnacloy link in the opening Inquiry Reference: OA-005 year will be below the threshold but from an engineering and safety perspective, it is better Summary of Objection: to have consistency of standards along the § Disgrace that this road should be forced upon entire length; people without agreement or meaningful § The Northern Ireland Programme for consultation; Government included the dual carriageway § The road will destroy thousands of acres of following North / South Ministerial Council farmland and wildlife when faced with global meetings which confirmed the Irish warming which threatens the human race; Government’s intentions to make contributions § The scheme is contrary to the legally binding to the cost of a major road programme in greenhouse emission targets set by the United Northern Ireland; Kingdom Government; 41 § Traffic levels do not justify the A5WTC. § In considering future needs, Roads Service Upgrading parts of existing road would be has undertaken an initial feasibility study of sufficient for future road traffic needs of traffic movements around Londonderry. This the country; concluded that a new link between the A5 and § The scheme will cause devastation to the A6 is feasible and it is anticipated that such the Foyle River System with its rare a link would interact with the A5 south of New spawning beds; Buildings; § It should be halted immediately and our § An on-line 2+1 on the existing A5 route, or an political leaders should examine a more on-line dual carriageway, would require greater forward thinking alternative. landtake than for the A5WTC proposal, cause much more disruption and result in less overall Departmental Response benefit; The Departmental response can be found in § Appropriate mitigation measures will be taken Inquiry reference OA-004. to lessen the effects on the countryside. These measures are described in the Environmental Statement. Comment § Our comments can be found in Inquiry Comment reference OA-004; § Mr Gamble’s suggestions are appreciated § See also Chapter 6 but the scope of this Inquiry does not include issues outside the Scheme, such as A5 / A6 Objection by Mr Robert S Gamble link and congestion in Derry / Londonderry; Inquiry Reference: OA-006 § The present A5 could not be converted to a dual carriageway without massive disruption The objector was represented by Mr Kevin to landowners, businesses and dwellings McCauley of JG Fleming LLP, Estate Agents. along the route, with likely considerable extra cost. See also Chapter 6; Summary of Objection § The Departmental response has adequately § This road is not necessary for the amount of addressed the other issues raised by Mr traffic on the existing A5; Gamble. § The way to avert bottleneck delays at Waterside, Londonderry, is to form a Objection by Mr Ciaran McClean roundabout on the Strabane side of New Buildings and a new road to Altnagelvin; Inquiry Reference: OA-007 § The present A5 could be improved. Summary of Objection § This road will run through many Areas of § Immense environmental damage will be Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), such as caused to the countryside; the Mourne Valley close to Beltany Road and will utterly destroy Sollus Hill, Bready. § Tourism will suffer as one of our present attractions is not having large roads; Departmental Response § Local businesses will suffer as the new road § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway bypasses them; is exceeded over most of the existing A5. It § The ability to provide food will be lost as is accepted that traffic on the Ballygawley to farmland is lost; Aughnacloy link in the opening year will be § Limited access to the A5WTC means that the below the threshold but from an engineering old road will continue to be used and will need and safety perspective, it is better to have maintenance as well as the new road; consistency of standards along the entire length of the route;
42 § Areas of Special Scientific Interest will be § The A5WTC will have road junctions at 15 environmentally damaged; locations, providing easy access from all A § The idyllic setting and context of the historical & B class routes. Transfer of traffic will be Harry Avery’s Castle at Newtownstewart will influenced by the origin and destination of be ruined; individual trips and the personal choice of the vehicle driver; § This road is the result of political horse trading between North and South; § The existing A5 will continue to be maintained but with a significant transfer of traffic to the § The Minister failed to provide alternative new road, a lesser degree of maintenance will options. be needed on the old A5; Departmental Response § The assessments have identified potential impacts on all sites designated for their § It is acknowledged that the Scheme will have biodiversity and nature conservation. They impacts on the environment and countryside. have shown that the Scheme is unlikely to However, it is promoted in the context of affect the integrity of these sites and will broader policies which address the future good not have significant affect on their nature of the nation; conservation value; § Potential environmental impacts have been § The Scheme was originated by the Northern assessed and reported in the Environmental Ireland Executive including it in the Programme Statement. That Statement describes the for Government and earmarking funding in design and mitigation measures which have its budget. been included in the light of potential impacts identified. The document demonstrates that where impacts would be of a high order, the Comment large majority would be effectively mitigated; § The Department has outlined extensive § Assessments have shown that there will be no mitigation measures to meet a number of Mr direct adverse impacts on tourism although McClean’s objections; there will be a large adverse impact on the § Although we accept that there will be setting of Harry Avery’s Castle and a range of serious loss of agricultural land and effects measures have been designed to minimise this on businesses and property owners, such impact; disadvantages must be weighed against the § The A5WTC will transfer traffic away from considerable benefits which will flow from the sections of the existing A5, thus enhancing Scheme; their recreational appeal. It will also benefit § The Government decision to include a dual the tourist industry by providing greater carriageway in its Programme for Government accessibility to and between tourist areas in and to budget for it is a democratic political Tyrone, Fermanagh and Donegal; decision and not within the scope of the § It is recognised that some businesses and Inquiry to challenge. property owners will be adversely affected but there are many benefits including opening up opportunities. The overall benefits far exceed individual dis-benefits; § It is acknowledged that the A5WTC will involve loss of approximately 1200 hectares of agricultural land, with substantial impact on 52 farm holdings, a moderate impact on 67 and a slight impact on 163. The overall loss and impacts on individual holdings has been detailed in the Environmental Statement;
43 Objection by Ms Mary Dunbar Departmental Response Inquiry Reference: OA-008 § Traffic threshold for dual carriageway is exceeded over majority of existing A5, except Summary of Objection Ballygawley – Aughnacloy link; better to have consistency along the entire route; § Disgrace that this road should be foisted upon people without agreement or meaningful § Loss of agricultural land has to be reviewed consultation; in the context of broader national strategic developments; § The road will destroy thousands of acres of farmland and wildlife when faced with global § At the North South Ministerial Council meeting st warming which threatens the human race; of 21 January 2011, the Taoiseach reaffirmed the commitment of the Irish Government to the § The scheme is contrary to the legally binding Scheme. greenhouse emission targets set by United Kingdom Government; Comment § Traffic levels do not justify the A5WTC. Upgrading parts of existing road would be § We consider that the Department has sufficient for future road traffic needs of the adequately addressed the matters raised in country; this objection; § The scheme will cause devastation to the § See also Chapter 6. Foyle River System with its rare spawning beds; Objection by Mr Padraig McClean § It should be halted immediately and our Inquiry Reference: OA-010 political leaders should examine a more forward thinking alternative. Summary of Objection Departmental Response § There is not sufficient traffic to justify the A5 project; The Departmental response can be found in Inquiry reference OA-004. § Environmental damage will result; § There will be negative effects on townlands Comment and tourism; § Traffic jams will be created at the other § Our comments can be found in Inquiry end of A5. reference OA-004; § See also Chapter 6. Departmental Response § Traffic threshold for dual carriageway is Objection by Mr Ian Clotworthy exceeded over the majority of the route, except for the Ballygawley – Aughnacloy link. Inquiry Reference: OA-009 It is better to have consistency along the entire route; Summary of Objection § Potential environmental impacts and § Traffic levels do not justify new A5; mitigation measures have been outlined in the § A number of modern farms along proposed Environmental Statement. The large majority of route will be rendered unmanageable; impacts would be effectively mitigated; § A low carbon alternative rail link could be built § Mitigation measures have focused on the instead of more roads which increase carbon maintenance of access within and between emissions; communities and on the avoidance of direct § Funded by Irish Republic taxpayers without impacts on defined settlements; their consent.
44 § Assessments have indicated there would be be affected by the Scheme. At non designated no direct adverse impacts on tourism related sites mitigation measures have focused on assets, except in the area of Harry Avery’s compliance with statutory obligations in Castle. Some scenic routes will be enhanced relation to protected species; with the transfer of traffic away from sections § Progress of the Scheme will have no impact of the existing A5; on funding by DRD for maintenance of the § No expected increase in congestion will be network. Winter service caters for 80% of all caused at either the Northern or Southern end vehicles and 80% trafficked routes are treated of the Scheme. on average.
Comment Comment § We consider that the Department has § We consider that the Department has adequately addressed the matters raised in adequately addressed the matters raised in this objection; this objection; § See also Chapter 6. § See also Chapter 6.
Objection by Mr Geoffrey Simpson Objection by Mr John Kirwan Inquiry Reference: OA-011 Inquiry Reference: OA-012 Summary of Objection Summary of Objection § The Scheme is not economically justified; § The current traffic levels do not warrant a road § Traffic flows are not sufficiently high to justify this size; the Scheme; § Omagh and Strabane will be negatively § Environmental issues have not been fully affected since the road links Derry and Dublin. considered; Departmental Response § There is concern about financial constraints and the ability to maintain a dual carriageway § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway in view of winter conditions and associated is exceeded over the majority of the route problems (winter 2010). except for the Ballygawley – Aughnacloy link. It is better to have consistency along the route Departmental Response from both an engineering and road safety perspective; § An Economic Assessment was included in the Preferred Options Report (July 2009). § There will be 15 locations along the proposed Following the Inquiry a full Business Case and route to provide easy access from all A & B Economic Appraisal will be completed; roads. Towns along the route will benefit from a reduction in traffic levels with improvements § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway in safety, noise and air quality. is exceeded over the majority of the route, except for the Ballygawley – Aughnacloy link. It is better to have consistency along the entire Comment route; § We consider that the Department has § An Environmental Impact Assessment adequately addressed the matters raised in has been completed and reported in this objection; the Environmental Statement. All nature § See also Chapter 6. conservation and biodiversity assessments have been agreed with statutory bodies. It is unlikely that any statutory designated sites will
45 Objection by Mr John Smyth Comment Inquiry Reference: OA-019 § The issue of woodland loss is addressed by the proposed mitigation. Woodland would Summary of Objection increase by 0.4 hectares and would be more § There will be increased levels of noise and air diverse although new planting would replace pollution in a rural setting from the new road, long established woodland; when the existing road could be improved; § We consider that the Department has § There will be negative impact on ancient adequately addressed matters raised in this woodland close to the objector’s home and on objection; his land; § See also Chapter 6; § It is a fundamental denial of human rights for § See also Chapter 8, Inquiry reference: 02- a government to force pollution on its citizens 054. by building a new road when renovation of the existing would suffice.
Departmental Response Objection by Ms Diane Greer § A greater number of receptors will experience Inquiry Reference: OA-020 reductions in traffic related noise (3 decibels or more) than increases. Some will experience an Summary of Objection increase in a context where traffic related noise § Current traffic volume does not justify the is currently not significant in the Scheme; local environment; § The Scheme will result in a waste of precious § The air quality assessments for the Scheme farmland and the road will be a carbon sink; have concluded that impact on local air quality § Environmental damage and cost to towns will would not be significant; be greater than the road benefits; § Dust nuisance during construction will be kept § Cost benefit analysis and best value to a minimum with appropriate procedures were not adhered to by the mitigation measures; proposers of the development. § Some woodland in designated areas (long established woodland – 0.6 hectares) would Departmental Response be lost, but 1 hectare of native woodland with § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway higher species diversity would be planted is exceeded over the majority of the route, adjacent to the south bound carriageway and except for the Ballygawley – Aughnacloy link. the remaining long established woodland; It is better to have consistency along the route § A Human Rights assessment for the Scheme from both an engineering and road safety has been completed which recognises the perspective; Scheme will have an adverse effect on some § 1200 hectares of land will be required for the land and property owners. It should be noted, Scheme; however, that an on-line dual carriageway would be more detrimental in terms of landtake § It is accepted that the Scheme will contribute and property. to carbon emissions but climate change commitments recognise that some schemes will increase emissions while others will reduce them; § The Scheme will involve impacts on the environment and countryside, but is being promoted in the context of broader strategic developments;
46 § The Environmental Statement concludes Departmental Response that the large majority of impacts would be § Roads Service had organised a series of public effectively mitigated; consultation events attracting attendances § Assessments have demonstrated there would of over 6600 and liaison meetings with be no direct adverse impacts on tourism landowners were held. Brochures outlining related assets, except Harry Avery’s Castle. Scheme design, etc., and information leaflets Some scenic routes will be enhanced with the were also made available. A web site and transfer of traffic away from sections of the telephone information line were set up. existing A5. The Scheme would benefit tourism Information gathered was fully considered in by providing greater accessibility to and the design of the Scheme as were mitigation between tourist areas in Tyrone, Fermanagh measures; and Donegal; § The impact of the Scheme on the environment § An Economic Assessment was included in the has been addressed throughout the whole Preferred Options Report. Following the Inquiry planning and design process. Extensive a full Business Case and Economic Appraisal studies have been undertaken identifying will be completed. habitats and species and measures to protect those species during construction Comment and afterwards when the road is operational. Widespread consultation was carried § We consider that the Department has out, particularly with the Northern Ireland adequately addressed the matters raised in Environmental Agency; this objection; § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway § See also Chapter 6. is exceeded over most of the existing A5. Although the Ballygawley-Aughnacloy link Objection by Mrs Camilla Taggart fell below the threshold it was better to have consistency of standard throughout, Inquiry Reference: OA-022 particularly from the safety aspect; Summary of Objection § Due to changes in design standards (2008) the landtake and associated costs required § There was no meaningful consultation; to facilitate an on-line 2+1 carriageway could § The Scheme would lead to destruction of be more than that required for an off-line dual farmland and wildlife habitats and impinge on carriageway because of the need to provide an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and additional parallel roads to accommodate destroy Sollus Hill; the many accesses along the existing route. § There would be an increase in greenhouse gas In terms of road safety and journey times emissions; the benefits of a dual carriageway would be greater than those of a 2+1 solution. Other § Traffic levels do not justify the Scheme; significant factors include the substandard § An upgrade of the existing A5 would suffice; alignment of the existing A5, alteration of § Alternative transport solutions should be utilities, traffic disruption, delays during investigated; construction and safety risks to road users and § Whether the Scheme was in conformity with construction workers; the law; § The Scheme is an integral part of Government § Noise and vehicle emissions would increase; policy relating to economic planning and development of infrastructure. It is inevitable § Communities would be severed; that it would have some impact on local § No local economic benefit - local businesses communities. In order to minimise such would be affected; impact mitigation measures would focus § Queried the source of funding for the project; on maintaining access along local roads, § There would be no benefit to local traffic using providing bridges where appropriate under the existing A5 or the Tyrone people generally.
47 or over the dual carriageway. In some cases Objection by Mr Vivien Corr diversions of local roads would be needed and every effort would be made to minimise the Inquiry Reference: OA-033 lengths of any diversions; Summary of Objection § It is recognised that the building of any new road can cause stress and anxiety for people § An upgrade of the existing A5 would suffice; affected. A number of measures have been § The Scheme was a waste of money. undertaken which should help alleviate some of the impacts by providing regular, accessible Departmental Response and transparent communication of Scheme information and progress. Help and support for Departmental responses in relation to the above farming and rural families is available from the issues are set out in Chapter 6. Rural Support organisation; § The Department is answerable to all relevant Comment legislation in Northern Ireland. All obligations Comments in relation to the above issues are set arising from such legislation had informed out in Chapter 6. the conduct of the assessments, evaluation of impacts and identification of mitigation Objection by Mr Bill Donnelly measures. Inquiry Reference: OA-036 Comment Summary of Objection § We are satisfied that the Department has complied with all relevant legislation; The Scheme was unnecessary; a 2+1 upgrade of the existing A5 would suffice. § Many aspects of the objection have also been raised by a number of other objectors; In evidence, Mr Donnelly referred to matters we have commented in detail in Chapter 6. pertaining to the Cavanacaw gold mine stating that: Objection by Ms Joy Coote § Removal and use of spoil for construction Inquiry Reference: OA-027 purpose would cause serious pollution; Summary of Objection § The mine was more an opencast lead mine than a gold mine, producing 1800 times more § The Scheme is a waste of money – other lead than gold; priorities should be considered; § The spoil has been stockpiled on site; § An upgrade of the existing A5 would suffice; § In 2006, the vice-president of the mining § The Scheme would have an effect on peoples’ company said in a BBC interview that “leftover health and wellbeing. rock can be sold to construction firms as aggregate”; Departmental Response § The Department’s projection for lorry Departmental responses in relation to the above movements in the area associated with issues are set out in Chapter 6. construction suggested that the spoil would be Comment used for the Scheme; § Experience from South Africa suggested Comments in relation to the above issues are set that waste from goldmines was the largest out in Chapter 6. single source of pollution in the country with a particular threat from acid rock drainage. Mr Donnelly also referred to the planning conditions relating to the operation of the mine and to the lack of enforcement by the Planning Service. 48 Departmental Response § Due to changes in design standards (2008) § The Department stated that due to changes the landtake and associated costs required in design standards (2008) the landtake and to facilitate an on-line 2+1 carriageway could associated costs required to facilitate an be more than that required for an off-line dual on-line 2+1 carriageway could be more than carriageway because of the need to provide that required for an off-line dual carriageway additional parallel roads to accommodate because of the need to provide additional the many accesses along the existing route. parallel roads to accommodate the many In terms of road safety and journey times accesses along the existing route. In terms of the benefits of a dual carriageway would be road safety and journey times the benefits of a greater than those of a 2+1 solution. Other dual carriageway would be greater than those significant factors include the substandard of a 2+1 solution; alignment of the existing A5, alteration of utilities, traffic disruption, delays during § Until design stage the Department did not construction and safety risks to road users and envisage that any fill would need to be construction workers; imported but in any event no contaminated fill would be used. The truck movements § The traffic level for a dual carriageway is quoted were merely indicative figures by the exceeded over most of the existing A5. While contractor – 50 per day represented 25 in each projected traffic volumes on the Ballygawley- direction; Aughnacloy link would be below that level it is accepted that the traffic flows for that link are Comment below the threshold for a dual carriageway, but from engineering and safety perspectives it is § Matters relating to the mine’s planning better to have consistency of standards over conditions and to enforcement are outside the entire length of the Scheme. the scope of this Inquiry; § We accept the Department’s assurance given Comment on a few occasions that no contaminated fill As most of the issues raised are in common with from Cavanacaw or elsewhere would be used many other objections received, we have set out on the Scheme. We expect the Department our detailed comments in Chapter 6. to be transparent in testing fill materials and declaring them free from contamination; Objections by An Taisce – National § See also Chapter 6. Trust for Ireland
Objection by Brian McGleenon Inquiry References: OA-038 & OA-974, Mr Ian Lumley, OA- 946, Inquiry Reference: OA-037 Mr James Nix & Ms Attracta Ui Bhroin Summary of Objection Summary of Objections § Investment should be in sustainable transport The following is a summary of points raised in and sustainable energy; cross-examination of the Department’s witnesses § Existing A5 should be upgraded; and of An Taisce’s evidence to the Inquiry: § Scheme not justified by traffic levels. § Properly costed alternatives were not Departmental Response assessed as required by the Web-based Transport Analysis Guide (WebTag) and the § The decision to proceed with the Scheme Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations was taken by the Northern Ireland Executive (EIA); and included in its budget, reflecting the high § Greater accident savings would be produced priority accorded to it within the Government’s by allocating the cost of the Scheme across programme; the Northern Ireland road network;
49 § The Scheme would end at New Buildings with § While cycling would be permitted on the no link into the city. The northern part should proposed A5, no specific facilities would be be constructed in Donegal; provided. Post Scheme, the existing A5 would § Provision should be made for cyclists on the be safer to use; new route; § A sophisticated computer model had been § Flooding on the Lough Foyle flood plain would constructed and the impacts examined be exacerbated, particularly in the area of in accordance with the DMRB and in Ballymagorry; consultation with the Rivers Agency guidance. The structural design would maintain the § With regard to the matter of otter surveys, the pathway for the flood plain to inundate discrepancy between the guidelines in the and ebb over similar times as the pre-road Design Manual for Roads & Bridges (DMRB) situation. Suitable measures would be taken and surveys actually carried out prevented the at drainage discharge points to ensure that consent authority from making a determination pollutants associated with road traffic would to avoid decisions and developments which be intercepted and dealt with. There should be would give rise to negative unacceptable no material impact on the Lough Foyle Special environmental impacts. Since the Area of Conservation; Environmental Statement was significantly deficient the need for derogation licences § The otter surveys and assessments were under European Community Directives had not robust, in accordance with the DMRB and had been adequately addressed; been discussed in detail with the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) and the § A section by section approach to the National Parks and Wildlife Trust in the Irish improvement of the A5 should have been Republic. adopted rather than a proposed complete dualling scheme; The Department submitted by way of additional evidence a paper by Mr Paul Chanin, an eminent § In the current economic climate greater weight mammal ecologist, which concluded that: should have been attached to factors such as anticipated higher fuel costs, more fuel § There was no evidence to suggest that the efficient driving and improved public transport. otter was not at favourable conservation status in Northern Ireland or in the Foyle catchment; Departmental Response § The An Taisce assertion that there was a § WebTAG was a process to evaluate options decline in range could not be sustained; for strategies, plans or projects. Originally § The An Taisce claim that there had been a known as Guidance on the Methodology considerable decline in the otter population of for Multi Modal Studies, it was applied to Ireland was incorrect; the Road Transportation Strategy and the § The surveys indicated that the loss of a small Regional Strategic Transport Network Plan and number of resting sites under the footprint appraisal summary tables were set out in both of the road would not have an adverse effect documents. It was subsequently refined to as there were many other alternative sites apply to projects. The Scheme was a project available; derived from the strategy which defined the transport corridors as dual carriageways; § Subject to guidance from the NIEA, licences may be required in respect of resting sites § The level of accidents was only one strand of under the road footprint which may be the economic case for the Scheme; destroyed or close to the road and hence § While the National Roads Authority have an vulnerable to destruction. interest in the A5 connections at the N14 An Taisce subsequently put forward a response at Lifford and the N2 at Monaghan, Roads which: Service had no jurisdiction to construct roads outside Northern Ireland. A separate study would determine a future A5 / A6 link which would be outside the scope of the Scheme; 50 § Continued to query the methodology and Departmental Response adequacy of the otter surveys carried out on § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway behalf of the Department; is exceeded over most of the existing A5. § Questioned the validity of the post consent Although the Ballygawley-Aughnacloy link approach relating to derogation licences; fell below the threshold it was better to § Expressed reservations as to reliance on the have consistency of standard throughout, endorsement by the NIEA of the Department’s particularly from the safety aspect; proposals. § The decision to proceed with the Scheme was taken by the Northern Ireland Executive Comment and included in its budget, reflecting the high priority accorded to it within the Programme § We have examined in considerable detail for Government; the oral and written evidence submitted by both parties before, during and after § An economic assessment was included in the Inquiry. We attach significant weight to the Preferred Options report. It demonstrated Mr Chanin’s paper in view of his expertise that the Scheme, using standard appraisal and vast experience. We are content with methods, would provide a good return on his conclusions that the impact of the road investment. It is accepted that the Scheme influencing disturbance to or destruction would impact on the environment and the of otter resting sites may be significant as countryside. It is, however, being promoted regards individual sites but not in terms of in the context of broader policies which either individual otters or the otter population address the future planning for the economy, of the Foyle catchment. We are satisfied that development and infrastructure. it is a matter for the NIEA, as the statutory authority, to determine whether or not Comment derogation licences need to be obtained; As most of the issues raised are in common with § The section by section approach would be many other objections received, we have set out contained within any proposal to examine our detailed comments in Chapter 6. the upgrading of the existing A5. We have commented separately on this issue in Objection by Mr Colm McGinn Chapter 6; Inquiry Reference: OA-040 § We consider the remaining points raised have been satisfactorily dealt with by the Summary of Objection Department. § The current volume of traffic does not justify the Scheme; Objection by Mr Patrick J McClean § The Scheme would result in the loss of Inquiry Reference: OA-039 valuable farmland and the associated soil disturbance would lead to considerable carbon Summary of Objection emissions; § Scheme not justified by traffic levels; § Damage to the environment and to the tourism § No need for a new road parallel to the industry would outweigh any economic benefit; existing A5; § Proper procedures relating to cost benefit § Benefits are far outweighed by the analysis were not adhered to; environmental damage and loss of agriculture § Were the Green Book guidelines adhered to? productivity; § The rationale of the Scheme was undermined § Lack of information on cost / benefits of by ending the project at New Buildings, the Scheme. creating potential for traffic congestion.
51 At the Inquiry, Mr McGinn suggested that an on- § The Scheme was developed in line with line 2+1 project with some variations could be appropriate government expenditure guidance; provided at a fraction of the cost of the Scheme. procedures have been agreed with Department He questioned the conclusion in the Environmental of Finance. Statement (ES) which predicted that changes in traffic flows would not lead to increased traffic Comment related pollutants carried in surface water run- § off. He referred to the impact of soil disturbance We are satisfied in general with the (displacement of 180 million cubic metres) on Departmental response; retained soil carbon and the consequential effect § Detailed comments are set out in Chapter 6. on the European Union’s target of 20% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2020. Objection by Mr Ed Winters Mr McGinn also raised a number of other Inquiry Reference: OA-048 issues including:
§ The effect of traffic growth on the environment; Summary of Objection § Financial consideration – resources could be § Shelving of improvement schemes elsewhere better used elsewhere; in the road system due to the high cost of the Scheme; § Environmental impact – visual, flora and fauna destruction over an unspoilt area; § Defective cost / benefit analysis of the Scheme. § Scheme was unnecessary – upgrade of the existing A5 would suffice; Departmental Response § Community and farm interference. § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway In evidence Mr Winters referred to the possible is exceeded over most of the existing A5. use of contaminated fill from the Cavanacaw gold Although the Ballygawley-Aughnacloy link mine and to the lack of enforcement of the mine’s fell below the threshold, it was better to planning conditions. have consistency of standard throughout, particularly from the safety aspect; Departmental Response § The Department stated that due to changes § The decision to proceed with the Scheme was in design standards (2008) the landtake and taken by Government and provided for in its associated costs required to facilitate an budget; on-line 2+1 carriageway could be more than that required for an off-line dual carriageway § The impact of the Scheme on the environment because of the need to provide additional has been addressed throughout the whole parallel roads to accommodate the many planning and design process. Extensive accesses along the existing route. In terms of studies have been undertaken identifying road safety and journey times the benefits of a habitats and species and measures to dual carriageway would be greater than those protect those species during construction of a 2+1 solution; and afterwards when the road is operational. Widespread consultation was carried § Potential environmental impacts of the Scheme out, particularly with the Northern Ireland have been assessed and reported on in the ES Environmental Agency; together with details of proposed mitigating measures. The ES also demonstrated that § Due to changes in design standards (2008) there would be no direct adverse effect the landtake and associated costs required on tourism related assets, although the to facilitate an on-line 2+1 carriageway could setting of Harry Avery’s Castle would be be more than that required for an off-line dual severely affected; carriageway because of the need to provide additional parallel roads to accommodate the many accesses along the existing route. In terms of road safety and journey times 52 the benefits of a dual carriageway would be § The standard of the proposed road was greater than those of a 2+1 solution. Other within the scope of the Inquiry and asked for significant factors include the substandard confirmation; alignment of the existing A5, alteration of § The Scheme fitted in with the Draft Regional utilities, traffic disruption, delays during Development Strategy and the Regional construction and safety risks to road users and Transportation Strategy and whether a construction workers; dual carriageway solution was the most § The Scheme is being promoted in the context appropriate; of broad policies which address the future § The predicted traffic flows justified the planning for the economy, development and construction of a dual carriageway for the infrastructure and it is inevitable that it would entire length of the proposed route; have an impact on the community and on § farming. Approximately 1200 hectares of land An on-line route option should have been would be required for construction and 250 considered as an alternative; hectares temporarily during the construction § The benefit cost ratio (BCR) for the Scheme phase. Mitigation measures have focused should be taken as around 1.3 approximately on the maintenance of access within and instead of 1.89 if unmodelled periods had been between communities, avoiding direct impact ignored in the modelling process; on defined settlements and maintaining § The cost of maintaining the Scheme should access along local roads by bridging the dual have been included in the Economic Appraisal; carriageway. Where local roads had to be § (Why) the recommendations of the Ecotech stopped-up, diversions would be provided. Report were not included in cost / benefit calculations. Comment Mr Wood further stated that his objection was § It is not within the remit of the Inquiry to based on four primary considerations: question Government policy; § The need for the Scheme, which he considered § We realise that in a Scheme of this nature to be unproven; it is inevitable that there would be a significant impact on farming and on local § The appraisal approach taken by the communities. The wider benefits for the consultants on the basis that it did not follow economy, development and infrastructure UK Department of Transport guidelines; have to outweigh individual disbenefits but § The approach taken to traffic modelling and we expect every effort to be made by way the Economic Appraisal; of accommodation works and mitigation § The level of carbon emissions associated with measures to minimise the impact; the Scheme, which are directly in conflict with § As most of the issues raised are in common current government policy. with many other objections received, we have Mr Wood also expressed concern that: commented in detail in Chapter 6. § His responses and presentation of evidence Objection by Mr Stephen Wood were hindered by the late provision of requested information from the Department; Inquiry Reference: OA-049 § There was no audit process for a project of this nature in Northern Ireland; Summary of Objection § The Public Inquiry process operated in quasi- The substance of Mr Wood’s objection was that legal and adversarial manner; the Department had not carried out a robust traffic and appraisal methodology in line with the Design § There was need for the improvement of the Manual for Roads & Bridges (DMRB). existing A5 but the need for a dual carriageway had not been proven (referring to the National In his verbal submission to the Inquiry Mr Wood Development Plan, Irish Republic and the also questioned whether: Strategic Options Report); 53 § Key engineering principles of generating In a verbal response to Mr Wood’s objection, the and testing possible solutions had been Department made the following points: passed over; § The design process for the Scheme was based § Alternative solutions had not been given on the standardised approach of developing full consideration; models related to the existing Class A & B road § Economic conditions in 2007, when the network and a selection of Class C roads; Scheme was at an early development stage, § The modelling process took into account the had changed significantly; standard parameters used in the Web-based § If the Scheme were to be built it would Transport Analysis Guide (WebTAG), which seriously jeopardize other Roads Service incorporated variations in times and distances. maintenance and improvement programmes; The base data could be supplied if required; § The Chartered Institute of Highways & § The model used assumed that cars and Transportation (CIHT) had concerns about the heavy goods vehicles operated at their own project; independent speeds and hence tended § The traffic modelling process used may to be a conservative evaluation of traffic have overestimated the use of the proposed characteristics and effects; Scheme and needed further investigation; § It was important to follow the modelling § The estimate of 1.99 for the BCR for the process as described in WebTAG so that Scheme was not calculated accurately; the Department for Transport could make comparisons across different schemes. § The likely annual carbon emissions would be in the region of 4000 tonnes and this would require significant carbon reductions in other Comment areas to affect the negative impacts of the § The evidence provided by Mr Wood to the Scheme. Inquiry was extremely complex and highly Mr Wood’s presentation of evidence is detailed detailed. In essence, however, Mr Wood in written documents submitted to the Inquiry was querying the approach adopted by the (Stephen Wood – Statement of Evidence and Department when developing the design Stephen Wood – Statement of Evidence, Reply to model on which the Scheme was to be Cross-Examination). based; § Having listened to and considered all of Departmental Response the evidence we are of the opinion that the Department and its design consultants § A comprehensive traffic model had been correctly followed the guidelines provided developed to assess the likely impacts of in the relevant design manuals and the Scheme in terms of traffic flows, relief to specifications; existing roads and economic benefits; § The model had been based primarily on § It was also clear that Mr Wood was bespoke traffic surveys; concerned by the technical design approach adopted for the Scheme. However, we were § The data collection, model development not persuaded by Mr Wood’s evidence and economic appraisal were undertaken in that the Department had been in any way accordance with standard procedures (detailed negligent in relation to statutory road design in the Preferred Options Report); procedures or requirements; § At the time of the Inquiry the information was § We therefore consider the Department’s being updated and the updates would be design proposal, in relation to the predicted included in the Scheme Assessment traffic flows for the Scheme, to be Report No 3. appropriate.
54 Objection by Mr Conor Scott Objection by Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Inquiry Reference: OA-051 represented by Ms Lynne Peoples Summary of Objection Inquiry Reference: OA-062 It would be more economical to re-open the rail link from Aughnacloy to Derry and upgrade the Summary of Objection existing A5. § Whilst not objecting to the Scheme, based on the Environmental Statement and Habitats Departmental Response Regulations Assessment, the Scheme should § The Northern Ireland Executive has set a not go ahead in the present financial climate; budget which includes provision for the § If it proceeds, there should be an “end of Scheme, reflecting its high priority within the contract” report on the effectiveness of habitat Executive; protection, mitigation and management, based § Specific on-line improvements to the existing on appropriate monitoring. A5 have been considered. On-line widening Ms Peoples also offered helpful advice, in a letter would be more costly than the off-line dated the 11th of February 2011, on measures Scheme, due to the need for parallel roads to that should be taken to protect various species. accommodate existing accesses. On-line work on the line of the existing A5 would be made Departmental Response more costly and difficult by the sub-standard § All comments will be carefully considered by alignment, alterations to utilities, traffic the project team; disruption during construction and safety issues; § Note RSPB agreement to the methodology and approach undertaken for the bird § The landtake for a 2+1 road would be greater surveys as part of the Environmental Impact than for a dual carriageway; Assessment process; § The Northern Ireland Executive’s Programme § This Scheme is included in the Northern for Government prescribed a dual carriageway. Ireland Executive’s Programme for Government and has been included in its Comment budget. This demonstrates the priority § The Department has adequately answered Mr which Government gives to this project, Scott’s objections; which will act as a catalyst for economic growth, supporting the economy by planning, § To our knowledge, there never was a developing and maintaining safe and direct rail link from Aughnacloy to Derry / sustainable transportation networks; Londonderry. In any case, no new railway links are considered in the Regional Transport § Both the Northern Ireland Executive and the Strategy; Irish Government in early 2011 reaffirmed their commitments to the A5WTC. § This Inquiry is confined to the matters related to the Scheme; Comment § See also Chapter 6. § We note the helpful and constructive approach by the RSPB; § The Department must take careful note of the advice on birds, as offered by Ms Peoples;
55 § We accept the reasons why the Scheme § It is widely accepted that Improvement of should proceed in the current financial infrastructure contributes to local as well as climate as set out in the Departmental regional economic regeneration; response; § The proposed design measures and § We agree with the suggestion that an “end of construction methods recognise the contract” report should be produced by the importance of local watercourses and Department. wildlife habitats. Following detailed surveys, appropriate mitigation measures have been identified which would ensure that the Scheme Objection by Ms Kathleen Christie would have no significant effect; Inquiry Reference: OA-338 § The loss of agricultural land and impacts on agricultural holdings has to be balanced in the Summary of Objection context of broader policies addressing overall § The environmental impact through many Areas plans for the economy, development and of Outstanding Natural Beauty; infrastructure; § Absence of local economic spin-off; § Some businesses and property owners would § Disturbance of riverine habitats along the be adversely affected but on balance the Foyle; overall benefit of the Scheme would be in the wider public interest; § Loss of amenity; § On-line widening could be more difficult and § Loss of high quality farmland; expensive than off-line construction due § Longer journey times for local traffic; primarily to the need to accommodate existing § Loss of passing trade to local businesses; accesses and minimise the effects on adjacent property. Other significant factors include the § Scheme not justified by traffic census; substandard alignment of the existing A5, § Impact of Scheme on noise, vibration and alteration of utilities, traffic disruption, delays street lighting; during construction and safety risks to road § Location of a new bridge over the Foyle; users and construction workers; § On-line widening would suffice. § The response relating to the impact on swan and geese populations is set out in Mr L At the hearing, Ms Christie supplemented her Christie’s objection: OA-1000; objection with a comprehensive presentation of maps and photographs. She also referred to the impact of the Scheme on the feeding and roosting Comment grounds of swans and geese. § We are satisfied that the Departmental response deals adequately with the issues Departmental Response raised; § The Department accepted that a new key § See also Chapter 6, where we have transport corridor 85 km long would have an commented in detail on some of the matters impact on the existing landscape character of common concern. and on the vistas of residents, visitors and travellers. Sensitive integration of the Scheme Objection by Mr Robert Murtland was an important part of the planning, design and assessment process. The assessment, Inquiry Reference: OA-464 reflected in the Environmental Statement, concluded that 68.5% of the corridor would Summary of Objection have only a slight impact but that 7% would § How is it proposed to mitigate the disruption, be subject to considerable adverse impact, severance of communities, distress and necessitating mitigation measures; changed social interaction which will result from a road of this magnitude?
56 § Loss of high quality farmland and the new dual carriageway. Where an existing fragmentation; road is to be stopped-up, access will be § Environmental damage to the Foyle catchment provided by diversion; and associated biodiversity. § The overall impact on local communities In opening his verbal submission to the Inquiry, and proposed mitigation are outlined in the Mr Murtland said that he had an international Environmental Statement (ES); background as an environmentalist and forester. § It is accepted that the Scheme will involve loss He then made the following of agricultural land and will have substantial additional points: impact upon 52 agricultural holdings; a moderate impact on 67 and a slight impact on § Population will grow, yet the A5 / A6 / A2 will 163; together take up 6,000 acres of valuable arable land; § The overall loss and impact on individual holdings are detailed in the ES; § Attention should be paid to issues of food security, climate change, global warming and § The assessments relative to nature the transportation costs of imported food; conservation and biodiversity, including the Foyle catchment, have been conducted as § The loss of 1200 hectares of productive agreed with the relevant statutory consultees. farmland to make way for the A5WTC will lead to uneconomic fragmented farms, loss § It is unlikely that the Scheme will affect the of farm jobs, farm services and the processing integrity of designated sites. In identified of farm products; locations there would be impacts on non- designated sites and features of higher value. § Damage to angling and tourism; In such instances, mitigation in the form of § Demolished historic house should be rebuilt as compensatory and enhanced planting form a Folk Museum; part of the Scheme. Where assessments § Some reference had been made to fisheries, have identified areas where fauna, including but what about hares, foxes, rabbits and protected species, are present suitable birdlife which will have three lanes of highway mitigation measures will be applied in to cross instead of one? accordance with statutory obligations; § Salmon and trout enter the river system § The concerns expressed by Mr Murtland will throughout the year and in Summer, smolts be taken into account in design and mitigation migrate out to sea, returning in 12 or stage; 18 months; § The Department has already consulted with § Environmental erosion; the birds species consultant of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the § Soft clay deposited on low lying fields will lead advice of the Woodland Trust will be sought; to a water logged pond; § The drainage system related to the Scheme § Loss of ancient woodlands; will be regularly maintained and serviced by § Who will adequately maintain the drainage Roads Service. system? Comment Departmental Response We note Mr Murtlands concerns about the § It is acknowledged that the Scheme would various issues raised. However, we feel that the have impacts on some local communities. Department has adequately addressed these However, it is promoted in the context of issues in a reasonable manner and has given broad policies which address the economy, assurances regarding continuing mitigation development and infrastructure for the future; measures. § Where impacts will be significant, mitigation measures are focused on maintenance of access, in some cases bridges over or under
57 Objection by Mr Stephen Hawkes existing A5. The Ballygawley-Aughnacloy link at present is under the level, but from an Inquiry Reference: OA-499 engineering and safety perspective it is better to have consistency along the entire length; Summary of Objection § On-line widening would be more expensive § This road would have a very damaging effect and cause more disturbance to land and on the environment; property owners, as well as delays to traffic § Hedgerows would be removed and the loss of during construction and many safety issues. habitat to local wildlife would be devastating; § Has proper consent been given for the road? Comment § Bogs are home to a huge variety of plant life. § Mr Hawkes’ objections are adequately Why destroy this for a road that is not needed? addressed by the Departmental responses; § Has there been an Environmental Impact § See also Chapter 6. Assessment? § The loss of the most beautiful countryside is a Objection by Ms Ruth Niven price too high; Inquiry Reference: OA-500 § Perhaps remedial work on the existing road would be sufficient. Summary of Objection Departmental Response § Traffic figures do not justify a new road; § It is acknowledged that the Scheme will § The benefits projected are ephemeral and do involve impacts on the environment and not stand up to scrutiny; countryside, loss of natural resources and § The environmental / cost factors mitigate specific impacts on flora and fauna; against construction of the A5WTC; § The Scheme is promoted in the context of § There will be major noise and traffic nuisance; broader polices which address planning for the § Farmers will have land taken without economy, development and infrastructure; replacement land being available; § Potential environmental impacts have been § Good fields will be cut into unviable pieces; assessed and reported in the Environmental § In the current economic climate, it is unwise Statement. This shows that whilst at a number to invest large amounts of public money in a of locations it would be of a high order, the project which will have questionable benefits; large majority of impacts would be effectively managed; § Saving 20 minutes is welcome but at a very high price. A less ambitious scheme of § The assessments relative to nature improvements would be more appropriate, conservation and biodiversity have been more acceptable to the public, less injurious to conducted as agreed with statutory families and businesses affected and achieve consultees. It is unlikely that the Scheme a saving. would affect the integrity of designated sites and features of higher value; Departmental Response § Mitigation in the form of compensatory and § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway enhanced planting have been included; is exceeded over most of the existing A5. It § The Department is answerable to all Northern is accepted that projected volumes on the Ireland legislation and this has been observed Ballygawley-Aughnacloy link will fall below at every stage; the threshold in the opening year but from an § The traffic threshold level for a dual engineering and safety perspective it is better carriageway is exceeded over most of the to have consistency of standards along the entire A5WTC;
58 § An Economic Assessment was included in § The Scheme is included in the Northern Ireland the Preferred Options Report (July 2009). This Executive’s Programme for Government and document will be updated periodically. A full provision made in its budget. This reflects Business Case and Economic Appraisal will be the high priority accorded by the Executive. completed before construction commences; Both the Executive and the Irish Government § Unfortunately, at some locations to avoid reaffirmed their commitment to the project in extensive engineering solutions close to early 2011. an ecologically important site, a number of properties will be demolished and land Comment taken. The landowners and property owners § The Departmental response has adequately concerned have been extensively consulted; addressed each of Ms Niven’s objections; § It is acknowledged that the Scheme would § This Scheme would undoubtedly cause impact upon the environment and countryside. hardship and concern to many people and However, it is promoted in the context disturb the countryside and environment. The of broader policies which address future steps being taken to mitigate the effects are planning for the economy, development and noted; infrastructure; § The adverse aspects must be balanced § Potential environmental impacts have against the greater good and overall public been assessed and are reported in the interest; Environmental Statement (ES). This describes the design and mitigation measures which § See also Chapter 6. will be taken. While there are locations where impacts will be of a high order, the large Objection by Mr John M Niven majority of impacts would be effectively mitigated; Inquiry Reference: OA-501 § The ES considered the effects of noise and Summary of Objection vibration at sensitive receptors. This shows that a greater number of receptors will The objection is identical to OA-500, Ms Ruth experience reductions of three decibels or Niven. more, than those likely to suffer an increase of three decibels or more; Objection by Mr Ian Fulton § Subject to certain criteria there is provision Inquiry Reference: OA-502 in the Noise Insulation Regulations (NI) 1995 for those affected adversely to apply for the Summary of Objection installation of insulation to their property; § Reinstatement of the rail link, and upgrading § It has been concluded that many receptors in the existing A5, should have been considered the vicinity of the existing A5 will experience and consulted upon; reductions in the traffic related pollutants. A § Loss of farmland, farms split and livelihood few will be subject to a slight increase but this at risk; is not considered significant; § The environmental impact will be massive; § Loss of land is a compensation issue which would be considered by Land & Property § The road will link two small towns, with no Services; direct link to Londonderry or Donegal. It will be a “white elephant”; § It is acknowledged that the Scheme would have a substantial impact on 52 farm holdings, § The proposal should be sent back to the a moderate impact on 67 and a slight impact drawing board. on 163;
59 Departmental Response § The A5WTC is included in the Northern § The Northern Ireland Executive has provided Ireland Executive’s Programme for for the A5WTC dual carriageway in its budget, Government and endorsed by the North reflecting its high priority with the Executive; South Ministerial Council, reflecting Government priority for a dual carriageway; § On-line widening would be more difficult and costly due to the need to accommodate § We accept that farmland would be lost and existing accesses and considerably more the countryside affected in a number of areas, demolition of property. The landtake for a but consider these factors must be balanced 2+1 carriageway is greater than for a dual against Government policy and the greater carriageway; public good; § It is acknowledged that the Scheme would § We note that the Department would provide involve loss of agricultural land and impact on extensive mitigation measures to minimise agricultural holdings. The A5WTC is promoted the effect on the countryside, air quality in the context of broader issues which and noise. address the future planning of the economy, development and infrastructure; Objection by Councillor John Donnell § The Scheme will have a substantial impact on 52 land holdings, a moderate impact on Inquiry Reference: OA-503 67 and slight impact on 163. The overall loss and impact on holdings is detailed in the Summary of Objection Environmental Statement (ES); § The funding required for this road will mean less available for the maintenance of § It is accepted that the proposal will have existing roads; impacts on the environment and countryside. The ES reports on potential impacts and the § The traffic levels on the existing A5 fall far proposed mitigation measures. It indicates short of those required for a dual carriageway; that the large majority of impacts would be of § The UK Governments “Public Participation a low order; Guidelines” do not appear to have been § The ES shows that 68.5% of the A5WTC properly followed; would be well integrated, compared with 7% § The attempt to foist such a road on western subject to large adverse impact; Ulster is contrary to UK and European § The Scheme runs from the outskirts of Environmental policy; Londonderry, at New Buildings to the border at § There is scant potential in the proposals Aughnacloy, recognising the work to date on to include the examination of integrated the A5 / A6 link and the N2 in Co. Monaghan. transport systems – park and ride, rail, The A5WTC will have junctions at 15 locations driver education, etc; along the route; § Government has not provided evidence to § The existing A5 has high traffic flows and justify this road. Where is the evidence that congestion which will get worse as traffic a full economic appraisal has been or will be increases by an estimated 40% by 2030. conducted? § The A5WTC would impinge on up to 400 Comment agricultural holdings. Another artery of § In the Regional Transportation Strategy, there transport running parallel to the existing one are no plans to restore the rail link. In any is unnecessary; case, such a proposal is outside the remit of § The money should be spent on a radial road this Inquiry; network with Omagh as its hub; § There is no long term environmental impact study. Little or no notice taken of endangered
60 species, Areas of Special Scientific Interest, § An Economic Assessment was included in the Special Areas of Conservation, the visual Preferred Options Report published in July heritage, etc; 2009. A full Business Case and Economic § Current accident blackspots on the existing A5 Appraisal will be completed for approval of the will remain; Department of Finance and Personnel before work commences; § The limited access to the new road means that local traffic will continue to use the existing A5; § It is acknowledged that the Scheme would involve loss of agricultural land and specific § The needs of those businesses on the existing impacts on agricultural holdings. The A5 are being ignored. overall loss and impacts are detailed in the Environmental Statement (ES); Departmental Response § The monies earmarked by the two § The existing A5 will continue to be maintained, Governments are specifically for a dual but at less cost due to the transfer of some carriageway; traffic to the new road. The additional 85km is insignificant when compared to the total length § An Environmental Impact Assessment has of the entire road network; been completed and reported in the ES; § The traffic level for a dual carriageway is § The number of accidents on the existing A5 exceeded over most of the existing A5 route; will reduce substantially as traffic transfers to the A5WTC; § A series of well-attended public consultation events have been held locally. Brochures § The A5WTC would have junctions at 15 outlining the Scheme design were made locations which would allow easy access from available both to attendees, and non all A & B routes; attendees. These events attracted over 6,600 § There are many benefits flowing from the attendees. The A5WTC website and the Scheme but it is acknowledged that some Information Line have been widely used. businesses and property owners will be The information gathered from public adversely affected. On balance, however, consultation has been carefully considered, the overall benefits far exceed individual and taken into account; disbenefits. § It is acknowledged that the A5WTC as a component of wider policies would be one Comment of the projects contributing to an increase § We consider that Councillor Donnell has in emissions. It is also acknowledged that raised a number of objections which should there would be impacts on the environment be in the public domain; and countryside. The Scheme, however, is promoted in the context of broader policies § The Department’s responses have adequately which address the future planning for the addressed the matters raised in this economy, development and infrastructure. Air objection; quality assessments have shown that more § It is hoped that Councillor Donnell will take receptors would experience a slight reduction some comfort from the assurances given. in traffic related pollutants than those that would be subject to a slight increase, which Objection by Ms Bernice Prendiville would not be significant and pose no threat to health; Inquiry Reference: OA-552 § The Northern Ireland Executive has included this project in its Programme for Government Summary of Objection and has made provisions for it in the agreed § Local residents would be exposed to higher budget. This reflects the priority accorded by levels of hydrocarbons, CO2 and carbon the Executive to this Scheme; monoxide which have long term effects on health and climate change;
61 § The construction and use of this road would § There is no conflict with commitments and lead to massive volumes of CO2 emissions, obligations. It is recognised at national level contrary to Kyoto protocol obligations; that some projects will add to the total carbon § The route would fragment existing field emissions whilst others will reduce total patterns; emissions; § It would sever dispersed rural settlements; § It is acknowledged that there will be severance and fragmentation of field patterns. The EIA § Several listed buildings would be demolished noted that the impact would not be significant or affected, such as Castletown House, Errigal in terms of their historic and cultural value; Kerrogue, Harry Avery’s Castle, as well as industrial heritage sites and the burial site at § It is acknowledged that the Scheme would Beltany; impact on local communities. Where these would be potentially significant, mitigation § This is unacceptable as tourism is a major measures focus on the maintenance of industry. Severing rural settlements isolates access within and between communities. neighbours and creates access difficulties; These measures demonstrate an awareness § The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the importance of access and community acknowledges that hedgerows, scrub and relationships; small wooded areas would be destroyed. The loss of woods would mean habitat loss for § All corridors and alignments and the badgers, foxes and other fauna which cannot environmental issues, have formed an be replaced by planting trees elsewhere; important element in the planning, design and assessment process. Impacts have been § The road will require 139 crossings, 103 carefully weighted in the balance. Where the watercourse diversions and 87 outfalls over Scheme runs close to sites and features of the Foyle and Finn rivers both of which have cultural heritage value, alignments have been Special Area of Conservation status. This will detailed to reduce potential impacts. The have a devastating impact on species such alignment of the road to the south of Harry as salmon; Avery’s Castle is in a deep cutting to avoid a § Unburned fuel and rubber compounds from change in backdrop to the view of the Castle the road surface get washed into rivers and from within the valley below Newtownstewart. wetlands. How will these pollutants be There will be planting on the cutting slopes to dealt with? improve the modified view of the Castle from § Flood plain storage capacity would be Bessy Bell and Baronscourt Road; adversely affected. Compensatory measures § The assessments show that there would be no such as holding ponds will not work on the direct adverse impacts on tourism although Foyle flood plain due to tidal effects; there would be a large adverse impact on the § The taking of 1200 hectares (of which setting of Harry Avery’s Castle. It is anticipated 731 hectares is deemed “best and usable that the A5WTC will benefit the tourist industry farmland” will affect 284 landowners. The by providing greater accessibility to and disruption to farmers livelihoods and loss of between tourist areas in Tyrone, Fermanagh future national food production will hurt the and Donegal; local area economically, not to mention the § It is not claimed that the proposed planting country overall. would offset the loss of woodland. The Environmental Statement (ES) does, however, Departmental Response recognise that the greater extent of new § The air quality assessments demonstrate woodland and scrub would be beneficial in that many more receptors would experience relation to landscape and biodiversity; slight reductions in traffic related pollution than would be subject to slight increases. The impacts would not be significant, and none of the predicted levels will be increased above European and UK standards; 62 § The assessments have demonstrated that § It was highly unlikely that Mr Smyth would be the Scheme would be unlikely to affect the able to replace land taken either by purchase integrity of designated sites and would not or conacre. have a significant effect on their mature Mr Ross Smyth also made a verbal presentation conservation value. Specific reference is made to the Inquiry the main points of which were as to Atlantic salmon in the ES; follows: § Mitigation measures relative to surface and § groundwaters are detailed in Chapter 16 of the The proposed road would destroy homes, ES; farms and livelihoods; § § Hydraulic models have identified the extent Mr Smyth was not opposed to an upgrade of of the flood plain and corresponding depth of the existing road; water associated with the Foyle / Finn system; § Mr Smyth questioned the economic viability of § It is acknowledged that the Scheme would the Scheme, and whether it had been properly involve loss of agricultural land and specific compared to a lower cost scheme; impacts on agricultural holdings. The Scheme, § Had the economic impact of the Scheme been however, is promoted in the context of broader considered in relation to the effect on tourism? policies which address the future planning for § Pollution as a result of the newly constructed the economy, development and infrastructure. A4 had led to the destruction of spawn beds The taking of 1200 hectares of land (of which and produced serious effects on local fishing 751 hectares comprise best agricultural land) stocks; would not constitute a material economic § The Scheme would lead to the devastation of threat to the country. the Foyle River; Comment § Would the Roads Service guarantee that contaminated rock would not be used on the § Ms Prendiville’s objections have been Scheme, as otherwise there could be serious adequately addressed by the Departmental risk to human health? response; § See also Chapter 6. Departmental Response § It was acknowledged that the Scheme would Objection by Mr Ross Smyth & Mr involve some impacts on local communities, Gordon Smyth but the Scheme was being promoted in the context of broader policies to address the Inquiry Reference: OA-566 economy, development and infrastructure; The objectors were represented by Mr Alan Burns § Mitigation measures would focus on the of Burns & Co Commercial. maintenance of access within and between communities; Summary of Objection § Air quality assessments for the Scheme have § A road of this magnitude will completely concluded that impact on local air quality disrupt and sever families and communities, would not be significant; resulting in distress and changed social § A greater number of receptors would interaction; experience reductions in traffic related noise § The proposed route will be too close to (3 decibels or more) than increases. Some will dwellings resulting in increased noise and experience an increase in a context where vehicle emission pollution, along with health traffic related noise is not significant in the implications. local environment; Mr Burns made a further verbal representation as § Subject to certain criteria there is provision follows: under the Noise Insulation Regulations (NI) 1995 for residents affected by traffic noise to apply for a sound insulation grant.
63 Comment § Dr McGloin, the author of the report, stated in evidence that it was highly likely that the § We consider that the Department’s response businesses would have to close due to the has adequately addressed Messrs Smyth’s loss of passing trade. When questioned concerns; she said that her specific brief had been to § In relation to the replacement of land taken by examine the impact on the three Duddy family purchase or conacre, this is a compensation businesses. She had not taken into account, matter outside the remit of the Inquiry; offset improvement in trading by other businesses in assessing the impact on the § Concerns expressed in relation to economic local economy. viability and the environmental impact of the Scheme and the possible use of Mr Orbinson in his cross-examination of contaminated materials are dealt with in detail Departmental witnesses raised the following in Chapter 6. issues: (i) Did the Department, under the terms of human Objection by the Duddy Family rights legislation, have regard to his clients’ rights in specific terms and did it consider Inquiry Reference: OA-900 how to minimise interference with those rights The objectors were represented by Mr William and whether such interference would be Orbinson QC, instructed by Patrick Fahy & Co, proportionate? Solicitors. Dr Eileen McGloin of EMcG Solutions (ii) Human rights legislation imposed a duty on appeared as a witness in support of the objection. states to ensure that policies or decisions did not interfere with the right to peaceful Summary of Objection enjoyment of possessions and that reasons § The salient point of the written objection was should be produced to demonstrate that that the Scheme would have adverse effects the implications of that duty had been fully on local businesses particularly those situated considered; on the existing A5 relying on passing trade. (iii) The Scheme provides accommodation works Patrick Fahy & Co. submitted in evidence an such as road access for farmers whose land economic report prepared by EMcG Solutions; has been severed; § The report stated that the Mellon Country (iv) Directional signs to private businesses had Inn’s functions and accommodation business been provided elsewhere on the public road account for 45% of turnover; the bar and network; restaurant (core business) rely on 90% (v) Why did the Environmental Statement (ES) not passing trade; 80% of the Mountjoy filling evaluate the socio-economic disbenefits of the station’s business relies on passing trade, as Scheme in terms of existing businesses? does 50% of the Sperrin Restaurant trade. The businesses collectively employ 38.5 Full Mr Orbinson went into considerable legal detail Time Equivalent (full time / part time / student in arguing that the Department had a duty to act placement) and the loss of those jobs would in compatibility with the European Convention represent not only a significant loss to the local on Human Rights in particular with Article 1 of economy but additional cost to the general Protocol 1 of the Convention which protects the economy due to unemployment benefits, peaceful enjoyment of possessions. He submitted etc. The reduction in trade would have an in evidence a number of documents. He argued adverse effect on suppliers in the local area that it was fair and proportional to provide access and elsewhere in Northern Ireland. Overall, the and directional signs from the Scheme to the three Scheme would have a significant effect businesses and that failure to do so would be on social and economic development of unlawful and a breach of human rights legislation. the local area; He claimed that the Department made no attempt at mitigation of the interference. In response to a comment made by the Department he asserted
64 that vesting of land was not a prerequisite for such accesses and to provide them at their rights under the Convention to be engaged, own expense. The provision of directional interference was sufficient. signage was subject to certain criteria and would be discussed with the Duddy family at Mr Orbinson asserted that he was not asking us design stage; to make a determination on the legal issues but to listen to the arguments and to flag up any concern Under cross-examination the Department stated we might have as to the legality of the process. that an economic assessment was outside the He added that he had instructions, if need be, scope of an Environmental Impact Assessment. to launch judicial review proceedings should the The appraisal undertaken in accordance with Department decide to proceed with the Scheme Web-based Transport Analysis Guide was limited to following the Public Inquiry. a valuation of travellers’ time. A macro-economic appraisal had been carried out into the impact Mr Orbinson also referred to Article 3 of the of the Scheme on businesses in general across Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. Northern Ireland. It did not have specific regard to He submitted that the ES failed to contain any the objectors’ businesses. The assumption made information on socio-economic impacts as in all appraisals was that there would be no loss required by the Directive and in particular did or gain in the total amount of passing trade within not address the likely significant effects on the the road corridor – some businesses would incur a three businesses and on the people affected by reduction, others an increase. the businesses in the event that the project went ahead. The ES thus was null and void. Comment Departmental Response § We considered the socio-economic appraisal presented by Dr McGloin. We noted that § The Departmental response to the original it promulgated disbenefits in terms of the written objections stated that it recognised unlikely event of total closure of the three that there were many benefits associated businesses. We noted also that it restricted with the Scheme. It recognised that some the impact of closure to geographical ward businesses and property owners would be level rather than a wider locality where adversely affected but that on balance the disbenefits could be offset by net gains; overall benefits far exceeded the individual disbenefits; § We noted that the appraisals carried out § The Department acknowledged that the on behalf of the Department demonstrated Scheme would by-pass the objector’s that any impact by the Scheme on passing businesses but as none of them was to trade of existing businesses (excluding those be vested it was questionable whether the directly affected by land acquisition) would objectors had any Article 1 rights. If Article 1 have a nil net effect; did apply, it would relate to peaceful enjoyment § As stated during the course of the of possessions and properties and it was not presentation of this case, it is not within our evident that the Scheme interfered with those remit or expertise to make a determination as rights. Even if it did apply it was a defence to whether or not human rights legislation had to an allegation of breach of that protocol to been breached. In accordance with guidelines show that, notwithstanding the breach, it was issued to Inspectors such matters should be still in the public interest to proceed with the tested through the courts. We have, however, Scheme despite the likely impact on the Duddy considered whether it was incumbent on the family and the viability of their businesses. Department to include a socio-economic It was a matter for each state to determine appraisal within the context of the ES. Both whether such a decision was justifiable; parties to this case agreed that there was § The Department explained that, unlike the no guidance or interpretation on the matter. provision of accommodation works, direct In the circumstances we consider that there accesses from a dual carriageway would are no grounds to depart from the UK wide contravene the guidance in the Design Manual practice adopted in the preparation of the ES for Roads and Bridges. It was a matter for for the Scheme. individuals to seek planning permission for 65 Objection by Mr George Rainey § It is accepted that the Scheme would have an adverse effect on a number of farmers - an Inquiry Reference: OA-938 inevitable consequence of a major scheme promoted in the wider public interest; Summary of Objection § Again the impact on the environment and § The existing A5 should be upgraded; countryside has to be considered in the wider § Sustainable options for improving transport public interest. The effects would be minimised should be investigated; through careful design mitigation measures; § Severance of local communities and increased § Roads Service had organised a series of public local travel times; consultation events attracting attendances of over 6600 and liaison meetings with § Human rights of land owners impinged; landowners were held. Brochures outlining § Land take rendering many farms unviable; scheme design, etc, and information leaflets § Adverse visual impact; were also made available. A web site and telephone information were set up. Information § Lack of constructive communication and gathered was fully considered in the design of consultation with affected interests; the Scheme and of mitigation measures; § No need for Scheme, not good value for § The traffic threshold level for a dual money, resources better used elsewhere; carriageway is exceeded over most of § No evidence of traffic levels to justify Scheme; the existing A5. While the Aughnacloy to § Nugatory expenditure on recent upgrade of Ballygawley link is under the threshold, road between Aughnacloy and Ballygawley dualling the entire route was considered with major roundabout; necessary for consistency of standards and to meet road safety concerns; § Effect on local businesses; § The Tullyvar scheme would provide benefits to § Effect on ancient natural habitats; road users for a minimum of 6 years; § Effect on carbon emissions; § The adverse effect on some businesses would § Absence of meaningful cost / benefit analysis. have to be weighed against the overall benefits At the Inquiry, the objector expressed concern of regional development; that his house would be affected by the proposed § It is unlikely that the Scheme would affect the Scheme, whereas it would have been unaffected integrity of any statutory designated sites of by the Preferred Route. nature conservation and biodiversity interests. Mitigation measures would be put in place Departmental Response to offset the adverse effects on other sites. Full details are set out in the Environmental § The Scheme is an integral part of Government Statement. policy relating to economic planning and development of infrastructure. It is inevitable § Due to changes in design standards (2008) the landtake and associated costs required that it would have some impact on local to facilitate an on-line 2+1 carriageway could communities. In order to minimise such be more than that required for an off-line dual impact mitigation measures would focus on carriageway because of the need to provide maintaining access along local roads providing additional parallel roads to accommodate bridges where appropriate under or over the the many accesses along the existing route. dual carriageway. In some cases diversions of In terms of road safety and journey times local roads would be needed and every effort the benefits of a dual carriageway would be would be made to minimise the lengths of any greater than those of a 2+1 solution. Other diversions; significant factors include the substandard § A human rights assessment carried out alignment of the existing A5, alteration of recognised that the Scheme would have an utilities, traffic disruption, delays during adverse effect on some property owners; construction and safety risks to road users and construction workers;
66 § When the Preferred Route was announced Objection by Professor Austin Smyth it was stated that it was subject to change. Since then the design was developed taking Inquiry Reference: OA-947 account of local information from landowners as well as more detailed information arising Summary of Objection from further ground investigation, drainage and The objector expressed concerns related to environmental surveys and flood modelling selected features of the Proposed Scheme work. Over 30 alternatives were identified and. and application of the demand forecasting and after assessment, 11 were incorporated into investment appraisal methodologies. the Scheme. Professor Smyth also made a verbal presentation In relation to the specific matter raised at the to the Inquiry the main points of which were as Inquiry, the Department stated that the Preferred follows: Route had never been fixed. A number of factors lead to the change from the Preferred Route to § Negative environmental impacts arising from the alternative route – concerns such as flooding, the proposals remain unresolved; cultural and heritage issues and cost savings. § Inadequacies within the approach followed The Raineys had been contacted as soon as the and the procedures employed risk conclusions change was determined. being reached on the basis of incomplete information and partial analysis of the potential Comment impacts of the Scheme; § A range of alternative highway schemes § We are satisfied in general with the should have been considered, including modal Departmental response; options; § Many of the questions posed were brought § Promotion of the Scheme is incompatible up by a number of other objectors; with the Department’s formally adopted wider § Our detailed comments are set out in policy goals for transport; Chapter 6. § The approach used to demand forecasting is incapable of assessing the implication of the Objection by Mrs Margaret Rainey proposals for the A5 with respect to: Inquiry Reference OA-939 (i) Modal split; (ii) Trip distribution; Summary of Objection (iii) Locally confirmed trip generation. This objection is identical to OA-938, Mr George As a result the analysis has not produced robust Rainey. estimates of changes in total travel demand and greenhouse gas emissions; Objection by An Taisce - National Trust for Ireland, Mr James Nix & Ms § The Proposed Scheme will increase the level of CO2 emissions in contravention of Attracta Ui Bhroin legally binding UK commitments to reduce Inquiry Reference: OA-946 greenhouse gas emissions; See OA-038. § The wider economic benefits attributed to the Proposed Scheme had been overestimated by the consultants; § Sensitivity tests for alternative growth may have produced over optimistic assessments;
67 § The Proposed Scheme had led to a significant available by the Department for Transport; distortion in the Department’s transport § In response to Professor Smyth’s query why budget such that its spending profile was now NISTRM was not used for traffic forecasts the incompatible with wider transport policy goals; Department’s consultants stated that, as the § The Proposed Scheme should be the subject datasets used in NISTRM were approximately of a full alternatives analysis. 10 years old, the demographic predictions that Professor Smyth also stated that “no conclusion it would produce would likely be out of date; is tabled indicating that the Proposed Scheme § In the above circumstances it was decided does not generate a positive economic return to convert TEMPRO to Northern Ireland or indeed within the constraints of the approach conditions and this led to the development of adopted, that it does not offer the best return of the TEMPRO – Northern Ireland model; those alternative alignments considered by the § The Department noted that Professor Smyth Department’s consultants.” explained that his submission had been made not to criticise the case for the Scheme, but Departmental Response with the aim of offering helpful suggestions; § A comprehensive traffic model was developed § The brief for the project, as agreed by the to assess the likely impacts of the Scheme in North South Ministerial Council was for a dual terms of traffic flows, relief to existing roads carriageway solution; and economic benefits; § The brief thus ruled out consideration of lesser § The data collection, model development standards or alternative modal interventions; and economic appraisal were undertaken in § The Department did not accept Professor accordance with standard procedures; Smyth’s view that greenhouse gas emissions § Professor Smyth made his submission on were of no concern to them, but accepted the last day of the Inquiry without giving that the Scheme would result in increased the Department an opportunity for prior emissions at a local level; consideration of the document, nor adequate § Professor Smyth disputed the prediction of time to make a response; Wider Economic Benefits (WEB) as computed § The consultants had been given a government by the consultants Ecotech. Roads Service has brief to consider only a dual carriageway every confidence that Ecotech Consultancy solution. has undertaken its WEB calculations in a The Department further requested, and was professional and robust manner; subsequently given, permission to submit a § Ecotech has indicated that the majority of written response to Professor Smyth’s paper. The WEB benefits will accrue in the Londonderry / Department submitted this paper to us and the Strabane / Omagh Corridor. main points are:
§ The Northern Ireland Strategic Transport Model Comment (NISTRM) was used as a starting point but was § The issues raised by Professor Smyth have thoroughly checked using on-line material and also been raised by a number of other direct observation and measurements; objectors. Due to the important strategic § The Department’s consultants were satisfied nature of these objections our considerations that the Trip End Program (TEMPRO) Northern and responses are provided in detail in Ireland (NI) model provided very robust growth Chapter 6; predictions for Northern Ireland and was not § We accept that the Department followed biased towards GB trends; appropriate procedures and guidelines when § The Department’s consultants intend to update preparing and designing the Scheme; the TEMPRO – Northern Ireland model when further relevant information has been made
68 § We accept that the Department made every Departmental Response effort to ensure that the transport model was See objection OA-948 (Mr William McCallion). up to date and specific to Northern Ireland; § We also accept that the brief given to Comment the Department’s consultants restricted See objection OA-948 (Mr William McCallion). them primarily to consideration of a dual carriageway solution. Objection by Ms Patricia McCallion Objection by Mr William McCallion Inquiry Reference: OA-950 Inquiry Reference: OA-948 Summary of Objection Objects to the proposal to construct a dual Summary of Objection carriageway from Aughnacloy to New Buildings on Objects to the proposal to construct a dual the basis that this is detrimental to wildlife and the carriageway from Aughnacloy to New Buildings on environment in general. the basis that this project represents a misuse of public funds. The money involved could be better Departmental Response spent on the maintenance of the Health Service. § It is acknowledged that the Scheme would impact on the environment and on Departmental Response the countryside. However, the Scheme is The Northern Ireland Executive has agreed a promoted in the context of broader policies budget which outlines the proposed funding for which address future planning for the the various Departments for the following 4 years. economy, development and infrastructure; The A5 is included in the budget reflecting its high § Potential environmental impacts are reported priority within the Executive. in the Environmental Statement (ES) which describes the design and mitigation measures Comment which have been included in the Scheme. The large majority of impacts would be effectively § The Northern Ireland Executive included this mitigated. dual carriageway project in its Programme for Government, and its budget; Comment § Allocation or re-allocation of public funds is a § We consider that the Environmental issues matter for the Executive; raised are adequately addressed in the ES; § See also Chapter 6. § We consider that the Departmental response has adequately addressed this objection; Objection by Mr Kevin McSorley § See also Chapter 6. Inquiry Reference: OA-949 Summary of Objection Objects to the proposal to construct a dual carriageway from Aughnacloy to New Buildings on the basis that this project represents a misuse of public funds. The money involved could be better spent on rehabilitation of disadvantaged individuals and improvements to the traffic system within Omagh.
69 Objection by Mr William Grimsley Comment Inquiry Reference: OA-951 Comments in relation to all of the above issues are set out in Chapter 6. Summary of Objection § Object to the proposal to construct a dual Objection by Ms Jerrieann Sullivan carriageway from Aughnacloy to New Buildings as this represents a misuse of public Inquiry Reference: OA-960 funds; Summary of Objection § Sufficient emphasis has not been given to A number of issues raised in Ms Sullivan’s conducting a proper environmental study prior objection were broadly similar to those above by to setting the wheels of the project in motion. Mr O’Leidhin in OA-959. In addition the objector Departmental Response stated that: § The Northern Ireland Executive has included § The Scheme would damage community life; this project in its budget, reflecting its high § The railway should be reinstated; priority within the Executive; § The Scheme would affect health and § Environmental studies, surveys and well being; assessments have informed the development § The project was a waste of funds - other of the A5WTC at all stages in the process. priorities should be considered; Comment § The existing A5 should be upgraded; § The Departmental response has adequately § The Environmental Statement does not addressed Mr Grimsley’s objections; address the impacts on groundwater quality (referring to the numbers of springs and § We consider that the environmental issues wells in use and the absence of mitigating raised are adequately addressed in the proposals) and consequently infringes Environmental Statement. European Community directives. Objection by Mr Eoin O’Leidhin Departmental Response Inquiry Reference: OA-959 § In relation to the last bullet point, the Department stated that assessments Summary of Objection demonstrated that the Scheme was unlikely § Lead to higher levels of hydrocarbon and to affect the integrity of sites designated carbon monoxide emissions; under European Union or national legislation. § Sever rural settlements and impact on Mitigation measures have been focused listed buildings, heritage sites, etc, with on compliance with statutory obligations consequential impact on tourism; relating to protected species, safeguarding nature conservation values and ecological § Impact on wildlife habitats; considerations. There would be no significant § Cause pollution of waterways impacting on impact on water quality; salmon reproduction; § Departmental responses in relation to the § Affect flood storage provision; remaining issues are set out in Chapter 6. § Result in loss of farmland affecting national food production and the local economy. Comment § We are satisfied with the Departmental Departmental Response response to this objection; Departmental responses in relation to all of the above issues are set out in Chapter 6. § Comments in relation to the remaining issues are set out in Chapter 6.
70 Objection by Ms Diane Nixon would impact on the environment and the countryside. It is however being promoted Inquiry Reference: OA-962 in the context of broader policies which address the future planning of the economy, Summary of Objection development and infrastructure. § There had been inadequate investigation of the impact on wildlife; Comment § The Scheme would destroy the beauty of § We have detailed our comments on some of Tyrone and South Derry and the cultural these issues in Chapter 6; heritage; § We are content with the Department’s § There had been insufficient investigation of response in relation to the remaining matters high winds in the area with consequent safety raised. implications; § Traffic levels did not justify the Scheme; Objection by Mr Derrick Donnell, Mrs § There was no economic case for the Scheme. Sylvia Donnell & Mr Hall Donnell § Ms Nixon also raised matters relating to compensation. Inquiry Reference: OA-963 The objectors were represented by Mr Alan Burns Departmental Response of Burns & Co Commercial. § The Environmental Statement incorporates assessments relating to nature conservation Summary of Objection and biodiversity interests which were § If increases in traffic justifies this road, an conducted in accordance with methods upgrade to existing A5 would suffice; agreed with the relevant statutory authorities. § Unfairness to landowners regarding cost of They have demonstrated that it would be fighting this proposal. Roads Service can unlikely that the Scheme would impact on afford to appoint experts of all kinds, including statutory designated sites. Locations have legal representatives, yet no help is available been identified where there would be impacts to farmers / land owners trying to protect their on non-statutory sites and in such cases own and their family’s livelihood. appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented; § Was the traffic survey done before the St Andrew’s Agreement? § The concern re the potential for high winds along section of the Scheme is acknowledged. § Was it decided at St Andrews, when money Wind speeds would be monitored and became available from the Southern appropriate mitigation measures would be Government, to go for a dual carriageway? determined; § Was the decision based purely on finance § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway from the South as this money would not be is exceeded over most of the existing A5. available for an upgrade to the existing A5? Although the Ballygawley-Aughnacloy link At the Hearing, Mr Burns referred to a meeting fell below the threshold it was better to which he and Mr Donnell had with the Northern have consistency of standard throughout, Ireland Human Rights Commission and particularly from the safety aspect; correspondence between the Commission § An economic assessment was included in and the Permanent Secretary, Department for the Preferred Options report. It demonstrated Regional Development, regarding the absence that the Scheme, using standard appraisal of funding for objections to engage experts and methods, would provide a good return on legal representation, resulting in, in his opinion, investment. It is accepted that the Scheme “inequality of arms”.
71 Departmental Response Objection by Mr Matthew Todd § The improvement of infrastructure contributes Inquiry Reference: OA-964 to economic regeneration and this is reflected in the Northern Ireland Executive’s Programme Summary of Objection for Government, the Regional Development § The Scheme is economically unviable, gives Strategy and the Regional Transportation poor value for money and does not serve the Strategy; interests of the people of Tyrone; § On-line widening can be more difficult § It would destroy extensive farmland; and costly due to the need to accommodate existing accesses and the effect on § Alternatives, particularly the provision of rail adjacent property; transport, had not been investigated; § Specific on-line improvements were § His property, affected by noise pollution, would considered and can be found in be blighted; published reports; § There had been inadequate consultation. § Affected landowners can appoint an agent to act on their behalf, to negotiate with the design Departmental Response team in relation to accommodation works and § An economic assessment was published to prepare and to negotiate compensation in July 2009, and was updated in the draft claim with Land & Property Services, who Scheme Assessment Report 3. A full business are responsible for agreement and approval case and economic appraisal will be prepared of such fees. Where a landowner seeks after the outcome of the Inquiry; additional expertise, a clear need must be § It is widely recognised that the provision / demonstrated and prior approval sought from improvement of infrastructure contributes the Department; positively to the economic generation § The Department has no comment to make on of an area, and this is reflected in the the St Andrew’s Agreement; Northern Ireland Executive’s Programme for § The decision to proceed with a dual Government and other policy documents, carriageway was confirmed in the Northern including the Regional Development Strategy Ireland Programme for Government and the Regional Transportation Strategy; and endorsed by the North / South § The Scheme would have 15 intermediate Ministerial Council. junctions providing easy access from all A & B routes. Transfer of traffic from the Comment existing A5 to the dual carriageway would be influenced primarily by the origin / destination § We share the concern expressed about of individual trips, but the traffic model devised the lack of financial support for land and for the Scheme indicated that there would be property owners likely to be affected by significant transfer to the dual carriageway; these proposals. The Departmental response regarding agent’s fees may be misleading and § It is acknowledged that the Scheme would is not in accordance with evidence given in involve the loss of agricultural land and have other cases: this needs to be clarified by the specific impacts on agricultural holdings. Department; However, the Scheme is being promoted in the context of broader policies which address the § It is not material at what point the decisions future planning of the economy, development were made in relation the St Andrew’s and infrastructure; Agreement; § The inclusion of the Scheme within the § See also Chapter 6. Northern Ireland Executive’s budget reflects its high priority within the Executive’s economic strategy;
72 § It is accepted that the Scheme would result in Comment an increase in traffic related noise at Mr Todd’s property. The use of low noise surfacing would § It is not within the remit of the Inquiry to serve to reduce this increase. The impact may question the policy of the government of the or may not be a compensatable matter which Irish Republic in this regard; would be determined by Land and Property § See also Chapter 6. Services; § From the start of the Scheme a series of well Objection by Mr Jonathon Kee attended public consultation events was held locally to keep the public informed of Inquiry Reference: OA-966 the project through the 4 stages of Scheme design. Brochures outlining the Scheme Summary of Objection design, constraints, progress and timetable § Inadequate consultation; were produced and distributed to attendees § Destruction and pollution of the countryside; and others. Subsequent meetings were held § Severance and disruption of communities; with landowners affected by landtake to discuss the Scheme impact and to devise § Traffic levels insufficient; mitigating measures. In addition, the A5WTC § Need to investigate other transport systems website was set up to provide easy access (especially a rail link); to Scheme information, and the A5WTC § Upgrade existing A5; Information Line set up to provide direct access for phone queries. § No benefit to the people of Tyrone; § Other priorities for funding (hospitals, schools, Comment road maintenance, etc); § Our comments in relation to most of these § Legality of a foreign country purchasing land in Northern Ireland; issues are set out in Chapter 6; § Compliance of the Scheme with all laws; § The issue of blight as a result of noise is outside our remit and should be taken up § Noise and pollution; with the Department and Land and Property § Human rights of people affected; Services. § Mitigation measures relating to mental anguish and illness; Objection by Mr Colm Lawless § Absence of a long term environmental study; Inquiry Reference: OA-965 § Effect on local businesses.
Summary of Objection Departmental Response § Objects to the contribution by the government § From the start of the Scheme a series of well of the Irish Republic; attended public consultation events was § The Scheme did not provide value for money. held locally to keep the public informed of the project through the 4 stages of Scheme Departmental Response design. Brochures outlining the Scheme design, constraints, progress and timetable § At the North / South Ministerial Council were produced and distributed to attendees meeting in January 2011 the Irish Republic and others. Subsequent meetings were held confirmed its commitment to the Scheme; with landowners affected by land take to § The Scheme will act as a catalyst for economic discuss the Scheme impact and to devise growth in keeping with the Department’s mitigating measures. In addition, the A5WTC objective of supporting the economy by website was set up to provide easy access planning, development and maintenance of a to Scheme information, and the A5WTC safe and sustainable transportation network. Information Line set up to provide direct access for phone queries; 73 § The assessments relating to nature of an area, and this is reflected in the conservation and biodiversity interests have Northern Ireland Executive’s Programme for been conducted in accordance with methods Government and other policy documents which have been agreed with statutory including the Regional Development Strategy consultees. They have demonstrated that and the Regional Transportation Strategy; it would be unlikely that the Scheme would § The Northern Ireland Executive has agreed a affect the integrity of statutorily designated budget which outlines the proposed funding sites. They have identified sites where there for the various departments. The Scheme would be impacts on non-designated sites is included in the budget reflecting its high and features of higher value. In such cases, priority within the Executive; mitigation in the form of compensatory and § enhanced planting have been included as part The Scheme lies entirely within Northern of the Scheme; Ireland, and is being funded by the Executive with a contribution from the Irish Republic. § It is acknowledged that the Scheme would Consequently Northern Ireland legislation impact on local communities. Where impacts applies; would be significant, mitigation measures § have been focused on the maintenance of The Department is answerable to all access within and between communities. relevant legislation in Northern Ireland and Emphasis has been placed on the avoidance confirms that obligations arising from such of direct impact on defined settlements and legislation have informed the conduct of on the maintenance of access along local the assessments, evaluation of impacts and roads, which would otherwise be severed identification of mitigation measures; by the Scheme, with bridges either over or § The Environmental Statement has considered under the dual carriageway. In a small number the effects of noise and vibration at residential of locations, local roads would be stopped- properties and other sensitive receptors. up and access provided by diversion onto a The assessments have demonstrated that a nearby alternative road crossing; greater number of receptors would experience § The traffic threshold level for a dual perceptible reductions of 3 decibels or more carriageway, as indicated in the Design Manual in traffic related noise than would experience for Roads and Bridges, is exceeded over most perceptible increases of 3 decibels or more. of the existing A5. However, it is accepted that Subject to certain criteria there is provision projected traffic volumes on the Ballygawley – under the Noise Insulation Regulations Aughnacloy link in the opening year are below (Northern Ireland) for residents to apply for the the stated threshold, but from an engineering, installation of noise insulation of their property; and in particular a road safety perspective, it is § The Department has completed a human rights better to have consistency of standards along assessment for the project which recognises the entire route; that the Scheme would have an adverse § The consideration of other transport systems effect on some land and property owners. The is outside the scope of the Scheme; Scheme, however, is being promoted in the context of broader policies which address the § On-line widening can be more difficult than future planning for the economy, development off-line construction due primarily to the need and infrastructure; to accommodate existing accesses and to § minimise the effect on adjacent property. Other It is recognised that the building of any new significant factors include the substandard road can cause anxiety and stress for people alignment of the existing A5, alterations of affected. A number of measures have been utilities, traffic disruption and delays during undertaken within the Scheme to alleviate construction and not least the increased safety some of these impacts by providing regular, risks to road users and construction workers; accessible and transparent communication of Scheme information and progress. Also Rural § It is widely recognised that the provision / Support provide help and support for farming improvement of infrastructure contributes and rural families in Northern Ireland; positively to the economic generation 74 § While it is acknowledged that there are many § Traffic and economics – (i) there was an benefits associated with the Scheme, including inconsistency in stating that the Scheme opening up opportunities, it is also recognised would assist economic development in the that some businesses and property owners North West and in assessing that there would would be adversely affected. On balance, be no traffic growth; (ii) no account was taken however, the overall benefits associated with of the loss of agricultural productivity; the Scheme would far exceed the individual § Economics, carbon and climate change - the disbenefits and should proceed in the wider disbenefits due to carbon emissions should public interest. be £26M rather than £10M estimated by the consultants; Comment § Unsustainable development and skewed Comments in relation to the above issues are set transport investment – (i) the large investment out in Chapter 6. in the Scheme was at the expense of essential investment elsewhere in transport infrastructure; (ii) by promoting the Scheme the Objection by Friends of the Earth Department was failing in its statutory duty to contribute to the achievement of sustainable (Northern Ireland), Mr James Orr development; Inquiry Reference: OA-967 § Structural bias within the Inquiry process (i) the Inquiry fails to take account of the wider Summary of Objection strategic, legal and policy imperatives; § Strategic balance – the scale of the proposal (ii) the lack of parity of resources places a would prejudice other transport options; considerable financial burden on objectors § Climate change – the Scheme would presenting their cases at the Inquiry. contribute to the current adverse trend in During the Inquiry, Mr Victor Christie referred to Northern Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions a letter he had sent to the Minister on behalf of contrary to Government policy; Friends of the Earth. We have dealt with this in § Environmental damage – the Scheme would dealing with his various objections – see OA-981. adversely affect flood plains, a wetland system Area of Special Scientific Interest (ASSI) and Departmental Response the Special Area of Conservation (SAC); there § The need for Key Transport Corridors, would be no mitigation measures taken during including the A5, was recognised in the construction; Regional Development Strategy and the § Economy – the Scheme would adversely funding for the A5 was included in the affect the rural economy in terms of the loss of Northern Ireland Executive’s current budget; farmland, fragmentation of local communities § At national level some development projects and tourism blight; would add to greenhouse gas emissions § Alternatives - the Environmental Statement did while others would offer a reduction. However not assess any alternatives to the Scheme. an overall reduction remained the national At the Inquiry Mr Orr on behalf of Friends of the objective; Earth elaborated on the written objection referring in particular to:
§ Traffic forecasts and thus benefits have been overstated; § The 60 year economic benefit should be recalculated to account for forecasts of oil scarcity and likely transition to other energy sources;
75 § The Rivers Agency had accepted the validity § The economic model took account of of the hydraulic model identifying the extent government predictions of traffic growth of the flood plain. Appropriate mitigation and fuel costs over the period 2015-2030, measures would minimise any impacts due cognisant of recent increases in fuel costs to the Scheme. The Environmental Statement likely to result in reduced traffic levels (ES) concluded that there would be no assessment; significant effect on designated ASSI and SAC sites. Mitigation measures during construction § The Department stated that it was not are detailed in the ES. Re Natura 2000 sites, conventional to include in the cost benefit detailed surveys and assessments have appraisal a value factor for loss of agricultural been provided to the competent authority for production over the life of the Scheme, approval; suggesting that it would be reflected in land values. We note the statement in § It is accepted that the Scheme would affect the Compensation Guide: “In the case of farmland and local communities. In order to agricultural land the future profitability of minimise such impact, mitigation measures the farming business is in effect included would focus on maintaining access along local within the value of the land.” However, in a roads providing bridges where appropriate Scheme of this nature, where approximately under or over the dual carriageway. In some 1200 hectares of land would be vested, cases diversions of local roads would be we do not consider that this adequately needed and every effort would be made to reflects the impact of a significant reduction minimise the lengths of any diversions; in agricultural productivity on the wider § Assessments have indicated that the Scheme economy. would not impinge on tourist features in the area other than the setting of Harry Avery’s Castle. The road would provide greater Objection by Ulster Angling accessibility between tourist areas in Tyrone, Federation, Mr Jim Haughey Fermanagh and Donegal; Inquiry Reference: OA-969 § It is widely accepted that improvement of infrastructure contributes to economic Summary of Objection generation and this is reflected in a number § The Environment Statement (ES) is inadequate of Government policy documents. It is not and needs to be improved; the purpose of the ES to examine alternative § Concern about the effects on rivers and the transport strategies. importance that the natural integrity of rivers is protected; Comment § Listed several concerns about detail of the § We confirm that it is not the function of the Proposal; ES, nor of this Inquiry, to consider other § Measures which need to be taken during transportation strategies. The A5 was construction to protect fish; referred to in draft transport strategies and budget proposals which were published for § A senior person should be appointed pollution consultation and the decision to proceed was control officer and a pollution control meeting taken by the Northern Ireland Executive; should be held monthly, attendance to include contractors, Northern Ireland Environment § In relation to carbon emissions, we have Agency, Department of Culture Arts & Leisure, no way of assessing the accuracy of the Fisheries Division and relevant local interests. objector’s estimate of £26M disbenefit, but A pollution risk register should be drawn up. we note that it was not disputed by the Department;
76 Departmental Response § Adequate compensation should be available. § Roads Service does not accept the criticism of the ES. The design measures and construction Departmental Response methods recognise the importance of § While there are many benefits arising from the watercourses in terms of water quality and A5WTC, it is recognised that some business habitat. These measures and methods comply and property owners will be adversely with statutory obligations and have been affected; informed by detailed surveys; § The landtake for either an on-line dual § It is agreed that the natural integrity of rivers is carriageway or a 2+1 road and the disturbance important; to people, property and businesses would be greater than an off-line dual carriageway; § Whilst the Non-Technical Summary provides a summary of the findings and commitments in § Compensation (if applicable) is a matter for the ES, it is the commitments detailed in the Land & Property Services. ES which fully reflect the measures which form part of the Scheme; Comment § The Department is willing to work with the § Mr Allen’s concern regarding the effects Angling Federation to address its concerns on his business is understandable but the during construction; greater public good is paramount; § Measures to address some of these concerns § There will be many benefits from the A5WTC, would form an integral part of the Construction set against adverse impacts on some; Environmental Management Plan which the § The remaining objections, as above, contractor will be required to detail have been adequately addressed in the and implement. Departmental response; Comment § The issue of compensation is a matter outside the remit of the Inquiry § The Federation’s criticism of the ES lacks detail; On balance, we are assured by the ES § See also Chapter 6. which extensively addresses these issues; § The Department has stressed willingness to Objection by Mr Peter McCarron work with the Federation during the contract Inquiry Reference: OA-972 period. This needs to involve meaningful dialogue and careful consideration of the Summary of Objection expert advice which the Federation can offer; § The proposal should be withdrawn and § We expect the Department to deliver on these replaced with a combination of options assurances. including upgrading the railway out of Derry and reinstatement to Dublin via Strabane / Objection by Mr John Allen Omagh and upgrading key stretches of the A5; § The Environmental Statement (ES) needs to be Inquiry Reference: OA-970 revised in light of the draft budget which states Summary of Objection that: (i) Key aims of the Department for Regional § Business trading depends on passing traffic on Development (DRD) include developing the existing A5; sustainable networks; § Fears that with such limited access on the (ii) The programme of concessionary fares will be A5WTC, business will suffer with the likelihood reduced, which conflicts with the Executive’s of redundancies; priority of protecting the most vulnerable in § The existing A5 could be upgraded at lesser society; cost and kinder on the local environment;
77 (iii) There will be significant cuts in the capital not consider the impact of the A5 on public programme related to walking, cycling, transport patronage; traffic calming, collision remedial, traffic § The ES states that 32km of the existing A5 do management, local safety improvements, not comply with current design standards. The bridge strengthening and other non-roads ES is stating, therefore, that to bring 32km of programmes. carriageway up to current standards, 85km of § The ES fails to identify the impact that new road must be constructed; constructing the A5 will have on future § When the new A5 is completed cars will still be possibilities for improving rail links; allowed to use the old A5. The sensible option § There will be greater risk of flood damage due is to upgrade the existing A5, due to the safety to less frequent gully emptying. The ES does risks associated with the existing road; not consider the potential impact of this; § The ES has not identified whether the most § Question marks over Irish Government serious accidents on the existing road funding, with the DRD having to make up the occurred on the substandard section. The shortfall, would have an even greater negative evidence presented does not show that the impact on society; A5WTC is justified on safety grounds; § The ES does not show how constructing the § If the A5WTC is not constructed traffic new A5 contributes to or impacts negatively on forecasts indicated an increase of 7 minutes in sustainability; end to end trip time. This is not going to make § The Proposed Scheme conflicts with the the economy collapse; Shaping Our Future Regional Development § Rather than using any predicted traffic growth Strategy (RDS), 2001, part of which is as a justification for the A5WTC the DRD supposed to set the scene for transport. should be taking measures to reduce traffic The ES is misleading in the context of this growth; document and should be revised; § The only alternatives considered for the § The ES fails to include the impact of the A5WTC were route options and upgrading the Proposed A5 on greenhouse gas emissions; existing A5. In reality options choice was very § The latest (draft) version of Shaping Our Future limited; (January 2011) will not provide a policy context § Various rail options should have been for the A5 Scheme. The draft strategy for considered as well as other travel options; consultation renders the ES invalid; failure to do so renders the ES incomplete and § The Regional Transportation Strategy (RTS) invalid; proposes a modern, sustainable, safe § The amount of land required for the Scheme is transportation system, which benefits society, a huge waste of a valuable and finite resource; the economy, and the environment and § Provision of rail transport, even between Derry promotes social inclusion and quality of life. and Strabane, could remove a lot of traffic Constructing the A5 will conflict with these from the existing road. What steps is the DRD aspirations; taking to reduce traffic on the A5 route? § The ES fails to highlight that the Scheme does § No figures are given in the ES for end to end not fit the vision of the RTS; traffic; § Planning Policy Statement 13 (PPS13) quotes § The ES does not use traffic estimates to the vision of Shaping Our Future and refers calculate the amount of greenhouse gases to a policy of moving away from a transport emitted; system dominated by car use. The Proposed Scheme represents a huge step backward § The ES does not give any figures on how traffic in that regard. The document also supports will divide itself between the two parallel roads; promoting modal shift to more sustainable § The ES is too vague in relation to the disposal forms of transport. The ES must thus be of a huge quantity of waste material and must considered incomplete and invalid as it does be revised to clarify this;
78 § The scoping exercise for the ES has failed § There is a serious deficiency unless a Strategic in that it has not identified and qualified a Environmental Assessment (SEA) is carried significant number of impacts; out and this Inquiry cannot produce a properly § The ES does not explain how the assignment considered recommendation unless such a of low, medium or high values for cultural test of sustainability has been applied; heritage aspects were decided; § The ES has not included the negative impact § The assessment of impacts on the landscape the proposal is going to have on Departmental in the ES is quite subjective. Upgrading the finances over several years and the large existing A5 would have less landscape impact; negative impact on society; § It is misleading to say that planting new § Fuel prices continue to rise alarmingly and if woodland balances out the destruction of transport in the Western Corridor is road based mature sites. The ES has failed to make clear this could quickly become a hindrance; the difficulties of replacing existing habitats; § Assertions are frequently made that a new § The A5 will be a disaster for the ecology of the road will support the local economy, but the area and thus should be abandoned; Campaign to Protect Rural England (2003) report pointed out that roads can facilitate § Failure to consider the cumulative effects of the movement of resources out of an area; all large road projects proposed for the area the CPRE suggests that traffic growth and renders the ES incomplete; economic growth should be decoupled; § Completion of the Proposed Scheme will have § The proposed A5WTC is a continuation of a a detrimental impact on the DRD’s ability to road building programme which in the UK is carry out other vital responsibilities in relation known to generate more traffic and ultimately road maintenance, water and sewage; does not solve the problems it sets out to § The project is unlikely to sit well with European tackle; Union (EU) transport and environmental § It is valid to expect the ES to consider how the policies; Scheme will impact on attempts to change the § A viable alternative exists, namely to upgrade travel culture and reduce dependence on car the existing A5, supplementing this with travel; investment on the Derry / Belfast Railway line § The objector referred to a paper by Professor and a new line via Strabane and Omagh. P Goodwin called the Strategic Network Needs Mr McCarron also made a verbal presentation Strategic Policy Appraisal, which proposes a to the Inquiry the main points of which were as new approach to transport planning, focusing follows: on cities and local transport on the strategic network; § The A5WTC is a poor use of public money and does not sit comfortably within the quoted § It is interesting to note that the Department felt policies; constrained by political direction to the design of a dual carriageway only; § The revised RDS and RTS will give an ever stronger commitment to sustainability; § The economic study carried out by Ecotech does not support the proposal for the A5 § This Inquiry is thus premature as it must be very well as it does not say how or where tested against the policy content of the new jobs will be created, nor did it point out that documents; currently the road is the only mode of transport § The ES does not consider how the proposed available. A5WTC impacts on sustainability; The objector also reiterated several of the points § The A5WTC is unsustainable because it does contained in his written statement of objection, nothing to reduce the amount of greenhouse and which have been referred to earlier. gas emissions associated with transport; The objector further submitted a paper to the Inquiry which referred to, inter alia:
79 § Roads Service Corporate Plan, 2010 - 11; § The final 2011 - 2015 budget was approved by § The Sustainable Development Strategy the Executive on the 4th of March 2011. Issues document, published by the Office of the First associated with the allocation of resources and Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM); are not considered to be a matter for the project ES; § The A5 Western Transport Corridor; Macro Economic Study; § The Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government reaffirmed their commitment § Scope of the ES; to the project in early 2011. However, if the § Need for further development; Irish Government withdrew the funding the § Rebalancing Infrastructure Argument; Northern Ireland Executive would have to re-consider its position in relation to project § Time Savings; affordability; § Compensation; § The purpose of the ES is clearly defined in EU § Potentially Persuasive Arguments. Directive 85/337/EEC,1 and sustainability does The objector submitted a number of appendices not fall within the scope of the process; to the Inquiry as follows: § It is not accepted that the A5WTC project conflicts with the Shaping Our Future § Appendix 1 – extract from transcript document, in that it recognises the need to proceedings of Day 89 of the Thames Gateway improve accessibility through improving Bridge Inquiry; road links; § Appendix 2 – letter to Roads Service; § Regional gas emissions are reported in § Appendix 3 – report of the EU Commission on Chapter 8 of the ES; the Application and Effectiveness of the EIA § The ES makes reference to Shaping Our Future Directive; as part of the explanation of the need for the § Extract from Inspector’s Report on the Thames Scheme. We do not agree that the document is Gateway Bridge Inquiry; misleading in relation to reference to Shaping § Roads to Regeneration by CPRE; Our Future; § The Strategic Appraisal, by Professor Phil § The RTS recognises the link between the Goodwin. economy and infrastructure and highlights The objector submitted a copy of Everyone’s the need to upgrade Key Transport Corridors Involved – Sustainable Development Strategy. (KTCs) such as the A5. The Investment Delivery Plan for Roads states the vision of upgrading KTCs to dual carriageway status; Departmental Response § The ES solely makes reference to the RTS § Improvements to public transport are outside as part of the explanation of the need for the scope of the A5WTC Scheme. This is the Scheme. It is not agreed that the ES is reflected in the Northern Ireland Executive misleading in relation to reference to the RTS; budget which identifies separate funding packages for roads and public transport; § Whilst the Department accepts that there needs to be a move towards a new balance of § On-line widening can be more difficult and modes of transport, this does not negate the expensive than off-line construction. The acceptance that roads are part of the balance. alignment of the existing A5 is substandard; The Department considers that considerations § Due to changes in design standards referred to in PPS13 do not fall within the the landtake required for an on-line 2+1 scope of a project specific EIA; carriageway could be more than for an off-line § The lengths of substandard dual carriageway dual carriageway; (32km) relate to existing speed limits. These would increase significantly if an analysis was done against the speed limit for a dual carriageway;
80 § Between 60-90% of traffic on the existing A5 Order; the location of the waste deposition will divert to the new road and this will reduce areas has been indicated in the ES; safety risks on the existing road; § It is not the purpose of a scoping exercise for § The proposed A5WTC is expected to have a an EIA project to detail impacts, but to identify much lower accident rate than the existing A5; areas of relevant investigation. The parameters § The opening of the A5WTC is likely to reduce to be considered are outlined in the EIA journey times for travellers by up to 26 minutes Directive and have been closely followed for (in 2030); the Scheme; § The RDS and RTS both recognise the link § The methodology used for Cultural Heritage between improving infrastructure and assessment is detailed in the Design Manual the economy; for Roads & Bridges (DMRB). The ratings are the result of detailed consideration by § The description of the alternatives in the ES a team of archaeological and built heritage is in accordance of the EIA Directive. The professionals; obligation is to describe alternatives which have been considered in the context of the § The classification and assessment of A5WTC project; landscape character is not a subjective process. It involves detailed analysis of § Improvements to public transport are outside component parts of the landscape. Integration the scope of the A5WTC Scheme; of the Scheme into the proposed road corridor § Upgrading the existing road corridor and/ has been an important part of the planning, or improving rail links would require landtake design and assessment process; similar to that required for the Scheme; § The ES makes it clear that the replacement § The current traffic flow on the existing A5 of ancient woodland would not be possible between Derry and Strabane is in the order in a reasonable timescale, but this does of 13,400 vehicles per day (VPD), whereas not indicate that proposed mitigation is in 2015 it is expected to be 19,500 VPD inadequate, rather that the loss cannot be and 22,500 VPD in 2030. Roads Service is effectively mitigated; not taking any steps to reduce traffic on the § In relation to impacts on ecology, mitigation existing A5 route; measures have been proposed in accordance § The total volume of traffic travelling between with methods agreed with statutory consultees Moy Bridge and New Buildings is anticipated to comply with statutory obligations; to be around 500 VPD in 2030, with around § It is outside the scope of the A5 project to 2,200 VPD travelling between Moy Bridge and consider environmental impacts associated the border into Donegal; with other projects; § The ES used predicted traffic flows to calculate § The progress of the A5 Scheme will have no greenhouse gas emissions in Chapter 8; impact on funding to be made available by § It is expected that the new road will reduce DRD for maintenance of the network; traffic flows on the existing A5 by 60-90% § It is not agreed that the Scheme conflicts with between urban centres and 25-50% within the EU transport and environmental policies; main urban areas; § On-line widening can be more difficult and § Transfer of traffic from the existing A5 to the expensive than off-line construction. Due to proposed road will be influenced by the origin changes in design standards landtake and and destination of individual trips; the traffic associated costs for a 2+1 carriageway could model indicates that there will be significant be more than for and off-line dual carriageway; transfer to the dual carriageway; § Improvements to public transport are outside § Waste deposition areas have been identified the scope of the A5WTC Scheme and and included as part of the Draft Vesting Roads Service.
81 Comment § We consider that proposals to replace the Scheme with public transport options, The objector made a very comprehensive and including the construction of a new railway detailed submission to the Inquiry and we line between Londonderry / Derry and respond to the issues raised as follows: Strabane / Omagh, to be outside the remit of § The proposal should be replaced with a this Inquiry; combination of options – we agree with the § We do not accept that the timing of this Department that public transport options are Inquiry was premature as it was held in outside the scope of the Scheme and hence accordance with all statutory procedures and outside the scope of the Inquiry; legislation; § We accept the Department’s position that on- § We consider that the Scheme is not a waste line widening could be more expensive than of public money, nor that it conflicts with off-line construction and that the landtake for current RDS and RTS proposals; the former could be greater than for the latter; § We are not persuaded by the evidence § We accept that the Department has correctly presented to us that a Strategic interpreted the purpose of the ES as defined Environmental Assessment for the Scheme is in EU Directive 85/337/WWC,1; required under the terms of current UK or EU § We do not agree that the Scheme conflicts legislation; with the RDS or the RTS; § Finally the objector raised a number of § We are of the opinion that Chapter 8 of the issues which are also dealt with in detail in ES does not show clearly that greenhouse Chapter 6. gas emissions were based on predicted traffic flows. Chapter 8 of the ES does clearly Objection by Green Action, Mr John show predicted emission rates and we Wright have no reason to believe that tests used to produce these figures were not carried out in Inquiry Reference: OA-973 accordance with standard procedures. This matter is dealt with further in Chapter 11 of Summary of Objection this report in the form of a recommendation; § The scale of this investment will prejudice § We accept the Department’s assertion that investment in non car-based transport options the location of waste deposition areas has and it is at odds with the policy imperative of been identified; re-balancing transport investment with higher levels of support for public transport and the § We accept that the Department has followed need to reduce dependence on the car; appropriate procedures for the assessment § of cultural heritage sites and that full and The low traffic flows and absence of a real proper consideration has been given to the need for this road; integration of the Scheme into the proposed § Northern Ireland faces a significant challenge road corridor; and surface traffic being responsible for a higher proportion of emissions than other parts § While it is most regrettable that significant of the UK. This road will further contribute to areas of ancient woodland would be lost this adverse trend; to the Scheme, we note and accept the Department’s proposals to replace this with § The development will adversely affect new planting; protected flood plains with significant damage to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and the § We accept the Department’s proposed Special Area of Conservation. No attention mitigation measures for the ecology of given to mitigation and raises the likelihood of the area; complaints to Europe on breaches of European Union directives;
82 § The proposal will adversely affect the rural § Mitigation measures are included in the economy by damage to and loss of farmland Scheme, including connector structures to and fragmentation of communities; maintain equilibrium across the flood plain; § The overall impact of this road will be § The assessment concludes that there would withdrawal of wealth and investment from the be no significant impacts on designated sites; North West towards larger conurbations; § Mitigation during construction is detailed § It will create bottlenecks close to Londonderry; in Chapter 18 of the Environmental § Alternatives such as strengthening bus Statement (ES); services, improving the existing A5 and § In relation to Natura 2000 sites, surveys strengthening of rural industry, have not been and assessments will enable the competent properly explored; authority to discharge its duties in respect of § Any sustainable transport plan must attempt the Birds Directive and Habitats Directive; to address current government priorities § It is accepted that the Scheme will have of reducing carbon emissions, economic impacts on farm holdings and on local development, equality of opportunity, safety communities; and quality of life; § Mitigation measures, including maintenance § There are overwhelming reasons for refusing to of access, will minimise the impacts; grant consent to this Scheme. § Assessments have shown that there would be In addition to his written objections, Mr Wright no direct adverse impact on tourism related made a lengthy presentation at the Inquiry on the sites, although there will be a large adverse 20th of May 2011. This presentation was largely impact on the setting of Harry Avery’s Castle; about Mr Wright’s views and activities in relation to § The proposed dual carriageway will benefit climate change and the need for reduction in car tourism and provide greater accessibility use. There was little in addition to the previously to and between tourist areas in Tyrone, submitted written objections to the proposed Fermanagh and Donegal; Scheme but Mr Wright said that he would make a § full submission to the Inquiry before it closed. The transfer of traffic away from sections of the existing A5 would enhance the recreational appeal; Departmental Response § It is widely recognised that improvement § The Northern Ireland Assembly agreed a of infrastructure contributes to economic budget which provides for the A5WTC, thus regeneration and this is reflected in the reflecting the priority given to it; Programme for Government; § The draft Regional Development Strategy also § It is not expected that the A5WTC will cause recognises the need for connectivity to the any increase in congestion at the new North West and the need to improve identified roundabout near New Buildings. There will key transport corridors such as the A5WTC, only be very short delays and queues at to open up opportunities for economic this roundabout; development; § It is not the purpose of the ES for the A5WTC § Regarding climate change, it is recognised to explore the type of strategic alternatives that at national level some plans will add to referred to by Mr Wright. gas emissions whilst others will reduce. The objective must be to ensure that the overall balance is a reduction but this does not preclude progress on essential developments which increase emissions; § Hydraulic models have identified the extent of the flood plain. This has been validated by the Rivers Agency;
83 Comment § Desk based studies focused on collecting and reviewing data and records obtained from a § Mr Wright’s objections mainly related to wide range of sources; general opposition to anything that results § The walkover and field surveys ranged from in increasing emissions and disturbance to detailed inspections and recording of habitats farmland; on foot to detailed species related surveys § Mr Wright’s objections were adequately using specialist equipment such as answered by the Department. Anabat detectors; § Since the Inquiry, Mr Wright has submitted § The importance of otters and Atlantic salmon a further paper and a specially prepared is recognised. Both have been the subject of DVD. Whilst these are of interest, they do detailed assessment which has been used to not add significantly to Mr Wright’s original inform mitigation measures; submission; § The sites and the relationship between § See also Chapter 6. swans and geese have been the subject of investigation and evaluation as part of the Objection by An Taisce - National Environmental Impact Assessment; Trust of Ireland, Mr Ian Lumley § Badgers and red squirrels have also been the subject of similar investigation and evaluation. Inquiry Reference: OA-974 Where potential impacts have been identified, See OA-038. appropriate mitigation measures will be applied; Objection by Mrs Carol Porter § The Department is answerable to all relevant legislation in Northern Ireland and confirms Inquiry Reference: OA-975 that obligations arising have informed the conduct of the assessments, evaluation of Summary of Objection impacts and mitigation measures to ensure § What qualifications did researchers have? that all statutory obligations are complied with; § Explain desk top studies and “walkovers”; § Mitigation measures will go some way to § Otters and Atlantic salmon in particular will be alleviate concerns about habitats and flora and at risk; fauna; § No right to upset balance of nature for a faster § Upgrading the existing A5 would be more road; expensive, cause more disturbance and have more safety risks than the proposed A5WTC. § The River Foyle, Lough Swilly and Inch Lough are wintering grounds for whooper swans and greylag geese; Comment § Badgers and red squirrels will be significantly § We consider that the Departmental responses affected; have adequately addressed Mrs Porter’s objections; § There are laws in place to protect designated sites and it is vital that these are adhered to; § It is accepted that there will be impacts § An upgrade would not cause such a major on species, flora and fauna but these will upheaval to habitats, flora and fauna. be lessened by the proposed mitigation measures; Departmental Response § See also Chapter 6. § The assessments were undertaken by a team of qualified ecologists, including specialists in aquatic and terrestrial ecology and the full range of species reported in the Environmental Statement;
84 Objection by Ms June Simpson The project will act as a catalyst for economic growth, supporting the economy by planning, Inquiry Reference: OA-976 development and maintaining safe and sustainable transportation networks; Summary of Objection § A cost benefit analysis, included in the The likelihood of irreparable damage to the Preferred Options Report, demonstrates environment during the construction. that the project provides a good return on Departmental Response investment; § It is acknowledged that the Scheme would § On-line widening can be more expensive impact on the environment and countryside due to the need to accommodate existing but the Environment Statement (ES) describes accesses and the effect on adjacent property; the design and mitigation measures which § The objectives of the Scheme are to improve will be applied in the light of potential impacts the length and reliability of journey times, as indentified; well as improving road safety. The A5WTC § The ES demonstrates that whilst there are best meets these objectives; some locations where impacts would be of a § The traffic level for a dual carriageway is high order, the large majority of impacts would already exceeded over most of the existing A5; be effectively mitigated. § An Environmental Statement was published as part of the statutory process; Comment § There has been considerable consultation We consider that the Departmental response has from the start of the Scheme, including well adequately addressed Ms Simpson’s objection. attended public events. Public consultations events in 2008, 2009 and 2010 attracted over Objection by Miss Charlotte Hassard 6,600 attendees; § There have been liaisons with landowners Inquiry Reference: OA-977 directly affected; Summary of Objection § The A5WTC Information Line and the website § This dual carriageway is unnecessary and a have been extensively used; waste of taxpayer’s money; § Land & Property Services Guides on § The existing road could be upgraded at a Compensation, Accommodation Works leaflet fraction of the cost; and Ground Investigation leaflets have been made available; § All options to address the traffic issues were not explored; Comment § Traffic levels do not justify expenditure of this magnitude; § We consider that Miss Hassard’s concerns have been adequately answered by the § A proper Environmental Assessment has not Departmental response; been carried out; § The A5WTC is a key element in the § No meaningful consultation has taken place Northern Ireland Executive’s Programme for with those affected. Government, where a dual carriageway is specified; Departmental Response § The A5WTC is included in the Northern Ireland § We believe that the Department, Roads Executive’s Programme for Government Service and the consultants have considered and in its budget, thus reflecting the priority all options open to them within the brief from accorded to this project by the Executive. the Programme of Government; § See also Chapter 6.
85 Objection by Mr S Hassard § The planned road will destroy the visual amenity along the route; Inquiry Reference: OA-978 § How can he be compensated? Summary of Objection § Where will the funding come from to maintain The objection is identical to OA-977. both the A5 and the A5WTC? § Numerous businesses along the current A5 Objection by Mrs Sara E Hassard will be destroyed or their viability severely compromised. This will result in job losses and Inquiry Reference: OA-979 have a negative impact on the social fabric of the localities along the route. Summary of Objection Mr Hassard made a verbal presentation at The objection is identical to OA-977. the Inquiry on the 16th of June 2011 when he elaborated on his written objections and made the Objection by Mr Hamilton Hassard following additional points: Inquiry Reference: OA-980 § Mr Hassard drives 30,000 miles each year and is not objecting only because of the impact on Summary of Objection his land; § This road is a total waste of taxpayers’ money. § He agrees that there is a problem with the What is the source of funding and what loan / existing A5 but that the remedy does not have interest charges will apply? to be Scheme proposed; § It is immoral to spend £1 billion on this § This road is designed to link two parts of the unnecessary road, whilst we are asked to Irish Republic, Donegal and Monaghan. accept savage cuts in healthcare, social services and education; Departmental Response § Current and projected traffic levels do not § The A5WTC is funded by the Northern justify this dual carriageway; Ireland Executive, with a contribution from § An upgrade to existing A5 would meet any the Irish Government. There will be no loans, transportation requirements at a fraction of the repayments or interest charges; cost of the proposed project; § The Northern Ireland Executive’s agreed § A full examination of all viable alternatives has budget includes provision for the A5WTC, not taken place; reflecting the high priority accorded to it; § § No meaningful consultation had taken place The traffic threshold level for a dual with landowners or others affected by this carriageway is exceeded over most of the project; existing A5 route. Traffic on the Ballygawley – Aughnacloy link will be below the threshold § The proposed route is close to many dwellings in the opening year but from a safety and with resultant increase in noise and vehicle engineering perspective, it is better to have emission pollution; consistency along the entire A5WTC route; § Those living close to the route will suffer § On-line widening is likely to be more mental and physical health problems. What difficult and expensive due to the need to steps have been taken to quantify and mitigate accommodate existing accesses and minimise these effects? the effect on adjacent property. Other factors § The damage to the environment is going to include the sub-standard alignment of the be significant during construction and on existing A5, alterations to utilities, traffic completion; disruption, increased safety risks; § A comprehensive environmental investigation § The land taken for an on-line 2+1 carriageway has not taken place; is likely to exceed that for an off-line dual carriageway due to the need to provide
86 additional parallel roads to accommodate the § The Air Quality Assessment has shown that many accesses; many receptors should be subject to slight § The agreement between the Northern Ireland reductions in traffic related pollutants, whilst a few will have slight increases. It concludes that Executive and the Irish Government is for the the impacts would not be significant; provision of a high standard dual carriageway. All viable alternatives which would meet this § The assessment also demonstrated that objective, have been considered; with the adoption of appropriate mitigation measures, dust nuisance would be minimal. § Public consultation has been extensive from Further information can be found in the ES; the start. Events were held in April 2008 to exhibit the Study Area, in February 2009 to § It is recognised that the construction of a new exhibit Route Options, in July 2009 to exhibit road can cause anxiety and distress but for the Preferred Route and in November 2010 to the Scheme measures have been and will be exhibit the entire Proposed Scheme. These taken which will alleviate some impacts by events were attended by over 6,600 people. providing regular, assessable and transparent The A5WTC website and the telephone communication of Scheme information; information line have been widely used by the § Rural Support provides help and support to public. Brochures outlining the Scheme were farming and rural families. The Helpline is produced for each public event and made 08456067607. available to attendees and non-attendees; § Potential environmental impacts have been § The information obtained at the consultation assessed and are reported in the ES. The ES events was recorded and carefully considered which describes the design and mitigation at all stages, against the key criteria of safety, measures which were and will be undertaken economics, environment, integration and in the light of impacts identified; accessibility; § The ES was published as part of the § The consultation events were followed up by statutory process; liaison with landowners affected, to provide § It is accepted that the A5WTC extending understanding of the impacts, and to find ways through 85km will have an impact on existing of mitigation. Letters were sent to landowners landscape character and on scenic views. The confirming the key parts discussed; assessment, as reflected in the ES, concludes § In addition to the A5WTC Information Line and that 68.5% of the route will be sufficiently well the A5WTC website, Compensation Guides, integrated so that the impacts would be slight, Accommodation Works leaflet and other compared to 7% which will be subject to large leaflets were prepared and distributed; adverse impact; § It is acknowledged that the Scheme will § Compensation is a matter for Land & Property involve impacts on the environment and on Services, (where guidance documents can be the countryside. However, it is promoted in obtained by telephoning 02891 858 111), and the context of broader policies which address is outside the remit of the Inquiry; future planning for the economy, development and infrastructure; § The progress of the A5WTC will have no impact on the level of funding made available § The Environmental Statement (ES) considers by Department for Regional Development for the effect of noise and vibrations on residential maintenance of the roads network; properties. It is accepted that some areas will experience greater noise levels but in most § Whilst there are many benefits associated cases, the increase will be small and in some with the A5WTC, including opening up new cases the noise level is expected to fall; opportunities, it is recognised that some businesses and property owners will be § Subject to certain criteria under the Noise adversely affected. On balance, the overall Insulation Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995, benefits exceed the individual dis-benefits and affected residents experiencing a level above that, in the wider public interest, the project 68 decibels may apply for the installation of should proceed. insulation at their property;
87 Comment The main additional points raised were: § We note Mr Hassard’s concerns. However, we § The Inquiry should be postponed as he had are impressed by the measures being taken asked the European Union to conduct an by the Department to reduce the adverse inquiry; impacts; § The flood plain map was inaccurate; § The Department has also demonstrated that § The flood mitigation measures were an on-line dual carriageway would cause unworkable – the drainage proposals would much more disruption to land and property exacerbate existing drainage problems; owners and carry greater safety risks in § The whooper swan survey map was construction; inaccurate; § The Northern Ireland Executive, in its § The Web-based Transport Analysis Guide had Programme for Government, clearly specified been ignored; a dual carriageway solution. We consider that § The road would be vulnerable to high winds the Department and its consultants have an and subject to high noise levels; obligation to work within the parameters of the design brief; § No account had been taken of the loss of Gross Domestic Product appropriate to a § See also Chapter 6. reduction in farming activities due to the Scheme; Objection by Mr Victor Christie § The Scheme impinges on the Foyle Area of Inquiry Reference: OA-981 Special Scientific Interest – route diversion could overcome the problem; Summary of Objection § Ending the Scheme at New Buildings would § The Department’s calculation of the number of not ease city traffic. accesses onto the existing A5 is misleading as Mr Christie asked for (a) costings of the east and only 5% are actual roads; west links from New Buildings and (b) the date for § Terminating the Scheme at New Buildings completion of the link. would cause bottlenecks which would only be resolved in 12 years with a new bridge across Departmental Response the Foyle between New Buildings and Killea; § There are 534 agricultural and 267 residential § There is no points system used in assessment accesses to the existing A5 in addition to 108 of economic, environmental, accessibility and public roads; integration issues; § The rationale of the Scheme was presented in § There is no safety audit; two published reports – Preliminary Options § There are serious environmental issues as Report and Preferred Options Report. The the Scheme would traverse Special Areas of culmination of the design process has been Conservation along the route. the promotion of the Scheme representing the optimum combination of all the criteria Mr Christie appeared on a number of occasions considered; at the Inquiry. In cross-examination of the Department’s witnesses he covered a number § Stage 1 safety audit has been completed. of issues which formed part of his subsequent Further safety audits would be undertaken at presentation. As part of his submission Mr Christie the relevant time; screened a video recording. § 23 hydraulic models have been developed across the Scheme. The hydraulic and Also, he referred to a letter stated to be on behalf drainage assessments have been carried out in of Friends of the Earth, addressed to the Minister. accordance with the guidelines recommended in the Design Manual for Roads & Bridges.
88 Comment § Has the Department followed its own procedures including the Web-based Transport § In considering Mr Christie’s objections we Analysis Guidance (WebTAG) and the Green have taken account of his documentation, Book guidelines? his presentation and other matters raised § The benefits from a future proposed Scheme in questioning Departmental witnesses may have been used to increase / influence the throughout the Inquiry; perceived “benefits of cost”; § We have commented specifically on a § No economic appraisals were carried out number of the issues in Chapter 6. Otherwise, for alternative solutions. How can the cost / we are satisfied with the Department’s benefit for the Proposed Scheme be compared response to Mr Christie’s objections. to a lesser scheme; § How can the lifetime maintenance for this Objection by Alternative A5 Alliance 85km of dual carriageway be justified, given Inquiry Reference: OA-982 levels of projected traffic use? The objectors were represented by Martin Hoy of Mr O’Sullivan, took the opportunity to further Hoy and Dorman, Consulting Engineers, and Brian cross-examine representatives of the Department. O’Sullivan BL, instructed by John McGale and § Would the likelihood of traffic accidents on Kelly, Solicitors. the existing A5 be increased / decreased as a result of the new road? Summary of Objection § What schemes will benefit from the £400m § There are significant gaps in the Department’s contribution from the Irish Government? case; § Was the dualling option the only consideration § No comparison of the Scheme has been made for the A5 Scheme? with a lesser road scheme or a combination of § Could a 2+1 option have resolved issues road and other sustainable transport schemes; related to congestion on the A5 and could § The Department has focused only on an off- such a solution not then have been a line dualling scheme; satisfactory alternative? § The Scheme cannot proceed in its current § Why was the figure quoted of £149.2M Wider form without the £400M contribution from the Economic Benefits (WEB) not included in the Republic of Ireland; Department’s presentation of evidence? § The Scheme will have a significant § Could the issue of peak hour congestion not environmental impact for a perceived benefit be addressed by a bypass solution? for low traffic volumes; § Why was a 2+1 alternative not fully tested? § The Scheme cannot be justified as strategic § A 2+1 solution would meet the key objectives as it links one small village (Aughnacloy) with of the Proposed A5 Scheme – improving another (New Buildings); road safety, improving the road network in § The proposed road upgrades in the Republic the west of the Province and north south of Ireland will no longer proceed; where then roads, reducing journey times and providing is the strategic context for the Proposed increased overtaking opportunities – so why Scheme? was it not considered? § Separation of strategic from local traffic would Mr Hoy also made a verbal presentation to the be minimal, with limited strategic benefits; Inquiry, the main points of which were as follows: § The Proposed Scheme was developed in § The Proposed Scheme is disproportionate in very different financial times; the need for the terms of strategic traffic volumes that could Scheme should thus be reviewed; benefit from the proposals when compared to the impact it will have on farming business, land loss and the environment;
89 § The corridor in the vicinity of Omagh and § The process should be revisited and Strabane would benefit equally from the considered in light of new Northern Ireland provision of bypasses constructed to a dual Guide to Expenditure Appraisal and Evaluation carriageway standard; guidelines. Until that happens the order sought § The provision of 2+1 overtaking opportunities by Roads Service should be stayed. may deliver similar benefits to the proposed At the end of his closing statement we asked Mr dual carriageway; O’Sullivan to provide a copy of the Alternative A5 Alliance constitution, including its A5 stated aims § The proposed dual carriageway in the vicinity and objectives. Mr O’Sullivan agreed to do so and of Aughnacloy should be excluded from the this document was later presented to the Inquiry proposed Scheme as no need has been by Mr John Dunbar, Chairman of the Alternative established in terms of the Design Manual For A5 Alliance. Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Standards; § There is no evidence that an off-line Wide Single 2 (WS2) carriageway was compared Departmental Response or benchmarked against the proposed dual § The Northern Ireland Executive has confirmed carriageway; its acceptance in principle to take forward this Scheme, which will assist in meeting the § A wide range of options should be considered stated objective of reducing journey times on and benchmarked prior to statutory orders the Key Transport Corridors (KTC’s); being made in line with requirements set out in WebTAG and the Northern Ireland Guide § On-line widening can be more difficult and to Expenditure Appraisal and Evaluation expensive than off-line construction due to (NIGEAE). changes in design standards and associated costs. Specific on-line improvements have In a closing statement Mr O’Sullivan made the been considered at different stages of the following points: design development; § A major concern of the Alternative A5 Alliance § Improvements to public transport are outside was that alternative options had not been the scope of the A5WTC Scheme; benchmarked; § A large number of options were looked at § The Alliance did not oppose upgrading of the and are reported in the Scheme Assessment A5; Reports (SAR’s 2, 3); § Was it appropriate for the Department and its § The Investment Delivery Plan for Roads (2008) consultants to strictly consider only the brief states the objective of upgrading the KTC’s given and hence to discount an on-line 2+1 to dual carriageway standard. If the Irish solution? Government withdrew funding the Northern § The failure to benchmark the most obvious Ireland Executive would reconsider its position alternative solution takes Roads Service / in relation to the affordability of the Scheme; Mouchel outside of their own guidelines; § It is acknowledged that the Proposed Scheme § The Proposed Scheme will not provide would have environmental impacts which connectivity to the A2, A6, City of Derry, links have been assessed in the Environmental to Derry Airport or Londonderry Port; Statement (ES). However the Scheme needs § What will happen to the project if funding from to be seen in the context of broader national the Irish Government is withdrawn? strategies which address future planning for the economy; § It was very unlikely that planned road upgrades in the Republic would go ahead; § The A5 is a KTC as outlined in the Regional Transportation Strategy (RTS) 2002-2012, § It would be a spectacular mis-spend of linking Londonderry to Co Monaghan; scarce public funds if the dual carriageway goes ahead;
90 § The Scheme recognises the proposed road § As a result of new design standards a upgrades in the Irish Republic but timing / 2+1 option could be more expensive and programming for these schemes is outside the would provide fewer benefits than a dual control of Roads Service; carriageway; § The Proposed Scheme will benefit strategic as § WebTAG was used as the design guide insofar well as local traffic, which is predicted to use as it applied to the project; the new road in preference to the current A5 § In relation to the figure of £149.2M WEB the route; Department took the view that it should not § The draft Regional Development Strategy be included in the Benefit / Cost Ratio (BCR) (RDS) and Regional Transportation Strategy calculation; (RTS) both recognise the need to upgrade § In relation to a bypass solution peak hour KTC’s; flows are not the only determining factor when § The Scheme has been developed in line with considering alternative options; government guidance and follows procedures § A 2+1 solution was not fully costed because set out in the Design Manual for Roads and it has been identified that the land required Bridges (DMRB), and Roads Service Policy would be the same or greater that for an and Procedures Guide (RSPPG), with some off-line dual carriageway; minor variations; § A 2+1 solution would not meet the key § The economic benefits for the Proposed objectives of the A5 Scheme to the same Scheme do not take into account any future extent as a dual carriageway. proposed schemes; The Department also put a series of questions to § Economic Appraisals for the Proposed the representatives of the Alternative A5 Alliance. Scheme have included various alignments and A summary of the main points is as follows: designs based on a dual carriageway. This did not include lesser schemes which would lie § Did the objectors have any issues with the outside the original remit; Environmental Statement? Mr Hoy confirmed on behalf of the A5 Alliance that he had no § The additional length of 85km is considered issue with the ES; insignificant in comparison with the total length of the road network and the progress § Which of the alternative options would the of the Scheme will not impact on the level of objectors prefer? Mr Hoy indicated that maintenance funding available. his preference would be for a series of 2+1 sections, combined with overtaking Representatives of the Alternative A5 Alliance also opportunities provided by dual bypasses; put a series of questions to representatives of the Department. A summary of the responses is as § Where should the proposed 2+1 facilities follows: be provided? Mr Hoy stated it was the Department’s role to make such § Although speeds would increase on the considerations; existing A5 as a result of the new road they would not do so to a point where it would be § Did the objectors take issue with the cross- dangerous; section, as shown by the Department, of a modern standard (DMRB) approved 2+1? Mr § The schemes which will benefit from the Hoy confirmed that he did not but also stated £400M contribution from the Irish Government that he had not referred to an off-line 2+1 will be the A5 and the A8 but for administrative carriageway anywhere in his evidence; purposes the finance will be paid against A5 project milestones; § Is it not correct that, in line with modern standards, when creating lengths of 2+1 § A dual carriageway was the only option carriageway there must be an indication at the considered for the Scheme; end of the overtaking stretch that there would § A 2+1 solution could have relieved congestion be another one within 3km? Mr Hoy did not on the A5, but only to some degree; accept this interpretation; § Did the objector accept that the width of an 91 on-line 2+1 would be wider than an off-line § The Scheme proposals have not been dual carriageway? Mr Hoy accepted that this benchmarked against alternative options; applied in a worst case scenario, but this could differ significantly depending on chosen § The environmental impact of the Scheme locations; would be significant; § Mr Hoy was asked to clarify the differences § The Scheme cannot be justified as strategic between a wide single and a wide single 2+1; when proposed upgrades in the Irish Republic would not now take place; § Could access be allowed on to a 2+1 carriageway under the new design standards? § The Department may not have followed Mr Hoy responded that they could at its own procedures and guidelines when termination points; developing the Scheme; § Would journey time savings on a dual § The key objectives of the Scheme could be carriageway be better than on a single met with lower cost options; carriageway with a mix of bypasses? Mr Hoy § Consideration of alternative solutions should agreed that it would, but that the option of not have been constrained by the brief alternatives should have been considered; given to the Department and the design § Did the objector accept that a WS2 has not consultants. been provided anywhere in Northern Ireland We note the grave concerns expressed by to date? Mr Hoy agreed, but stated that traffic this objector. However, having considered levels were not of such low magnitudes on any and examined in detail all the documentation other transport connection in the province. associated with the Scheme and the evidence Prior to their formal letter of objection the provided by both the objector and the Alternative A5 Alliance submitted a letter (dated Department we consider that: 22 December 2010) containing a number of supplementary questions. § The Department appropriately followed the guidelines and procedures laid down for The Department responded to these questions the development and design of major road on the 21 January 2011. The questions and schemes; Departmental responses formed the substance of § It was appropriate for the Department, and its Mr O’Sullivan’s cross-examination of Departmental design consultants, to work within the terms representatives and these have been summarised of the brief provided to them by the Northern above. Ireland Executive and through powers A document entitled “Proposed A5 Major Roads devolved to it, the North South Ministerial Scheme – Statement of Case” was also presented Council; to the Inquiry by Mr Hoy. The Department made § We accept that the limited study to compare frequent reference to this document during the the costs of the Scheme with, for example course of its cross-examination of the A5 Alliance the potential costs of an on-line 2+1 representatives. This has been summarised above. dual carriageway, was appropriate in the A bound copy of all email correspondence circumstances; between representatives of the A5 Alliance and the § Whether or not proposed upgrades in the Department was also submitted in evidence. Irish Republic take place the Scheme will bring significant benefit to the West of the Comment Province and the many road users who will avail of it; The Alternative A5 Alliance submitted a significant body of evidence to the Inquiry. In summary we consider the primary concerns of the objector to be:
92 § Whilst we agree that many of the benefits residences, habitats, farmland and cultural provided by the Scheme could also have sites; been provided by lower cost options, we § The Scheme contradicts government nevertheless consider that major benefits to commitment to reduce carbon emissions be derived from the Scheme could not have and adds to air pollution with consequent been fully realised by those other alternatives increased health costs; (such as an on-line 2+1 solution). § A substantial area of land (731 hectares) We would also refer to Chapter 6, where some needed for the A5 is classified in the ES as of the concerns raised in this objection have best and most versatile agricultural land, been dealt with in detail, including concerns most in livestock production. Although associated with traffic levels. compensated, families will have less income as less land means fewer animals; Objection by Mr Thomas Eisenhart § The Preferred Route of the A5 passes through 4 Strategic Areas of Conservation (SAC’s) with Inquiry Reference: OA-983 biodiversity of international significance; Summary of Objection § In the ES adverse effects at 3 Special Protections Areas (SPA’s) are described as § Economic development outweighs ‘unlikely’, and there are also little / no effects environmental and social concerns in the for 6 Areas of Special Scientific Interest Scheme proposals; (ASSI’s), one local wildlife site and one Ramsar § The economic benefit to Northern Ireland and site. This appears to be illogical; the Irish Government is debatable; § A number (27) of potentially contaminated § Analysis of the Environmental Impact sites with higher than normal polychlorinated Assessment (EIA) and the Environmental biphenyls (PCB’s) and other metals will be Statement (ES) shows the project to make disturbed, exposing workers to chemicals no sense economically, environmentally or and depositing them in other areas as land is socially; moved; § The Scheme is not meeting the Government § In the ES no Landscape Character Zones will stated goals of sustainability in transportation have a predicted beneficial effect. 97.5% of infrastructure; the land will have slight adverse effects, and § Loss of farmland for construction and lack 29% moderate to large effects; of exits will mean towns are bypassed and § Only 45 out of 3919 people affected by the businesses exposed to less traffic flow; road will see a beneficial visual effect. 140 § The current road is not massively congested will see large adverse effects, 266 and 866 and demand does not outweigh any will see moderate and slight adverse effects environmental impact; respectively; § Questions have been raised as whether the § Many people will experience a long term Irish Government will meet its £400M pledge. increase in noise from the new road; This could leave Northern Ireland facing a § The ES identifies 2 state care monuments massive shortage of funds; facing large adverse effects, 6 scheduled § The Scheme will have significant effects on monuments facing moderate adverse the natural environment and will come in close effects. Two Industrial Heritage Record sites contact with waterways and areas of special and Castletown House will be demolished. environmental significance. It will destroy Sustainable development has been ignored, not implemented; § Restoration of the train travel infrastructure was an option not considered.
93 Departmental Response § An ES is not the source for determining the § At the North South Ministerial Council (NSMC) sustainability of a project; on 17th July 2007 the Northern Ireland § The Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Executive confirmed that it would take forward Government recently reaffirmed commitment North West Gateway - a catalyst for economic to the A5 Scheme, but if the Government of growth. The Irish Government confirmed that the Irish Republic funding was withdrawn it intended to contribute £400m to support this the Executive would have to reconsider the and the proposed A8 upgrade; affordability of the A5 and A8 Schemes; § A preferred scheme has been identified and § The ES does not consider economic and social an ES had been prepared and published in costs. accordance with required procedures; § The Proposed Scheme has been assessed in § A broader investigation of overarching accordance with relevant EC Directive; strategies and policies in Northern Ireland is § Relevant transboundary effects of the A5WTC beyond the scope of the A5 EIA process; have been reported in ES which has been § The Regional Development Strategy (RDS) and made available to the Irish Government as part Regional Transportation Strategy (RTS) are of the consultation process; currently under review and draft publications § It is not accurate to suggest that there is very recognise the need for sustainability, but also little environmentally positive resulting from the the need for upgrading key transport corridors new road; such as the A5; § The climate change objective is that the overall § Proposed environmental impacts and balance of development projects is in favour of mitigation measures are outlined in the ES and reduction and not that any single project which will be considered by the competent authority; adds to the national total cannot proceed; § The existing road does not meet the agreed § The benefits acknowledged at the local level in objective of providing a high standard dual relation to air quality reflect the location of the carriageway; Proposed Scheme as its traffic will be more § On-line widening can be more difficult and remote from larger numbers of people than the expensive than off-line construction; existing A5; § The existing alignment of the A5 is § Most people experiencing a slight increase substandard; in levels would be in the context of existing § It is not possible to quantify the impact low levels. Those benefiting most would the Scheme may have on the number of experience a slight reduction where levels are agricultural jobs in the area; currently higher. § The Proposed Scheme has junctions at 15 § Carbon levels would increase but not locations providing easy access from all A & B in conflict with overall objectives for routes; decarbonisation; § The traffic model used for the Proposed § It is agreed there will be impacts both Scheme indicates that there will be significant detrimental and beneficial on quality of life for transfer to the new road; people but it is not accepted there would be an increase in healthcare costs; § A major benefit will be that longer distance through traffic will not travel through towns § Impacts on agricultural land are accepted, along the route, thus reducing traffic levels on but are in the context of future planning for the existing A5 with improvements in safety, the economy, development and infrastructure. noise and air quality; Protection at all costs not tenable; § It is recognised that some businesses and § In the ES effective mitigation measures property owners will be adversely affected, have been identified; but on balance overall benefits far exceed individual negative effects;
94 § The ES concluded that there would be no Comment significant effects on conservation status or on protected species; § In relation to sustainability concerns the Department has clearly stated that the ES has § Surveys and assessments have been made been prepared in accordance with all required of Natura 2000 sites which will enable the procedures. It has considered impacts and competent authority to determine the matter mitigation measures where impacts are of impact. The Department view is there would adverse. We agree that it is not the purpose not be an impact on the integrity of such sites; of the ES to determine the sustainability of a § In relation to contaminated land where the project. We also agree that it is not within the Scheme crosses such sites, contaminants scope of the A5 EIA to consider overarching will be removed or treated, resulting in a net strategies and policies in Northern Ireland or improvement; beyond; § PCBs, where discovered, will be removed § The loss of agricultural land and the adverse leading to a net improvement; impacts for some individuals and businesses § The Omagh area has natural mineral veins is regrettable, but the overall benefits of the likely to be responsible for enriched metal Scheme will be significant in a wider Northern concentrations and fertiliser spreading has Ireland economic and infrastructural context; increased nitrate and ammonia concentrations. § We accept the Department statement that Neither are at levels of concern for public the Scheme meets overall UK government health; objectives in relation to global warming and § The Scheme does not introduce further that the ecological impact has not been contamination; assessed as significant; § Robust procedures exist for protection § The loss of Castletown House and 2 Industrial of site staff; Heritage record sites is regrettable, but we § It is accepted that for 140 receptors there will accept the Department’s view that this stands be large adverse impact on views representing the test of exceptional circumstances; 7% of the corridor and 68.5% where impacts § We accept the Department’s affirmation would be slight; that there would be no significant effect § More receptors would experience reductions on geology and soils and that some in traffic related noise than increases. For the contaminated sites would see a net latter it is accepted that the effect on receptors improvement following the Scheme; is more marked, particularly where traffic noise § We agree that it is not possible to quantify is not currently significant; at this point the potential loss of jobs in § The ES has reported negative effects on agriculture; the environment and mitigation measures have been proposed. The test of exceptional § We accept the Department’s response circumstances has been considered in the to other matters of concern raised by Mr planning and design of the Proposed Scheme; Eisenhart. A number of these are dealt with in more detail in Chapter 6, including potential § Improvements to public transport are effects of increased noise and air pollution, outside the scope of the A5WTC and loss of agricultural productivity, effects on the the Roads Service. environment, economic considerations and cost / benefit analyses.
95 Objection by Save New Grange, Mr § Public consultation has been extensive, Vincent Salafia thorough and in line with best practice and current Roads Service Policy and Procedure Inquiry Reference: OA-984 Guidelines; § The A5 project does not require an SEA. Summary of Objection The project specific Environmental Impact § Breach of European Union (EU) Public Assessment is the Environmental Statement Participation Directive; published in November 2010; § Breach of EU Strategic Environmental § All appropriate legislation has been complied Assessment (SEA) Directive and UK/NI SEA with; Regulations. The A5WTC is part of an overall § The scope and assessments have considered plan to build a new road from Dublin to Derry; transboundary effects; § This plan should have entailed transboundary § The A5WTC is a standalone project which consultation; contributes to a number of strategic § The Environmental Statement fails to mention objectives. It is not part of a single overall plan the transboundary effects on the Bru na and is not dependent upon any other plan; Boinne World Heritage Site and the Boyne § Roads Service cannot comment upon alleged Blackwater Candidate Special Area of failures or omissions in another jurisdiction; Conservation; § The Scheme will not have any effects on areas § Breach of United Nation ESPOO Convention; such as New Grange, which is 50 miles away § Breach of United Nations Educational from the most southerly point of the A5WTC; Scientific & Cultural Organisation, World § The Scheme is not a breach of the Valetta Heritage Convention; Convention. The assessments which have § Breach of Valetta Convention; been undertaken are in accordance with the § Breach of EU Habitats Directive. Convention requirements; Mr Salafia also made a presentation to the Hearing § The A5WTC is a standalone project which on the 16th of June 2011 when he elaborated on does not traverse the candidate Special Area his written objections and made the following of Conservation which is not in sufficiently additional points: close proximity to warrant inclusion in the Environmental Impact Assessment for this § New Grange is a megalithic tomb in County project. Meath, one of two World Heritage sites in the Irish Republic. It is threatened by proposals Comment for a new Slane by-pass and other road developments in the Irish Republic; § Most of Mr Salafia’s issues relate to events and locations in the Irish Republic and as § In essence, a motorway is being planned from such cannot be addressed by us; Dublin to Derry and the proposed A5WTC is simply one element of this motorway; § It is accepted that the A5WTC is a free standing project and is not an element of § Inadequate public consultation, North and some overall transportation plan from Dublin South. to Derry / Londonderry; Departmental Response § In response to Mr Salafia’s allegations of failure to comply with various international, § The Scheme is being programmed under the EU and UK regulations, we are satisfied Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972, with the Department’s assurances that all the Roads Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 appropriate obligations have been fulfilled. and the Roads (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004. It takes full account of all relevant European Community Directives;
96 Objection by Mr Leslie Christie Comment Inquiry Reference: OA-1000 § Our comments on the need for the Scheme are set out in Chapter 6; Summary of Objection § Our comments on the upgrading of the § There was no need for the Scheme; existing A5 are set out in Chapter 6; § An upgrade of the existing A5 would suffice; § Our comments on the termination of the § It was irrational to end the Scheme at New Scheme at New Buildings are set out in Buildings; Chapter 6; § The Department should meet objectors’ costs § We are satisfied with the investigations in defending their case. carried out in relation to the feeding and In support of his objection Mr Christie submitted roosting grounds for swans and geese and a volume of correspondence. In particular he that any safeguards imposed by the statutory advocated that should the Scheme proceed agencies would be implemented. it should be routed via the Glendermott valley targeting Drumahoe instead of New Buildings. Objection by The Swans and the At the hearing Mr Christie also referred to the Snails Ltd, Mr J Byrne & Mr Peter impact of the Scheme on the whooper swans and Sweetman greylag geese which graze on his land. Inquiry Reference: OA-1002 Departmental Response Summary of Objection § The Scheme would act as a catalyst § The Environmental Statement is deficient in the for economic growth in keeping with ecological impact assessments and proposed the Department’s objective to support mitigations; the economy by planning, developing § The Birds Directive (79/409 EEC 2009) and the and maintaining safe and sustainable Habitats Directive (92/43 1992) have not been transportation networks; observed or provided for in the Environmental § On-line widening could be more difficult and Impact Assessment (EIA) and the mitigations expensive than off-line construction due proposed; primarily to the need to accommodate existing § Site integrity has not been considered and accesses and minimise the effects on adjacent site specific conservation objectives have not property; Other significant factors include the been addressed as required by the Habitats substandard alignment of the existing A5, Directive; alteration of utilities, traffic disruption, delays during construction and safety risks to road § Transboundary impacts have not been users and construction workers; adequately considered; § Surveys of the numbers and usage of swans § In relation to the demand for the route, the and geese were undertaken and reported in information is inadequate, out of date and the the Environmental Statement. While there may assessment approach outmoded. It is deficient be some disturbance during construction there in relation to future demand considerations. should be no significant long term effect on There is no acknowledgement of the changed the availability of grazing in the area. Both the fiscal status of the Irish Republic and its Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and implications for the Scheme; the Northern Ireland Environmental Agency § The application is deficient in the assessment were consulted. of alternatives and promotes an unsustainable transport mode; § The application has not complied with Article 6 of the Habitats Directive.
97 Departmental Response Comment § The programme and scope of surveys § Similar concerns about ecological undertaken and the basis for evaluation and assessment and impacts have been assessment have been discussed and agreed raised by others and in particular about with the Northern Ireland Environment Agency the EIA not complying with European (NIEA). This is the principal statutory consultee Community Directives. We accept, for nature conservation and biodiversity. however, the Department’s statement Planning for the Scheme has been undertaken that they have complied with all required as agreed and has not been challenged by the procedures. Planning for the Scheme has NIEA; been undertaken as agreed with the NIEA, § The A5WTC has been assessed in it’s entirely. the principal statutory body for nature The types of impact defined within the EIA conservation and biodiversity, and this work Directive have been considered as appropriate; has not been challenged by the NIEA; § Surveys and assessments in relation to Natura § We accept the Department’s view that there 2000 sites have been completed and relevant will not be an impact on the integrity of information provided. There would not be an Natura 2000 sites; impact on the integrity of such sites; § Transboundary concerns have also been § Loch Swilly Special Protection Area (SPA) and raised by others. As the Department has the River Finn Strategic Area of Conservation considered the Loch Swilly SPA and the River (SAC) have been considered in the Finn SAC in its assessments, we consider assessments undertaken; that transboundary impacts have been § The data collection, model development, properly considered; traffic forecasting and economic appraisal § We consider that the Department’s approach were undertaken in accordance with standard to traffic data appraisal was undertaken in procedures. Traffic data was collected accordance with standard procedures and externally (2006-2010), but was mainly based was appropriate for the Scheme. on bespoke traffic surveys in May 2008. This Some of the concerns raised by Messrs Byrne information has been recently updated and is and Sweetman, including environmental impacts, available in the Scheme Assessment Report assessment of alternatives and traffic data Stage 3 (SAR3) on the project website; analysis and appraisal, are also dealt with in § On the 21 January 2011 the Irish Government detail in Chapter 6. reaffirmed its commitment to the A5 and A8 schemes, but if the Irish Government funding Objection by Mr Trevor Boyd was withdrawn the Northern Ireland Executive would have to reconsider its position in relation Inquiry Reference: OA-1012 to the A5 and A8 schemes; § Since there will be no impact on the integrity of Summary of Objection habitat sites a consideration of alternatives is § Most of the traffic on the existing A5 is not required. relatively local; § The new road will result mostly in disbenefits.
Departmental Response § The Proposed Scheme has 15 junctions for easy access from all A & B routes. The traffic model in the Proposed Scheme indicates that there will be significant transfer from the existing A5 to the proposed dual carriageway and that this transfer will be influenced by origin / destination of trips and consideration of journey time savings; 98 § One major benefit of the Scheme will be to objective of a high standard dual carriageway reduce through traffic in the towns along the between Londonderry and Aughnacloy; route as it will reduce traffic levels on the § The loss of agricultural land and impact on existing A5. This will improve safety, noise holdings is an inevitable consequence of levels and air quality along the existing A5. this Scheme, which is being promoted in the overall context of future planning for the Comment economy; We consider that the Department has adequately § Potential environmental impacts have been addressed the matters raised in this objection. assessed and mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Statement. The statutory Objection by Mrs Margaret consultees have agreed with the assessment McCluskey methods used. It would be very unlikely that the integrity of any statutorily designated sites Inquiry Reference: OA-1023 would be affected; § At locations where fauna, including protected Summary of Objection species, are present mitigation measures § Consideration should have been given to focused on compliance with statutory reinstatement of the rail link, upgrading the obligation are included in the proposed design existing A5 and / or provision of bypasses on and construction methods; an equal basis; § It is accepted that the Proposed Scheme § There will be a loss of prime farmland with would have a detrimental impact on the Foyle division of farms and livelihoods put at risk; Valley, varying from moderate to slight, but § Habitats will be lost and visually the new dual the overall perception would not be markedly carriageway, with its raised embankment, will changed as the proposed road and existing A5 adversely affect the beauty of the Foyle Valley; have a similar relationship with the open valley landscape; § With no direct link to Londonderry or Donegal the new road will be more of a dead end than a § The Proposed Scheme will benefit a lot major route. more users than those travelling to and from Londonderry. There will be a significant Departmental Response transfer from the existing A5 to the proposed dual carriageway. § Improvements to public transport are outside the scope of the Scheme and the Roads Service; Comment § On-line widening can be more difficult and § We agree with the Department that expensive than off-line construction. The consideration of improvements to rail and / or existing alignment of the A5 is substandard. public transport is not within the scope of the Specific on-line improvements were Scheme, and therefore not within the scope considered and details can be found in of this Inquiry; published reports; § The loss of agricultural land is regrettable § Land take and associated costs needed for an but we agree that the overall benefits of the on-line 2+1 carriageway could be greater than Scheme are significant in a wider Northern for an off-line dual carriageway due to changes Ireland economic and infrastructural context; in design standards (2008). In terms of journey § We consider that other matters of concern times and road safety the benefits of a dual raised in this objection have been adequately carriageway are greater; addressed in the Department’s responses; § The benefits in journey time and accident § See also Chapter 6. reduction of short by-passes of Omagh and Strabane would be very much smaller than the Scheme and would not provide for the
99 Objection by Ms Paula Anderson Comment Inquiry Reference: OA-1025 § The concerns about the loss of agricultural land have been echoed in other objections. Summary of Objection Whilst this is regrettable the overall benefits § The road will have a negative environmental of the Scheme are significant in the wider impact on farmland; Northern Ireland context; § It will also have a negative effect on the § The issues of need for and cost of the livelihood of the agricultural community; Scheme and the view that upgrading the § The traffic volume on the A5 does not require a existing A5 would be a cheaper and better new dual carriageway; option than building the A5WTC have been raised by other objectors. These issues, and § The cost of the new road is too high for the matters relating to environmental, agricultural gain of a shorter journey time; economic impacts, are dealt with in detail in § The existing A5 could be upgraded at a lower Chapter 6; cost to the tax payer. § We consider that the Department has Departmental Response adequately addressed other matters raised in this objection. § The Proposed Scheme will involve the loss of agricultural land and impact on holdings, Objection by Mr Eric Cauneze but it is being promoted in the overall context of future planning for the Northern Ireland Inquiry Reference: OA-1026 economy; § The traffic threshold level for a dual Summary of Objection carriageway is exceeded over most of the § The specific objections are related to the existing A5, except on the Ballygawley – Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA); Aughnacloy link. From a road safety and § Concerns expressed about the higher levels of engineering perspective it is better to have the HCs, CO2 and carbon monoxide for local consistency along the length of the route; residents. Future increases in CO2 emissions § The cost benefit analysis included in the contrary to the UK’s Kyoto protocol promises; Preferred Options Report demonstrates a good § Cultural heritage site losses e.g. at Castletown return on investment; House, Errigal Kerrogue, Harry Avery’s Castle, § On-line widening can be more difficult and Industrial Heritage sites and the burial site at expensive than off-line construction. The Beltany are unacceptable; existing alignment of the A5 is substandard. § Severing rural settlements isolates neighbours Specific on-line improvements were and creates access difficulties; considered and can be found in published § Destruction of woods, e.g. Mulvin Parks, and reports; habitat loss cannot simply be replaced by § Landtake and associated costs needed for planting trees elsewhere; an on-line 2 + 1 carriageway could be greater § At the Foyle and Finn Special Areas of than for an off-line dual carriageway due to Conservation road work will impact negatively changes in design standards (2008). In terms on species e.g. salmon as eggs are laid in the of road safety and journey times the benefits of silt. The EIA report does not refer to the impact a dual carriageway are greater. of modifying rivers on silt distribution and
100 reproduction nor to how pollutants washed Statement (ES), recognises that habitat of from road surfaces will be dealt with; like form and value could not be replaced in a § On the Foyle flood plain compensatory reasonable timescale but that the greater area measures for storage such as holding ponds of new woodland and scrub habitat introduced would not work due to tidal effects – so the as part of the ES would be beneficial to adverse effects on flood plain storage are landscape and biodiversity; worrying; § In relation to the water environment the § The loss of 731ha of best and useable assessments made on designated sites have farmland will affect 284 landowners and the demonstrated that on construction and in the loss of future national food production will future the ES would be unlikely to affect the impact negatively on the local economy. integrity of these sites, nor have a significant effect on their nature conservation value; Departmental Response § Specific references are detailed in relation to § The overall impacts on local air quality would salmon in the ES; not be significant. Where increases have been § Specific mitigation measures are detailed predicted the levels are not above European in the ES in relation to pollutants from road Union or national standards; surfaces; § The climate change objective is to ensure that § The validity of the modelling approach used the overall balance of projects is in favour of in construction of hydraulic models has been reduction and not that any one project which accepted by the Rivers Agency. Mitigation adds to the national total cannot proceed; measures include connector structures to § The EIA recognises that field patterns will be maintain equilibrium; fragmented and severed but that the existing § The Department recognises the impact of the field patterns are generally reflective of a loss of agricultural land but recognises the contemporary agriculture and the impact overall benefits of the Scheme - the wider would not be significant historically or context of future planning for the economy - culturally; and does not agree that the loss of 1200 ha § With reference to Harry Avery’s Castle and threatens the area or country economically. other cultural heritage features horizontal and vertical alignments have been detailed to Comment reduce potential impacts; § Castletown House will be lost but a permanent § We accept the Department’s assurances in record of the house’s design, form and history answering concerns about air quality and in will be kept by way of mitigation; defending carbon emissions commitments; § No direct adverse impacts related to tourism § The ES has detailed impacts on cultural have been identified, although there would be heritage with mitigation measures where a large adverse impact on the setting of Harry impacts are negative, e.g. at Castletown Avery’s Castle. The transfer of traffic away House and Harry Avery’s Castle; from sections of the existing A5 which are part § We accept the response to concerns about of scenic routes would enhance recreational habitats, and in particular salmon spawning, appeal. Greater accessibility to and between and the response to concerns about tourist areas in Tyrone, Fermanagh and pollutants from road surfaces and flood plain Donegal would benefit tourism; storage; § Significant emphasis had been placed on avoidance of direct impacts on settlements § See also Chapter 6. and maintaining access along local roads; § The Department, in the Environmental
101 Objection by Mr John Hatrick Objection by Mr Jack Lynch Inquiry Reference: OA-1027 Inquiry Reference: OA-1028 Summary of Objection Summary of Objection § What are the criteria that demand a dual § No country can afford to spend £800M on carriageway from Ballygawley to the New such a road at a time when our politicians are Buildings – a road from nowhere to nowhere? under pressure to make cuts. It should be put § There are questions around the accuracy of on hold and reassessed in 5 to 8 years time; the predicted traffic; § The present A5 could be improved, especially § Other options should have been explored, with more lay-bys for tractors to pull in, thus such as a railway with car carrying capacity; releasing queues of traffic; § If the proposed bridge crossing of the Foyle § The traffic over the next 5 to 8 years is unlikely and a proposed link to the A6 at Drumahoe to increase; are constructed, then the single carriageway § What percentage of the expenditure will be bypassing New Buildings will be a white spent on the local economy? elephant. Departmental Response Departmental Response § Most of Mr Lynch’s points had been raised and The Department declined to comment as all these addressed already at the Inquiry; points had been addressed at earlier stages of the § Mr Lynch is not affected by the A5WTC; Inquiry. § This Scheme will address the traffic delay Comment issue raised by Mr Lynch; § Both Governments are in support of the § We accept that the traffic on the majority of A5WTC, and their continued support would be the existing A5 exceeds the threshold for a necessary if it is to go ahead; dual carriageway; § There are no figures available to show what § We accept that the traffic predictions are percentage of the £800M cost will be spent based on actual counts and on accepted locally. models; § We accept that the Department considered Comment other options to the A5WTC route; § The proposal to fund the Scheme is a § There is no mention of a railway in the decision of the Northern Ireland Executive. Regional Transportation Strategy and in It is provided for in its budget, reflecting any case, a consideration of the merits of a the priority accorded to proposal by the railway is outside the scope of this Inquiry; Executive; § The suggestions for a new Foyle Bridge at § An on-line dual carriageway based on the Londonderry and a link to the A6 are at an existing A5 would be more costly and require early stage with no certainty as to when or if much more landtake, and demolition of they might be brought to fruition. In any case property. Any decision to put the project this Inquiry cannot take such considerations on hold for 5 to 8 years would be a political into account; decision for the Northern Ireland Executive; § See also Chapter 6. § See also Chapter 6.
102 Objection by Mr Winston Duff § We accept that minor upgrades and more by-passes would not result in the standard of Inquiry Reference: OA-1029 road specified; Summary of Objection § We have not seen any reference to road tolls § He and his party (Ulster Unionist) oppose the in the Scheme proposals; A5WTC; § See also Chapter 6. § Initially he welcomed the new road but became concerned about the route through the Objection by Mr Stanley Bell countryside; Inquiry Reference: OA-1030 § A dual carriageway is not justified; § Concern about the effects on the environment; Summary of Objection § Concern about loss of farmland, and § What is the current air quality at the proposed destruction of small farms; Newtownstewart junction? § Impact on local communities, and the § What is estimated when the junction is economy in Aughnacloy and Ballygawley; created? § Minor upgrades to existing roads and by- § How far will noise carry from vehicles travelling passes would be more appropriate; towards Harry Avery’s Castle from Victora § Concern that toll fees would be introduced. Bridge as they climb Bessy Bell? § What steps will be taken to reduce air pollution Departmental Response and noise? § To a large extent, Mr Duff’s concerns have previously been raised, and addressed at this Departmental Response Inquiry; § The level of air pollution including nitrogen dioxide particulates at the Newtownstewart § The Irish Government has agreed to contribute junction would be very low; £400M towards the project. The balance will be paid by the Northern Ireland Executive; § All projected air quality levels are well within the standards accepted as a risk to human § Tolling of the road could be a matter for the health; Northern Ireland Executive. It is not envisaged in the present proposals. § Noise levels will increase in the areas described by Mr Bell, but within acceptable Comment levels; § To reduce noise levels low noise surfacing will § We accept that the Scheme would have be used throughout the route; impacts on the countryside, and that farmland would be lost, but these factors § If levels are above 68 decibels, those affected have to be balanced against the greater can apply for insulation to be provided. public good; Comment § A dual carriageway is specified in the Northern Ireland Executive’s Programme We accept that the Department has adequately for Government, and included in its budget, answered the issues raised by Mr Bell. thus reflecting the priority accorded by Government; § We consider that the impacts on the environment are addressed in the Environmental Statement where appropriate mitigation measures are set out;
103 Objection by Mrs Laura § Human rights issues; Kwasniewska § Objectors not funded for representation; Inquiry Reference: OA-1033 § Compensation inadequate; During the course of the Strategic Hearing, Mrs Kwasniewka made a number of written Departmental Response submissions and presented to the Strategic § The Northern Ireland Executive included Hearing on the 18th of May and on the 8th of June this dual carriageway in its Programme for 2011. Government, thus indicating the priority given to it; Summary of Objection § Every effort has been made to reduce or mitigate the effects on all concerned; § Government has disregarded the adverse effects that the Scheme would have on the § The proposed road would have 15 access / crucial agricultural industry; exit points along its length, allowing ease of § Destruction of nearly 3,000 acres of prime access from all A & B class roads; farmland represents a significant reduction in § Upgrading the existing A5 would not meet the output, with severe impact especially on the Programme for Government’s requirement Tyrone dairy industry; for a dual carriageway. It would be more § The Scheme runs contrary to Departmental of costly and cause greater disruption than the Agriculture & Rural Development (DARD) and Proposed Scheme; European Union (EU) policy; § It is acknowledged that the Proposed Scheme § The proposed road, with the limited number of would involve loss of agricultural land and access points will not meet the needs of the specific impacts on agricultural holdings. The rural community; Proposed Scheme is however being promoted in the context of broader national policies § Upgrading the existing A5 with greater which address the future planning for the provision of passing lanes would suffice; economy, development and infrastructure. § Natural beauty and conservation of the It is an inevitable consequence that certain countryside, and wildlife, will be at risk; proposals which make up such policies § The wanton destruction of productive land will involve impacts on the environment and in cause displacement, lead to loss of jobs in many instances some loss of existing natural related industries; resources such as agricultural land; § The Agricultural Impact Assessments are not § The total loss of agricultural land is stated fit for purpose, in particular those related to within the Environmental Statement (ES) Mr Derek Donnell, Mr David Throne and Mr Ian (approximately 1,146 ha). Approximately 250 McMullan ha of this would be for temporary use during § No amount of money could ever compensate construction and would be returned following for reduction of a family farm; construction. Put into context against the total amount of agricultural land in Northern Ireland § Lack of communication and consultation with (approximately 900,000 ha) the permanent those affected; amount of agricultural land lost would be less § Gross unfairness in the way the farming that 0.1% of the total resource. It should also community is being treated in this process; be noted that there would be wide annual § Soil testing is not done here, as it is routinely variations in agricultural output depending on carried out in GB; weather conditions etc; § No economic appraisal on farms affected; § The order of impact on individual holdings has § Conacre should have been considered in the been detailed within the ES, which is available impact assessments; at www.a5wtc.com; § Threats to biosecurity; § The Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) on agricultural landowners focused on agricultural
104 businesses with particular reference to the (ii) Economic reasons – a commercial decision impact relative to management practices, loss has been taken to expand the farm business of land, severance, fragmentation of units based on conacre land as it involves an annual and loss of operational efficiency. The AIA outlay of approximately £100-£150/acre identifies the potential impacts on individual compared with approximately £10,000/acre to farm businesses. The significance of impacts purchase land; has been assessed relative to the overall scale (iii) Compliance with the Nitrates Directive. of the farm business and management of that § It is accepted by the landowner taking a business rather than as absolute economic parcel of conacre land that there will always impact. An assessment of the economic be a risk associated with basing expansion (monetary) impact of the Proposed Scheme on of the farm business on conacre land, since, each individual farm business is outside the sooner or later, a particular parcel of conacre scope of the Environmental Statement; land may become unavailable. However, there § Number of farms within the Countryside is a constant turnover of conacre land, as Management Scheme (CMS) = 78; some landowners give up taking a parcel or § Number of dairy farms = 53 (approximately a landowner retires from farming but wishes 6,466 cows); to retain the land and decides to rent it out. § Number of organic farms = 1; Consequently, as one parcel is lost, there is always the hope that it may be replaced with § Farms with protected species habitats - a better parcel, which is more conveniently impacts on flora and fauna - are reported located to the home farm; within Chapter 11 of the Environmental Statement; § Compensation issues would be dealt with separately by Land and Property Services; § Renting and taking land in conacre is a traditional system used in Northern Ireland. § Great care was taken in deciding on the Approximately 1/3 of agricultural land in approach to informing landowners of impacts Northern Ireland is rented out in conacre. The on their properties at the time of announcing benefits are that it enables the landowner to the Preferred Route in July 2009. Owners retain ownership of their land (to be passed on of homes to be taken by the Scheme were to future generations) and also allows farmers informed personally by the project team before renting land in conacre to have a larger farm the exhibitions were held, whilst all other business since the annual rental is significantly affected landowners attending the exhibition less than the capital cost of acquiring the land. were channeled into the separate consultation The land is rented on an 11 month lease which area where they were informed of the impacts can be renewed each year. Therefore, where on their property in a private environment. a landowner rents their land out in conacre Whilst there may have been instances where the impacts have always been deemed to landowners entered the public exhibition be slight adverse for the purposes of the area first and hence identified that they were AIA. This reflects the short term nature of the affected in the open forum, the majority were conacre rental system whereby the land use informed in the private environment; is negotiated annually for an 11 month rental § The Department held 16 public consultation period with no guarantee of tenure beyond events for the A5WTC compared with 10 for this; the A4 / A5 scheme; § Where a landowner rents land as conacre, it § With regard to Derek Donnell, a reply was is generally for one or more of the following received from Mr Donnell on 24/06/2010 reasons: stating that the amount of conacre land stated (i) Expansion of the farm business; Availability – in the baseline report was incorrect and that there is no possibility of buying suitable land in he no longer took the conacre land from the the immediate vicinity; Church of Ireland (7.91ha). The AIA report (ref: 028) was not updated to reflect this information.
105 It states a total of 16.96ha is taken in conacre, should the Scheme proceed. Following this however, the result of the assessment discussion a site walkover was completed. remains valid (i.e. substantial adverse prior to On most occasions the landowner provided mitigation and moderate adverse should any accompaniment during relevant field accommodation works to provide access be inspections. On some few occasions the included during the detailed design phase); landowner declined accompaniment during the § In relation to Mr David Throne’s land the AIA field inspections; process included: § The assessment for Mr McMullan’s land is up (i) Collection and verification of baseline data; to date as shown in the AIA report number 21. The ongoing consultation process will (ii) Impact assessment of Proposed Scheme identify any necessary mitigation with regard using baseline data; to potential noise / light impacts with regard to (iii) Impact rating; Mr McMullan’s poultry houses; (iv) Preparation of summary AIA reports to be § Biosecurity issues have been considered included within the ES. throughout the AIA. During baseline data § Mr Throne had a meeting with Dr McIlmoyle collection, current biosecurity measures on the 15th of March 2010. Following the visit, at each farm were noted and used as the the Scheme design was amended. However baseline for the assessment. It should the baseline information collected for the farm be noted that Mouchel was aware of the remained valid (stage 1 of the process listed DARD Biosecurity Code for Northern Ireland above) and the assessment was updated for Farms. Hence, if the farmer was currently the Proposed Scheme (stages 2-4) as soon as implementing biosecurity measures (such those stages were finalised. A second visit was as double fencing around the entire farm therefore not required. The AIA for this farm holding, wheel washing, etc), then the impact business is reported within the Environmental assessment would have included a summary Statement (AIA ref: 020); of the potential implications in relation to the maintaining biosecurity of the farm. If § The criteria for the AIA are provided in no measures were currently in place then paragraph 15.3.11 and table 15.2 (pages 14-4 this was also noted. If biosecurity measures to 15-5) of the ES; were currently in place at a farm then the § Where farms would potentially become impacts were identified and recorded on the unviable, it has been stated in the individual AIA reports. If there is no evidence individual AIA reports. The assessment that biosecurity measures are currently being has demonstrated that of the 284 farm practised on a particular farm then it is the holdings assessed, 8 would potentially Department’s view that there is no benefit or become unviable without the implementation requirement to provide separate private access of mitigation measures such as access and that shared access paths and structures measures. These measures would be agreed are acceptable; with the landowners in advance of scheme § Roads Service is not aware of any policy construction. All these farm businesses stating that “better agricultural land” is fall within the impact rating category of protected and cannot be developed; ‘substantial adverse’. § DARD was consulted about the impact on § There was no set time limit for a farm visit. agriculture and there are no issues with them; Each landowner was allocated as much or as little time as was deemed necessary to § There was an appraisal of how the route would gather the relevant information and discuss affect the national agricultural interest; potential implications regarding land loss, § The total loss of agricultural land is stated severance, etc. At the start of each meeting, within the ES (approximately 1,146 ha). the DARD farm maps were requested and Approximately 250 ha of this would be for there followed a discussion with regard to how temporary use during construction and would the holding was likely to be impacted upon be returned following construction. Put into
106 context against the total amount of agricultural (i) Landowner declined meeting; land in Northern Ireland (over 900,000 ha) the (ii) Site visit was screened out where landtake permanent amount of agricultural land lost was identified as being relatively small in would be less than 0.1% of the total resource; relation to owned land and / or there was no § Ms Kwasniewska has been provided with severance; the Roads Service Accommodation Works (iii) Where a land owner rents their land out in leaflet which details the Department’s position conacre the land was not visited as impacts on accommodation works. It highlights the were always deemed to be slight adverse position that there is no obligation on the for the purposes of the AIA. This reflects the Department to carry out accommodation short term nature of the conacre rental system works and if agreement is not reached, offers whereby the land use is negotiated annually for to carry out such works would be withdrawn an 11 month rental period with no guarantee of and the matter dealt with via compensation tenure beyond this. and negotiations with Land and Property § Following the verification of the baseline Services; data and the development of the Proposed § The Scheme cost estimate does not include Scheme, the AIA was reviewed, if appropriate, long term maintenance costs; assessing the impacts of the Proposed § The purpose of the AIA was to identify and Scheme on each farm holding / business. The assess the potential impact/s on each farm AIA process included: business having regard for landtake, new (i) Collection and verification of baseline data; severance and potential changes to existing (ii) Impact assessment of Proposed Scheme management practice as a consequence of using baseline data; the Proposed Scheme. The assessment also identified the total area of agricultural land that (iii) Impact rating; would be affected by the Proposed Scheme; (iv) Preparation of summary AIA reports to be § The assessment of impacts on agricultural included within the ES. landowners focused on agricultural businesses § Dr McIlmoyle visited most of the farm with particular reference to the impact relative businesses in 2010 (2 visits during 2011). to management practices, loss of land, Some visits were completed prior to the severance, fragmentation of units and loss Proposed Scheme design being “fixed”. of operational efficiency. The AIA identifies However, the baseline information collected for the potential impacts on individual farm the farm remained valid and the assessments businesses. The significance of impacts has were then updated to reflect any changes been assessed relative to the overall scale of once the Scheme design had been finalised. A the farm business and management of that second visit was therefore not required; business rather than as absolute economic § 204 AIA reports have been prepared (i.e. for all impact. An assessment of the economic farms visited). 202 of the reports are included (monetary) impact of the Proposed Scheme on in the ES and 2 were prepared after publication each individual farm business is outside the of the ES, in June 2011. Farm reports were not scope of the ES; prepared for those farms not visited. However § It has been normal practice that land rented an assessment was still completed as a desk out in conacre does not constitute an exercise and recorded in the ES; agricultural business operation and this has § No landowner refused to provide answers always been in agreement with Roads Service; during the AIA process. Where individuals § The total number of affected agricultural declined a formal AIA meeting, the AIA was landowners screened out of detailed AIA (i.e. completed using desk based information and not visited) was 79. The reasons for this were information collected during Mouchel / Roads one or more of the following: Service landowner meetings;
107 § Following the site visit, each landowner taken into consideration. The impact on each was issued with a short baseline report farming business was assessed having regard which summarised the factual information to landtake, new severance and potential collected during the site visit, for example, changes to existing management practice as a size of herd, farm operations, current status consequence of the Proposed Scheme. Table in relation to the Nitrates Directive, etc. Each 15.2 in the ES outlines the significance criteria farmer receiving this report was asked to used for this assessment. check the content and advise (via Mouchel) § All figures quoted for landtake within the if any baseline information was incorrect ES are accurate and up to date, with the / misrepresented. Mouchel can confirm exception of the following: that out of over 200 landowners visited, 43 responded to the correspondence and 17 of (i) AIA Report Ref: 023 – the amount of land these provided updated / revised information rented out in conacre stated within the AIA is 5 to be considered in the AIA. If the landowner ha. The farmer has confirmed that the amount did not respond within a given time period is in fact 2.43 ha. The AIA has been reviewed specified within the correspondence then it and it is confirmed that the impact assessment was assumed that the information gathered rating remains as slight adverse. was correct. Following the verification of the (ii) AIA Report Ref: 178 – the AIA reports states baseline data and the development of the that the farm extends to 83.12 ha of which 56 Proposed Scheme, the AIA assessed the ha is owned land. The landowner has since impacts of the Proposed Scheme on each advised that the farm is 6.48 ha (16 acres) farm holding / business. The AIA process bigger than stated within the ES. The impact included assigning an impact “rating” to each assessment rating has been reviewed and farm business, the methodology for which is remains as substantial adverse for this farm. reported within the Environmental Statement (iii) Following publication of the ES these (ES). This information is reported within the inaccuracies were noted and the assessments ES in Appendix 15. The AIA reports did not reviewed. It is confirmed that the impact include the individual’s names / addresses to ratings for each of the affected landowners, as protect confidentiality; reported in the ES, remains accurate. § Following publication of the ES, some § Based on the information available, only individuals and agents contacted Roads one organic farm would be affected by the Service / Mouchel and requested the AIA Proposed Scheme. The impact assessment reports for the farms / clients. When requested, rating for this farm is considered to be this information was provided. The information “substantial adverse”. It should be noted that was also available at each of the ES deposit no detailed baseline data is available for this locations and on the A5WTC website. The farm business since the landowner refused a AIA reports included within the ES were not visit. distributed to each landowner / farmer / § The aggregate numbers of farms affected agent. It is not common practice to provide separated by farm type were not summarised affected parties with the impact assessment in the ES. The baseline information (paragraph for their own land (for example Roads Service 15.4.4 -15.4.8) provides an overall summary of / Mouchel did not contact each affected the types of farm potentially affected. Many of residence to advise them individually of how the farms are mixed farms and hence the types their view may be changed or how noise levels of farms affected could not necessarily be may increase / decrease at their property). The separated out by farm type (dairy, beef, sheep, relevant information is included within the ES poultry etc). The type of animal husbandry which is / was available to the public during was recorded for each farm separately. the consultation period from November 2010 – With regard to CMS and Less Favoured January 2011 and on the website; Area Compensatory Allowances Scheme § When considering impacts on agricultural land, information, this is included on each individual the area of land to be taken had a high rating, AIA report. in conjunction with other factors which were 108 Comment work following pollution damage. § Compensation and interpretation of Departmental Response human rights issues are outside the scope The Department stated that the detail relating to of the Inquiry; the issues raised was not available at this stage. § In other respects, we consider that the However it gave an absolute guarantee that Departmental response has adequately it would consult with the Agency and provide addressed the points raised; particulars of plans and specific details of culverts, § We note that the objector submitted etc and that nothing would be constructed without correspondence to the Section 3 Inquiry. This information to and input from the Agency of all included in broad terms matters raised and relevant matters affecting its responsibilities. dealt with above and it also made reference to matters raised and dealt with at the Comment Section 1 and 2 Inquiries; § We find it unusual that a statutory agency felt § See also Chapter 6. it necessary to attend the Inquiry in order to obtain the assurances given; Objection by Loughs Agency, Mr § However, we expect that consultation would John McCartney & Mr Declan Lawlor continue in arriving at agreements on all the issues raised. Inquiry Reference: OA-1034 Summary of Objection Objection by Councillor Robert § Need for sustainable drainage systems and Mulligan post construction management systems; Inquiry Reference: OA-1035 § Need for a contingency plan to deal with problems during construction affecting salmon; Summary of Objection § Insufficient detail in the Environmental § Opposed to the Aughnacloy to Ballygawley Statement re earthworks management plan; section of the A5WTC which is an unnecessary § Need for consent applications to be made as waste of public funds and disruption to the early as possible in respect of the hundreds local community; of river crossings, outfalls, culverts and § He also submitted a petition objecting to this diversions calling for site by site investigations; section, for the same reasons. The petition § Need for emergency pollution bunkers for was signed by 17 local residents. vehicle spillage post construction; Councillor Mulligan also gave evidence to the § Need to review the proposed mitigation Inquiry on the 16th of May 2011, making additional measures re river suspended solids which points as follows: exceed the maximum permitted under the § The failure of the Department to carry out an Habitats Directive; impact assessment on the Scheme is verging § Need to replace any salmonoid habitat on gross misconduct; removed; § The traffic figures at Aughnacloy and New § Need to investigate possible salination in Buildings fall short of those required to justify upper reaches of rivers; this Scheme; § Need for a plan to deal with groundwater § The visual effect on the landscape will be seepage and groundwater pumping; immeasurable, with damage to flora and fauna; § Need for screening of imported aggregate and § Access will be destroyed by stopping-up soil; roads; § The need for a bond to be put in place to enable immediate implementation of remedial
109 § There is no evidence that industry and Comment commerce will benefit from this project; § We note Councillor Mulligan’s concerns in § The existing A5 would be better placed to particular in relation to the Ballygawley area; enable tourism to grow; § The proposed closure of Tullyvar Road, at the § We accept that there will be impacts on junction of A4 and A5, is a wholly unnecessary farmland and the countryside, but this will be exercise and will seriously disadvantage the mitigated where practical; entire community of Ballygawley; § Stopping-up of roads has been considered at § The closure of Tullywinny and Ballynany Roads each of the three Section Inquiries; will incur serious hardship, with a two mile § Other points raised by Councillor Mulligan round trip to access the town. have been adequately addressed in the Department’s response; Departmental Response § See also Chapter 6. § Most of the points raised by Councillor Mulligan have already been addressed at this Inquiry; Objection by Ulster Farmers Union, Mr John Thompson § A suggestion has been made which includes keeping the recently constructed roundabout Inquiry Reference: OA-1036 and this solution has to be considered against the criteria for the whole Scheme – safety, Summary of Objection economics, accessibility, environment and § The Scheme would have substantial integration; detrimental impact on many farms in terms of § The Department’s view is that the details in injurious affection, severance and disturbance; the proposed Scheme are the best solution, appropriate accommodation works, access but it is “a very close” call in relation to the arrangements, etc, should be facilitated; alternative suggestion; § Unfairness of compensation system; § The consultants are processing a safety audit § The agrifood industry is a vital part of the of the alternative; Northern Ireland economy and every effort § The alternative may show a saving of £3.5M should be made to mitigate the overall impact. in construction costs, but this has to be set against the disbenefits of increased travel time, Departmental Response etc, amounting to £6M over a 60 year period; Departmental responses in relation to the above § The A5WTC is included in the Northern Ireland issues are set out in Chapter 6. Executive’s Programme for Government, and provision has been made for it in the agreed Comment budget. This reflects the priority accorded by § The objector’s letter was addressed to the Government; “Inspector for the Public Inquiry” and dated § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway is 18 May 2011 (during the course of the exceeded for most of the existing A5. In Year Inquiry); 1, the levels on the Ballygawley link will be § As the first two matters relate to below the threshold but from an engineering compensation issues, they fall outside the and safety perspective, it is better to have remit of the Inquiry; consistency along the entire route; § Comments in relation to the remaining issue § It is recognised that the Scheme will have are set out in Chapter 6. impacts on the countryside and on farmland. Where appropriate, mitigation measures will be provided as shown in the Environmental Statement.
110 Objection by Mr Ross and § On-line widening would be more difficult and Mrs Julie Kerr expensive than the proposed off-line. This is mainly due to the need to accommodate the Inquiry Reference: OA-1040 many existing accesses on the A5. Much more demolition of property would be involved, and Summary of Objection the safety risks would be greater; § The cost of this road is not justified by the time § The A5WTC is included in the Northern Ireland saved; Programme for Government and in its agreed § It is a waste of public funds; budget, thus reflecting the Executives priority § Upgrading the existing road would be more accorded to this project. prudent and cost effective. Comment Departmental Response § We consider that the Departmental response § A dual carriageway is specified in the Northern has adequately addressed the issues raised; Ireland Programme for Government, and is § See also Chapter 6. included in the Executive’s budget, reflecting the priority accorded to the A5WTC by the Executive; Objection by Mr Cecil Martin § The Scheme will bring significant safety Inquiry Reference: OA-1042 benefits in addition to journey time savings; The objector was represented by Mr Tom Kirby of § On-line widening would be more difficult and GVA Donal O Buachalla Consultants. expensive than off-line, mainly due to need to accommodate the many existing A5 accesses. Summary of Objection Much more demolition of property would be § Policy BH10 of PB56 states that there is involved, and the safety risks would be greater. a presumption in favour of retaining listed buildings and demolition will not be permitted Comment unless there are exceptional reasons; § We consider that the Department’s responses § Such exceptional circumstances have not have adequately addressed the issues raised; been proven and Castletown House should not § See also Chapter 6. be demolished. The Department should divert this road to avoid Castletown House.
Objection by Mrs Mary Galbraith Departmental Response Inquiry Reference: OA-1041 § Careful consideration was given to options which would avoid Castletown House. Summary of Objection However, these options are not feasible due § The Scheme is unnecessary and a waste of to the ground conditions, the Special Area of money; Conservation and the river; § It would be much better to upgrade the § The Department recognises the importance existing A5; of Castletown House but there is a need to § The Scheme provides little benefit for the vast provide a link across to Lifford; sums to be spent. § Exceptional circumstances do exist in this case. It is accepted that Planning Service Departmental Response consent is required for the demolition of § The A5WTC will be a catalyst for economic Castletown House, and discussions with them growth in keeping with the Department’s are ongoing. objective to support the economy by developing safe and sustainable transportation networks; 111 Comment § Detailed design cannot be completed until the project has been given final approval to § Castletown House is a property of proceed; considerable merit. We have visited it and § Consultants and contractors must observe the share the concern about demolition; commitments made in the ES, and all statutory § It is noted that discussions are ongoing requirements. Roads Service and its advisors with the Planning Service, whose consent is will monitor the outcomes. necessary; § No realistic alternatives have been found to Comment construct the road without the demolition of § We note the concerns about the consultation Castletown House; process. However, Roads Service and the § Such demolition would be regrettable but consultants have made extensive efforts to must be weighed against the overall benefits consult in a meaningful way, and despite arising from the A5WTC, and the public good. some weaknesses, have been largely successful; Objection by Mr Cathal Blee § The ES is a key document and must be observed; Inquiry Reference: OA-1043 § Apart from the monitoring mentioned in The objector was represented by Mr Tom Kirby of the Departmental response, there will be GVA Donal O Buachalla Consultants. widespread public monitoring of this project. Summary of Objection Objection by Mrs Mary Maguire § Dissatisfaction with consultation process; and the representatives of the late § Amount of land being vested; Patricia Monaghan § Design not finalised; Inquiry Reference: OA-1044 § The standing of the Environmental Statement The objectors were represented by Mr Crawford (ES); McCann of J Boggs Estate Agents. § Assuming this proposal goes ahead, does Roads Service and contractors have a free hand to make changes at will, or is there any Summary of Objection form of policy or certification? Mrs Maguire would prefer that land not required for permanent works be taken by legal agreement Departmental Response on a temporary basis. § The Department has made extensive efforts At the Hearing on the 13th of May 2011, Mr to consult with, and inform the public and McCann reiterated this objection, which is especially landowners. Public events have common to a number of his other clients. attracted over 6,600 attendees, and one-to- one meetings have taken place with individuals Departmental Response affected. The A5WTC telephone information line, and website have been extensively used; This is a reasonable request which is being seriously considered by the Department. It has § The amount of land in the draft Vesting Order been referred to the Departmental Solicitor’s Office is considered the minimum to construct the for advice. It would leave landowners with certainty road in a safe manner. Some of the land would that land used temporarily for construction would be used only during construction and can be be returned to them. released back to the owner. If during detailed planning a lesser landtake is required, this will be put into effect;
112 Comment Objection by Ms Dorothy Love The Department should take all possible steps to Inquiry Reference: OA-1047 deal with this matter in the manner suggested by Mr McCann. Summary of Objection § The mitigation measures in the Environmental Objection by Mr Alex Doherty Statement do not compensate for the effects Inquiry Reference: OA-1045 on the biodiversity of the River Foyle and The objector was represented by Mr D O’Neill, tributaries; Architectural and Design Services Ltd. § It is wrong to place the road so close to the river; Mr Doherty’s objection was identical to that raised in Objection OA-1046. § Loss of landscape that will be irreplaceable; § Increase in impermeable surfacing which However, at the Hearing on the 13th of May 2011, will have a massive impact on the water Mr O’Neill further stated that his client objected to environment; the line of the A5 and especially to the height of the road embankment near his property. § The proposed bridge at New Buildings will destroy the landscape; We ruled that this was an issue for the Section 1 § Concern about mitigation measures proposed Inquiry. for Lower Foyle Valley and Gortmonly Hill.
Objection by Mr & Mrs Derek Clarke Departmental Response Inquiry Reference: OA-1046 § The proposed measures are based on a 3 year The objectors were represented by Mr D O’Neill, study, during which no potential for destruction of the special qualities of the River Foyle Architectural and Design Services Ltd. system was identified; Summary of Objection § The conclusions give confidence that risks to habitats have been considered. All appropriate A health and safety plan will have to be statutory bodies were consulted and no undertaken to establish the safety of workers objections received from them; and visitors to farms. Indemnity insurance will be § It is accepted that the A5WTC will have an required. impact on the landscape and on views but the design has endeavoured to minimise this; Departmental Response § 68.5% of the Scheme would bear slight § Contractors will undertake appropriate impacts, compared to 7% which would be risk assessments and will put in place the subject to large adverse impact; necessary insurances prior to the start of § Hydraulic models have identified the extent construction; of the flood plain and appropriate measures § The detailed design will ensure that safe incorporated into the design; access is provided to dwellings, businesses § Drainage design proposals take account of and farms. the extent of new impermeable surfacing and appropriate design measures taken to meet Comment the requirements of the Water Framework We consider that the Departmental response has Directive; adequately addressed the objection. § There is no proposal for a new bridge at New Buildings in this Scheme; § The design measures proposed recognise the importance of Gortmonly Hill and its relationship to Bready.
113 Comment § The high maintenance cost of the Scheme would impact on the maintenance budget for § We note Ms Love’s concerns about the the existing road infrastructure; impact of the Scheme on the countryside and § Upgrading the existing A5 with appropriate on the River Foyle systems; town bypasses would be a cheaper option; § We accept that the Department recognises § The Scheme would have a severe impact on its responsibilities and by responsible design the environment; and mitigation will seek to reduce adverse impact. § The Scheme would have a devastating effect on woodlands, peat bogs and rivers; Objection by Mr Robert Samuel § The Scheme would have a detrimental effect Gamble on a large number of dwellings in terms of noise, pollution and visual impact; Inquiry Reference: OA-1048 § The Scheme would cause hardship to farmers throughout the area; Summary of Objection § The effect on local businesses could lead to Objection on planning terms as his land is the closure and job losses; natural extension to Magheramason and has been proposed for inclusion within the development § Landowners considered that there had been limit in the next area plan. insufficient consultation before establishing the route.
Departmental Response Departmental Response Work on the West Tyrone Area Plan has been § Traffic threshold level for a dual carriageway suspended. Accordingly the Strabane Area Plan was exceeded over the entire length of remains the statutory instrument governing the Scheme apart from the Ballygawley to planning applications in the area. The draft Aughnacloy link which would be dualled from Vesting Order does not therefore encroach on the engineering and safety perspectives; development limits of Magheramason. § The Scheme would have 15 junctions along its length and the traffic model indicated Comment that there would be sufficient transfer to the proposed route; We are satisfied that the Scheme does not infringe current area plans. § The Northern Ireland Executive had agreed a budget providing funding for the Scheme; Objection by Ms Denise Adams § Maintenance of the existing A5 would continue but at a reduced level because of traffic Inquiry Reference: OA-1049 transfers. Provision of the Scheme would not The objector was represented by Mr Kevin affect the maintenance of the Northern Ireland McCauley of JG Fleming LLP, Estate Agents. road network; § While the Scheme would impact on the Summary of Objection environment, it is being promoted in the context of broader policies addressing the § Insufficient justification for the proposed dual future planning for economic development carriageway on the grounds of traffic volumes; and infrastructure. The potential impacts § Limited access to the dual carriageway would have been assessed and are reported in the result in a considerable proportion of local Environmental Statement which describes traffic continuing to use the existing A5; the design and mitigation measures to be § Insufficient justification for expenditure on the incorporated in the Scheme in order to Scheme in a period of economic uncertainty; minimise those impacts. Although there are a number of locations along the proposed road
114 corridor where impacts would be of a high Objection by Mr John Mark Adams order the large majority of impacts would be effectively mitigated; Inquiry Reference: OA-1050 § The Environmental Assessment concluded that The objector was represented by Mr Kevin there would be no significant impact on nature McCauley of J G Fleming LLP, Estate Agents. conservation arising from the loss of the few areas of woodland or peat bogs affected; Summary of Objection § The Scheme would cross a number of rivers, The objection is identical to OA-1049. local watercourses and drainage ditches and there are sections of the road where Objection by Mr William Boyd construction would involve working close to watercourses. The proposed design Inquiry Reference: OA-1051 and construction measures recognise the The objector was represented by Mr Kevin importance of these watercourses in terms McCauley of J G Fleming LLP, Estate Agents. of water quality and the habitats / corridors afforded to wildlife. These measures have been Summary of Objection developed in consultation with the appropriate statutory authorities after completion of The objection is identical to OA-1049. detailed surveys focused on establishing a sound understanding of the current status Objection by Mr Stephen Boyd of the watercourses and the presence and movement of species which utilise the Inquiry Reference: OA-1052 corridors. The study concluded that potential The objector was represented by Mr Kevin impacts would be well mitigated and that the McCauley of J G Fleming LLP, Estate Agents. impact on the watercourses and associated wildlife would not be significant. Summary of Objection § Does the volume of traffic justify a dual Comment carriageway? § The A5WTC is prescribed by Government as § There will be limited access or exit points for a dual carriageway. Why it has to be off-line local traffic; has been explained by the Department; § Difficult to justify the costs in a period of § Whilst it is acknowledged that there will be economic uncertainly, and cuts in other public adverse impacts on the environment and services; countryside, we accept that the Department § Both old and new roads will require has undertaken to minimise these impacts by maintenance which will reduce the funds all possible means; available for work to other roads; § Whether the A5WTC should proceed in the § A detailed examination of other options, present financial climate is ultimately a matter including improvements to existing A5, do not for the Northern Ireland Executive; appear to have been considered; § There have been several adverse comments § There will be a severe impact on the on the consultation process but, in the main environment; and despite some failings, the relevant § The road will devastate wildlife; messages have been, and are being, delivered to those affected; § It will result in increased noise and pollution from vehicle emissions; § All the benefits and disbenefits of the Scheme § Hardship will be caused to farmers at a time of must be weighed against the greater public already difficult circumstances; good; § See also Chapter 6.
115 § Various businesses along the existing A5 will § It is accepted that the dual carriageway be severely impacted; will have an impact on views currently § Insufficient consideration with affected experienced. 68.5% of the corridor would have landowners. only slight impacts, compared to 7% which will suffer large adverse impact; Departmental Response § It is recognised that the Scheme would have § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway is a substantial impact on 52 farms, a moderate exceeded over most of the existing A5; impact on 67, and a slight impact on 163; § The proposed road has junctions at 15 § From the start of the Scheme, the Department locations which will provide easy access from has made extensive efforts to have meaningful all A & B class roads; consultation with all concerned. Over 6,600 people attended public events. The A5WTC § The Northern Ireland Executive has included Helpline and website have been widely used. the dual carriageway in its Programme for Government, and in its budget, thus reflecting its high priority within the Executive; Comment § The existing A5 will continue to be properly § The A5WTC is prescribed by Government as maintained but maintenance costs will be a dual carriageway. Why it has to be off-line reduced by the transfer of traffic to the has been explained by the Department; A5WTC; § Whilst it is acknowledged that there would § On-line widening of the A5 would be be adverse impacts on the environment and more difficult and costly than off-line, as countryside, we accept that the Department proposed. This is mainly due to the need to has undertaken to minimise these impacts by accommodate the many existing accesses on all possible means; A5. Demolition of property and landtake are § Whether the A5WTC should proceed in the likely to be greater; present financial climate is ultimately a matter § It is acknowledged that the Scheme would for the Northern Ireland Executive; involve impacts on the environment and § There have been several adverse comments countryside but it is promoted in the context of on the consultation process but, in the main broader policies which address the economy, and despite some failings, the relevant development and infrastructure; messages have been, and are being, § Potential environmental impacts have been delivered to those affected; assessed in the Environmental Statement (ES) § All the benefits and disbenefits of the Scheme which also describes mitigation measures to must be weighed against the greater public be put in place. The ES demonstrates that good; whilst in some areas the impacts will be of a high order, the large majority of impacts will be § See also Chapter 6. effectively mitigated; § It is not agreed that the Scheme would have a Objection by Mr Stephen & Mrs devastating effect on wildlife. The assessments Sarah Guthrie conclude that whilst there would be impacts in a small number of locations, these would Inquiry Reference: OA-1053 not be significant in the context of nature conservation. Details can be found in the ES; Summary of Objection § The effect on Areas of Outstanding Natural § A greater number of receptors will experience Beauty, particularly the Mourne Valley and generally a reduction of 3 decibels, or more, Sollus Hill; than would experience increases of 3 decibels or more; § The effect on local communities and farmland; § The effect on natural drainage basins;
116 § The effect on local businesses in Objection by Mr Ian & Mrs Gillian Magheramason; McMullan § Expenditure of £800M on the Scheme at a Inquiry Reference: OA-1054 time of economic decline, when an upgrade of the existing A5 would suffice. Summary of Objection Departmental Response The proposed A5 dual carriageway is a waste of public funds. At a fraction of the cost, the existing § It accepted that the Scheme would impact road could be upgraded and the savings in cost on existing landscapes. The Environmental given to front line services in health, etc. Statement had emphasised the need for sensitive integration and concluded that Mr McMullan appeared at the Hearing on 12th May almost 70% of the Scheme would be 2011 and made the following additional points: sufficiently well integrated such that impacts would be slight. However, even with mitigation § Reiterated his written strategic objection; measures, 7% of the corridor would be subject § Concerns about the route in the area of to large adverse impact; Magheramason, and other options for the § The proposed engineering and landscape route; design measures together with appropriated § Does the projected traffic justify this dual mitigation measures should ensure that the carriageway? impact on Sollus Hill would be minimised; § In a scheme of this magnitude it is inevitable Departmental Response that there would be an impact on local § The Northern Ireland Executive prescribed a communities. Mitigation measures have dual carriageway and made provision for it focused on maintenance of access along local in its budget, thus reflecting the high priority roads within and between communities; accorded to the project; § The drainage design proposals would minimise § Dualling on the line of the existing A5 would changes to the existing drainage features and be more costly, involve greater disturbance, mitigate against risk of flooding due to the extensive demolition and would present many Scheme; safety hazards during construction and after; § Some local businesses would be adversely § The options for routing in the area of concern affected but the overall benefit of the Scheme to Mr McMullan, were described. The best would outweigh individual disbenefits; option is the one in the Scheme; § The Government has agreed a budget which § The volume of traffic on the existing A5 already provides for implementation of the Scheme; exceeds the threshold for a dual carriageway § The Department explained the reasons for not along most of the road, and increases are upgrading the existing A5. predicted.
Comment Comment We have commented in this Report, and § We accept that the A5WTC will have impacts especially in Chapter 6 on the major issues along the route, including at Mr McMullan’s raised in this objection. We are content with the property; Departmental response to the specific matters § However, we are assured that the Department raised by Mr & Mrs Guthrie. will take every reasonable step to mitigate the impacts, and to reduce the landtake to the minimum required;
117 § We consider that the Departmental response Comment has adequately addressed Mr & Mrs § It is unfortunate for Mr McKean that the McMullan’s objections; original Preferred Route was changed with § The disbenefits of the A5WTC must be considerable impact on his farm holding. balanced against the benefits, and the greater However, we accept the Department’s public good; justification that this change is necessary due § See also Chapter 6. to engineering and other difficulties; § We have no evidence of undue influence on Objection by Mr Robert McKean this professional decision, by politicians or others; Inquiry Reference: OA-1055 § Maladministration is a matter for the See also OA-1062, Mr & Mrs Robert McKean. Parliamentary Ombudsman; Summary of Objection § We consider that the Departmental response § The original Preferred Route was amended, has adequately addressed the remaining amounting to maladministration; objections raised by Mr McKean. § This new road is not needed at a time of economic downturn when the money could Objection by Mrs Jude Crumlish be better spent on vital services. It is being Inquiry Reference: OA-1056 pushed ahead for political reasons; The objector was represented by Mr A Burns of § No account taken of the effect on both human Burns & Co Commercial. life and wildlife. See generic response to Burns & Co Commercial Departmental Response in Chapter 5.2. § Documents published in relation to the Preferred Route stated that it could be subject Objection by Mr David Throne to change; Inquiry Reference: OA-1057 § As the design was developed, account was taken of localised information, further ground The objector was represented by Mr A Burns of investigation, drainage, environmental surveys Burns & Co Commercial. and flood modelling, whilst consultation continued with Northern Ireland Environment Summary of Objection Agency, Rivers Agency, and other statutory § There was no need for the Scheme as an consultees and stakeholders; upgrade of the existing A5 would suffice; § Other alternatives were considered and § Financial assistance should be available to assessed against the 5 key criteria – safety, objectors to present their case at the Inquiry. economics, environment, integration and accessibility. These considerations led to the Departmental Response changes now included in the Scheme. The § Due to changes in design standards (2008) Alternative’s Discussion Paper and the Choice the landtake and associated costs required of Route at Ballymagorry can be viewed on the to facilitate an on-line 2+1 carriageway could A5WTC website; be more than that required for an off-line dual § The A5WTC is included in the Northern Ireland carriageway because of the need to provide Executives Programme for Government and additional parallel roads to accommodate provided for in its budget, reflecting the priority the many accesses along the existing route. accorded to it by the Executive; In terms of road safety and journey times § Potential environmental impacts are reported the benefits of a dual carriageway would be in the Environmental Statement.
118 greater than those of a 2+1 solution. Other The matters raised in this objection are identical to significant factors include the substandard those raised in Objection OA-1057. alignment of the existing A5, alteration of utilities, traffic disruption, delays during Objection by Mr & Mrs Christopher construction and safety risks to road users and Throne construction workers; § Professional fees are payable in respect of Inquiry Reference: OA-1061 matters relating to valuation of land to be The objectors were represented by Mr Kevin vested and to negotiation of accommodation McCauley of J G Fleming LLP Estate Agents. works. In accordance with practice in Great Britain, objectors’ costs in connection with Summary of Objection inquiries are only reimbursable where the § Volume of traffic on existing road does not threat of vesting has been removed. warrant such expenditure on a new dual carriageway; Comment § Nature of Proposed Scheme will mean a § Compensation matters are outside the remit considerable proportion of local traffic will of this Inquiry as is the question of costs of continue to use the existing A5; presenting a case to the Inquiry. However, see § Difficult to justify costs in a period of economic also Chapter 6 & Chapter 11; uncertainty; § See also Chapter 5.2. § Cost of proposed road will significantly reduce funds available for maintenance and Objection by Messrs William and improvement of existing road infrastructure; Robin Fulton § Detailed examination of alternative options Inquiry Reference: OA-1058 does not appear to have been considered; The objectors were represented by Mr Alan Burns § Upgrading of the existing A5 with the of Burns & Co Commercial. introduction of 2+1 lanes should have been considered; See generic response to Burns & Co Commercial § Proposed road will have a severe impact in Chapter 5.2. on the environment, mature woodlands and wildlife; Objection by Messrs Billy and § The project will destroy an area of outstanding Norman Crumley and Mr Victor Love natural beauty, the Foyle Valley, and is likely to Inquiry Reference: OA-1059 impact on tourism in the Tyrone area; The objectors were represented by Mr Alan Burns § The road will adversely impact on a large of Burns & Co Commercial. number of dwellings with increases in noise, vehicle polluting and visual impacts; See generic response to Burns & Co Commercial § The road will cause serious adverse effects on in Chapter 5.2. the local farming community; Objection by Mr Cecil Henderson § Business along the existing A5 will be severely impacted; Inquiry Reference: OA-1060 § Landowners do not feel there has been The objector was represented by Mr Alan Burns of sufficient meaningful consultation. Burns & Co Commercial.
Summary of Objection
119 Departmental Response impacts would be slight adverse for 68.5% of § The traffic threshold level for a dual the proposed corridor, 7% large adverse and carriageway is exceeded over most of the the remainder medium adverse; existing A5 route; § Agricultural Impact Assessments have § The traffic model for the Proposed Scheme concluded that the Scheme would have indicates that there will be significant transfer a substantial adverse impact on 52 farm to the proposed dual carriageway, with holdings, a moderate impact on 67 farm resulting reductions in traffic levels on the holdings and a slight impact on a further 163; existing A5; § The Department acknowledged that some § The A5 project has been included in the properties and business owners would be Northern Ireland Executive’s budget, reflecting adversely affected by the Scheme. However, its high priority within the Executive; the overall benefits of the Scheme far exceed individual disbenefits; § The progress of the Scheme will have no impact on the level of funding available by § A series of public meetings had been held to the Department for Regional Development for communicate the project through key design maintenance of the road network; stages, as well as the introduction of a number of new facilities, including: § On-line widening can be more expensive that off-line construction, due to changes in design (i) The A5WTC Information Line; standards; (ii) The A5WTC Website; § It is acknowledged that the Scheme will (iii) Land & Property Services Compensation involve impacts on the environment. Potential Guides; impacts have been assessed and mitigation (iv) Accommodation Works Leaflet; measures have been proposed; (v) Ground investigation Leaflets. § It is expected that the proposed dual § On the basis of additional information carriageway will benefit the tourist industry in becoming available a number of alternatives that it will provide greater accessibility to and had been considered. between tourist areas; § The Scheme will result in the loss of boglands Comment and mature woodlands in a small number of locations. This would not be significant in the § We consider that the Department’s response context of nature conservation or wildlife; has adequately addressed the majority of Mr & Mrs Throne’s concerns. § The Scheme will involve measures and methods which have been developed in light § In relation to the specific issues of traffic of statutory obligations requiring the protection volumes, economic viability, examination of of water quality and wildlife and their habitats; alternative options, environmental impacts § A greater number of receptors will experience and effects on the local farming community; perceptible reductions (3 decibels or more) these are strategic matters that have been in traffic related noise than increases. Some raised by a number of objectors and are dealt will experience an increase in a context where with in detail in Chapter 6. traffic related noise is currently not significant in the local environment; Objection by Mr & Mrs Robert § The air quality assessments for the Scheme McKean have concluded that impact on local air quality Inquiry Reference: OA-1062 would not be significant; The objectors were represented by Mr Kevin § The Department acknowledged that the McCauley of J G Fleming LLP Estate Agents. Scheme would have a visual impact, but the Environmental Statement indicated that See also Objection OA-1055, Mr Robert McKean.
120 Summary of Objection § The Northern Ireland Executive has included § Does the volume of traffic on the existing A5 the costs in the agreed budget, reflecting the justify a dual carriageway? priority accorded to it; § The A5WTC will have limited access / exit § The existing A5 will continue to be maintained points for local traffic which will continue to but with the transfer of traffic to the new road, use the old road; maintenance costs for the A5 should be lower; § Difficult to justify the cost of this new road in § The Programme for Government prescribed a period of economic uncertainty and cuts to a dual carriageway, which could be on-line other public services; or off-line (as proposed). On-line widening would be more expensive, mainly due to § If the A5WTC proceeds, the old road will still the requirement to accommodate the many require maintenance. The expenditure on the existing accesses. The demolition of premises new road will mean less available for repairs and safety improvements elsewhere; would be much more extensive and safety risks would increase; § Other options, such as upgrading the existing A5 do not appear to have been considered; § It is acknowledged that the Scheme would involve impacts on the environment and § The proposed road will have a severe impact countryside. However, it is promoted in the on the environment; context of broader policies which address § It will have a devastating impact on wildlife; future planning for the economy, development § Detrimental impact on a large number and infrastructure; of dwellings with increases in noise and § Potential environmental impacts are reported emissions pollution, in addition to the visual in the Environmental Statement which also impact; describes the mitigation measures to be used; § The new road will cause hardship to farmers, § The design measures and construction already struggling in adverse economic methods recognise the importance of conditions; watercourses in terms of water quality and § Various businesses on the existing A5 will be habitats. The proposed measures will meet all severely impacted; statutory requirements; § There has not been sufficient meaningful § Studies have concluded that potential impacts consultation with the affected landowners would be well mitigated and there would be before establishing the route; no significant effect on watercourses or nature § Dissatisfied with the manner in which the conservation sites; project has been conducted thus far. § Assessments have shown that a greater At the Hearing on the 17th of May 2011 Mr & Mrs number of receptors would experience McKean made additional points as follows: perceptible reductions of 3 decibels or more in traffic related noise than would experience § Concern about the manner in which increases of 3 decibels or more; the Preferred Route was selected and subsequently altered; § Many more receptors would be subject to slight reductions in traffic related pollutants § To revert to the “Drain Route” would be fair to than would be subject to slight increases; the farmers on each side and each would bear the burden equally. § It is acknowledged that the dual carriageway will have an impact on views currently Departmental Response experienced. However, the assessment as reflected in the Environmental Statement § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway is concluded that 68.5% of the proposed route already exceeded over most of the existing A5; would be sufficiently well integrated with only § The proposed new road will have 15 junctions slight impact, against 7% which would be which will provide easy access from all A & B subject to large adverse impact; class routes;
121 § It is accepted that the Scheme would have Objection by Messrs Edward and substantial impact on 52 farm holdings, a John Burns moderate impact on 67 and a slight impact on 163; Inquiry Reference: OA-1063 § While it is recognised that there are many Objections received were deemed to be of a local benefits to the A5WTC, it is also recognised nature and were dealt with at the Section 1 Inquiry. that some businesses and property owners will be adversely affected; Objection by Mr Robin & Mrs Jean § Since the start, the Department has made Bruce extensive efforts to communicate the project. Public consultation meetings were attended Inquiry Reference: OA-1064 by over 6,600 people. The A5WTC Information Line and website have been widely used; Summary of Objection § The Road will not meet Department objectives § There have been visits to landowners and as it does not link the main centre of discussions on mitigation, all of which has population in the North West (Londonderry) been carefully considered; with Aughnacloy; § Documents published in relation to the § By terminating the motorway at New Buildings Preferred Route indicated that it could be vehicles heading towards Altnagelvin Hospital, subject to change; the Port of Derry and the city of Derry airport § As the design was developed, account was will arrive at the bottleneck much faster; taken of localised information, further ground § The scheme fails to address the stretch of road investigations, drainage and environmental between New Buildings and Craigavon Bridge surveys and flood modelling, whilst which carries the largest proportion of traffic consultation continued with Northern Ireland and has the major proportion of accidents; Environment Agency, Rivers Agency and other § Due to limited access to the new road, the statutory consultees and stakeholders; existing A5 will still be used by local traffic and § As a result a number of alterations were accordingly the existing accident black spots considered and assessed against the five key will remain; criteria – safety, economics, environment, § With limited funds how do Road Service integration and accessibility; propose to improve and maintain the § The Preferred Route was altered on the basis existing A5? of this research. The realignments were not § The Scheme was conceived in a different altered to suit individuals. financial era and should be replaced by a cheaper option. Comment The objectors also made a verbal submission to § It is understandable that Mr and Mrs McKean the Hearing in which the following further points are concerned and under stress with the were raised: adverse impact on their farm in which they both invest heavily; § There had been a lack of communication and consultation by the Department and the Roads § We accept that Mr & Mrs McKean hold a Service; sincere conviction that the route was altered § Much more time should have been allocated to their detriment by pressure through for reading the evidence from the Department; political channels, but no evidence to substantiate this belief was presented to us; § Outside of the Inquiry is there an outside monitoring or checking mechanism for § We consider that the Departmental response the scheme? has adequately addressed Mr & Mrs McKean’s Objection; § See also Chapter 6.
122 § Is it correct to say that at this stage after § The commencement of the scheme at New spending £38M there is no actual confirmed Buildings is part of a wider strategy including road design, and therefore no final cost? on-going studies regarding the A5 / A6 link. § There will still remain a problem with traffic on Roads Service has undertaken an initial the A5 entering Londonderry as drivers from feasibility study of traffic movements around Strabane heading towards the A6 will tend to the city which has concluded it would be branch off at the B49; feasible to provide a new link road that would intersect with the A5 south of New Buildings. § Can Roads Service explain why they have It is not expected that the Proposed A5WTC omitted journey times between Aughnacloy will cause any increase in congestion at New and Craigavon Bridge? Buildings or on the road to Craigavon Bridge; § Why does the Preferred Route cross the road § It is acknowledged that the stretch of road to the east of Bready as this seems a costly between New Buildings and Craigavon Bridge option and will destroy Sollus Hill? carries a high volume of traffic but does not § There will be a detrimental effect on many have the major proportion of accidents; farms and businesses, which may be left § Almost all of the major settlements along the unviable; current A5 will be easily accessible from the § Tourism in the area may also suffer; new road. There will be a reduction in traffic § No account would appear to have been taken levels along the existing A5 with corresponding of the detrimental health effects of this improvements in safety, noise and air quality. This will lead to a substantial reduction in the § Scheme. number of accidents along the existing A5; The objectors also submitted a written list of § The existing A5 will continue to be maintained. questions to the Inquiry and these have been However, due to the significant transfer of covered by the summaries above except for the traffic the maintenance requirements will not following: be as onerous as at present. The Scheme will § Can Roads Service explain why they have no impact on maintenance funding for have cancelled the M22 / A6 extension at the network; Randalstown together with the A2 dualing at § The Scheme remains a priority for the Northern Jordanstown? Ireland Executive and is considered to be § Can Roads Service provide information the optimum provision to satisfy the key regarding what alternatives and costs have assessment criteria of safety, economics, been considered in the Bready area? environment, integration and accessibility. Due to changes in design standards the landtake § Should the final cost exceed the budget; who and cost for an on-line 2+1 carriageway could will pick up the cost? be more than for an off-line dual carriageway. § The Scheme will have a significant effect on The Department gave the following responses to the Foyle valley, one of the most scenic routes the verbal questions posed by these objectors: in the country. There is a case for it to be reconsidered. § The Scheme is monitored by a Project Team, a Cross Border Steering Group, North / Departmental Response South Transport Sector meetings and Plenary § It is not the remit of the A5WTC to solve traffic meetings; problems within the city of Londonderry. § If the Scheme goes ahead contractors will be Within Northern Ireland the route serving awarded the contract to finalise the detailed the North West gateway is the A5WTC, and design; the Proposed Scheme involves providing a § The final design must be compliant with the new off-line dual carriageway between New Environmental Statement and the outcome Buildings and Aughnacloy; of the Inquiry;
123 § Design submissions must be approved by the Objection by Mr PJ Hegarty technical approval authority within the Roads Service as appropriate, and for bridges and Inquiry Reference: OA-1065 other areas, the River Agency. Summary of Objection Comment § A junction halfway between Ballymagorry and New Buildings would be better than a junction § We note the objectors’ concern regarding south of Ballymagorry and at New Buildings; lack of meaningful communication. Whilst we accept that the Department has carried out § Use wetter land to minimise property impact; a thorough consultation process, we must § The drain route fairest for farmers would be the stress that the Department should continue to Ballymagorry – Woodend area. have discussions with all affected landowners throughout the design and construction Departmental Response process if the Scheme goes ahead; § Traffic model indicates significant transfer to § We accept that the Scheme meets key the proposed dual carriageway from the B49 Departmental Objectives; which will relieve traffic along remaining B49 and A5 north of Strabane; § Concerns have been raised in this objection relating to proposals outwith the Scheme and § Using “wetter land” would have a negative we consider that it is not within our remit to impact on the flood plain and increase flood comment on these matters; risk; § The proposed drain line has least impact on § In relation to concerns about the Scheme farm severance, but does not meet Scheme proposals in the Bready area, these are dealt assessment criteria. with in Chapter 7; § In relation to potential overspend on Comment the Scheme, it is our understanding that the Department would introduce We consider that the Department has adequately financial monitoring procedures during addressed the matters raised in this objection. the construction phase which will provide a process for dealing with any possible Objection by Ms Lucille Hadden overspend. In any event, all costs associated Inquiry Reference: OA-1066 with the Scheme apart from those pledged by the Irish Government will have to be met from Summary of Objection the DRD Roads Service budget; § Alternative solutions have not been properly § We are satisfied with the Department’s evaluated. The existing A5 could be upgraded; response to all other concerns raised in this § Existing traffic volumes are not sufficient to objection. We would also refer to Chapter 6, justify a new road. where several issues raised in this objection are dealt with in more detail, including no meaningful consultation, impact on individual Departmental Response families and communities, waste of public § On-line widening of the existing A5 would be resources, loss of agricultural productivity, more expensive than off-line construction. effect of the Scheme at New Buildings, § Alignment on the existing A5 is substandard; adverse environmental impact and Sollus Hill § The traffic threshold level for a dual / Mourne Valley. carriageway is exceeded over most of the existing A5 route except for the Ballygawley – Aughnacloy link. It is better to have consistency along the entire route from an engineering and safety perspective.
124 Comment Summary of Objection § The Scheme is unnecessary – upgrading the § We consider that the Department has A5 would be sufficient; adequately addressed the matters raised in this objection; § The volume of traffic is less than originally envisaged; § Some of the strategic matters raised in this objection are also dealt with in detail in § The hardship and disturbance the Scheme will Chapter 6. cause for landowners is an abuse of power; § The detrimental effects on rural communities Objection by Mr David Hadden far outweigh perceived benefits. Inquiry Reference: OA-1067 Departmental Response Summary of Objection § On-line widening is more difficult and expensive than off-line construction. Alignment § The Proposed Scheme is going through some on the existing A5 is substandard; of the best farmland in the country; § A long term view is taken of traffic growth and § The new road is not needed for the level of forecasts from the Trip End Model Program traffic; used indicate substantial growth in the future; § Upgrade of the existing road is sufficient and § It is recognised that the building of a new more cost effective. road can cause anxiety and stress for those affected. The Department has powers to Departmental Response vest land, but measures have been taken to § The loss of farmland is regrettable but is in reduce anxiety and stress for those affected the context of future planning for economic by the Scheme via regular and transparent development and infrastructure; communication; § The traffic threshold level for a dual § Mitigation measures have focused on the carriageway is exceeded over most of the maintenance of access within and between existing A5 route except for the Ballygawley communities. Where roads would be stopped- – Aughnacloy link. It is better to have up access is provided by the minimal length of consistency along the entire route from an diversion possible. Concerns about severance engineering and safety perspective. are balanced with the benefits of displaced § On-line widening is more expensive than off- traffic from existing road. line construction. Alignment on the existing A5 is substandard. Comment § We consider that the Department has Comment adequately addressed the matters raised in § We consider that the Department has this objection; adequately addressed the matters raised in § Some of the strategic matters raised in this this objection. objection are also dealt with in detail in § Some of the strategic matters raised in this Chapter 6. objection are also dealt with in detail in Chapter 6.
Objection by Mr John Briggs Inquiry Reference: OA-1068 The objector was represented by Mr Shaun Irvine of J A McClelland & Sons Ltd.
125 Objection by Mrs Barbara Hatrick study outside the scope of the Scheme; § Studies have indicated the feasibility of a link Inquiry Reference: OA-1069 between A5 and A6 but this too was outside Summary of Objection the scope of the Scheme. Re-routing to the east of the city would lead to congestion; § There was no need for the Scheme which would result in a bottleneck; § The proposed single carriageway bypass of New Buildings should enhance the quality of § The Scheme should be to the east of New life for the inhabitants of the village; Buildings to alleviate traffic flow at Craigavon Bridge allowing traffic from the west access to § Chapter 14 of the Derry Area Plan 2011 Altnagelvin Hospital, Limavady and Coleraine; referred to the development of a Regional Transport Plan. The relevant strategy, which § Until a strategic decision was made re the was under review and subject to public proposed link with the A6, the section of consultation, includes the A5 Scheme; the road between Junctions 1 and 2 was premature; § There would be no impact on the views from the upgraded Victoria Road beauty spot. It was § The Scheme would contravene policy acknowledged that there would be a moderate guidelines in the Derry Area Plan 2011; impact on the valley to the west of New § Funding has been provided to upgrade Buildings. Siting the road along the river using the beauty spot on Victoria Road and on local landform would help reduce impacts the opposite side of the river. The Area which would otherwise be associated with an of Outstanding Natural Beauty would be alignment in a more elevated part of the area; destroyed; § The layout and location of Junction 2 would § Junction 2 should not be constructed until it provide a connection between the existing has been decided if a new bridge or tunnel A5 and the proposed Scheme and a possible would be provided at this crossing point of the future A5 / A6 link, whilst minimising abortive River Foyle; works. The junction would provide safe § New technology in developing road transition from the strategic dual carriageway construction materials would render the to the single carriageway local road network; Scheme out of date by the time of completion. § The Scheme would be constructed with The objector also made a verbal presentation to materials compliant with currently accepted the Inquiry which included the following points: standards for road construction and at a cost providing a positive economic return on § The need for the A6 link on the east side investment. before construction of the Scheme; § The need for appropriate link roads in the Comment Republic of Ireland. § We are satisfied with the Departmental response to the matters raised. In the Departmental Response absence of detail re validation and availability § It is widely recognised that the provision / of the new technology referred to, we improvement of infrastructure contributes to consider it would be premature to depart economic regeneration of the region. This is from current practice at this stage; reflected in the Northern Ireland Executive’s Programme for Government, Regional § We accept that reasonable steps have been Development Strategy, Regional Transportation taken to mitigate the impact on the beauty Strategy, etc; spot at Victoria Road; § It was not the aim of the Scheme to solve § See also Chapter 6. existing traffic problems within the city of Londonderry. These were matters for separate
126 Objection by Riverside Building & § Consideration should be given to expanding Development Ltd the span below the bridge to limit visual impact and to enable views from Lifford towards the Inquiry Reference: OA-1070 “Tinnies”. This would also ensure a pedestrian The objector was represented by Brian Kelly of and possibly cyclist connection. Turley Associates and Cleaver Fulton Rankin, § The Department should try to minimise Solicitors. landtake at the junction by reducing the height to which the road will climb and thus avail of Summary of Objection associated cost benefits; § Insufficient information has been provided to § Consideration should be given to guaranteeing enable a full consideration of the proposal; linkage for other modes of transport; § The lack of specific detail has prevented a full pedestrian / cyclist routes could come through Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in the “Tinnies” and down to Lifford Road; compliance with national and European law, § Access is needed from Strabane or Lifford which will result in adverse consequences for across the Lifford Road (the rivering project the environment. There are serious concerns is on the left). Could provision for a simple relating to proposed mitigation measures; crossing be made? § The proposal breaches the European Habitats Directive and the Conservation Regulations Departmental Response (NI); § Public consultation events were held in April 2008, July 2009 and November 2010 which § The proposed road alignment is not optimum were attended by 6,600 people. The project in engineering terms, and is not cost effective website and information line were extensively nor sustainable and fails to minimise the used by the public. Meetings with affected necessary landtake; landowners were held in autumn 2009 and § There has been limited consideration given between spring and summer 2010; to accessibility by other transport forms, in § The Scheme’s EIA process was carried out particular between Lifford and Strabane. in accordance with European Directives as In a verbal statement to the Inquiry Mr Kelly also transposed into Northern Ireland legislation. raised the following issues: EIAs and mitigation measures have been § Riverside Development is involved in a reported in the Environmental Statement; scheme for an employment park, hotel and § Appropriate proposed mitigation has leisure centre which has received planning been informed by detailed surveys and permission. The scheme is partly located assessments; under the proposed A5 route at Junction § The Scheme represents the optimum 4. Mr Kelly wanted to inform the Inquiry of combination of all the considered criteria, the progress made and the on-going efforts following rigorous and detailed consideration; to deliver the A5 and his client’s scheme § The land included in the draft Vesting Order is simultaneously. He stated that Clever Fulton considered to be essential. The length of 85km Rankin also represented his client, and that is considered insignificant when compared to they would generally classify themselves as the total length of the existing road network; supporters of the Scheme, not objectors. Riverside were anxious that their proposed § The Scheme does not prejudice initiatives development would integrate seamlessly with currently being considered by others. the A5WTC. Mr Kelly offered suggestions for In response to the matters raised by Mr Kelly, Mr some improvements; O’Reilly stated that the outcome of design matters § Careful thought should be given to materials, would be the decision of the Roads Service. methods of construction and lighting to ensure the bridge between Lifford and Strabane is more than just a piece of engineering;
127 Comment § Priority will be given to the new road in bad weather conditions leaving the existing one § We consider that the Department carried out treacherous; an acceptable consultation process; § Will current finances cover the cost of the § We accept the Department’s statement project and what happens when it runs over that the EIA process had complied with all budget? required directives and regulations; § The reduced journey times will come at § Considerations relating to public transport increasing speeds and will result in accidents proposals are beyond the remit of this Inquiry; and multiple fatalities; § We consider the Department has adequately § This road network will only serve those addressed the other matters raised in this travelling from Dublin to Donegal while other objection; sections of the infrastructure are in greater need of upgrade and would benefit all in the § Some of the matters raised in this objection North and those travelling from Donegal to are also dealt with in Chapter 6, including Dublin; lack of consultation and serious adverse environmental impact. § There will be a massive environmental cost to the area affecting protected species such as newts and possibly disrupting migratory birds; Objection by Mr & Mrs James Elliott § The road dissects the flood plain and is the Inquiry Reference: OA-1071 land west of the road to be sacrificed to the The objectors were represented by Brian Kelly sea? of Turley Associates and Cleaver Fulton Rankin, § The road is a severe injustice against those Solicitors. whose land it is to be built on. Comment Mr & Mrs Lowry also made a verbal submission to the Inquiry, in which the following additional points The matters raised in this objection were the were raised: same as those raised in Objection OA-1070 and, accordingly, our response is the same. § A full and proper economic agricultural assessment has not been carried out; Objection by Mrs Barbara Lowry § The current proposed route west of the A5 was initially rejected due to its impact on Inquiry Reference: OA-1072 archaeology and flood plains; § Public support for the road is questionable. Summary of Objection § A dual carriageway of this magnitude is not Departmental Response justified. Some sections of the existing road § On-line widening can be more difficult and have spare capacity, e.g. Victoria Bridge to expensive than off-line construction. The Omagh and sections between Omagh and alignment of the existing A5 is substandard. Ballygawley; Specific on-line improvements were § The cost / benefit ratio for the project is well considered and can be found in published below any benchmark set for the UK or Irish reports; Republic; § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway § There is no evidence that it will bring the jobs is exceeded over the majority of the route mentioned; except for the Ballygawley – Aughnacloy link. It is better to have consistency along the § This road will not address the safety concerns route from both an engineering and safety of the existing road, which will be left to locals perspective; given they will have no access to the new road; § A long term view has been taken of future traffic growth and forecasts from the Trip
128 End Model Program (TEMPRO) used indicate and outside the scope of this Inquiry; substantial growth in the future; § Following full assessments, and great § The benefit / cost ratio for the Proposed consideration to minimise impact on people, Scheme is compatible with the (unofficial) the proposed route did include the flood plain; criteria adopted by the Highways Agency § Often those in support of a project are a silent in England. Economics is only one factor majority. considered when deciding to progress a scheme; Comment § Improving the network of Key Transport § We consider the Department has adequately Corridors (KTC’s) is critical to the Northern addressed the matters raised in this Ireland economy, reflected in the Executive’s objection; Programme for Government; § Some of the other matters raised in § There will be 15 locations along the Proposed this objection have also been dealt with Route to provide easy access from all A & B in Chapter 6, including cost / benefit roads. Towns along the route will benefit from reductions in traffic levels with corresponding assessment, traffic levels, loss of agricultural improvements in safety, noise and air quality; productivity, agricultural impact assessments and environmental impact. § The Scheme will have no impact on the level of funding available by the Department for network maintenance; Objection by Mr David Lowry § The Scheme remains a priority for the Northern Inquiry Reference: OA-1073 Ireland Executive as indicated in the budget; § High standard dual carriageways have much Summary of Objection lower accident rates than single carriageways. § The objector’s land has been stolen from him The economic appraisal has predicated a and his compensation is paltry; substantial reduction in the number and cost § The volume of traffic does not justify the new of accidents in the area of the Scheme; road; § The Scheme will act as a catalyst for economic § The objector cannot remove soil from his own growth; land without paperwork; § Potential environmental impacts and § A dual carriageway of this magnitude is not mitigation measures have been reported in the justified. Some sections of the existing road Environmental Statement. The large majority have spare capacity, e.g. Victoria Bridge to of impacts would be effectively mitigated. The Omagh and sections between Omagh and assessments have demonstrated that it would Ballygawley; be unlikely that the Proposed Scheme would affect the integrity of statutory designated § There is a serious risk of all vehicles being sites, including the Foyle River Strategic Area blown off the road during periods of high of Conservation. At other sites identified, winds; where protected species are present, § There is a maintenance cost question for both mitigation is proposed in compliance with roads in poor weather; statutory obligations; § The road dissects the flood plain and there § The validity of the flood modelling approach is no real understanding of the effects of the has been accepted by the Rivers Agency. Scheme on the local water table; Connector structures have been incorporated § The Scheme is proposed with no respect for in the design to maintain flood plain local needs and environmental impacts; equilibrium; § Plans should change in the current economic § Agricultural assessments made relate to climate; issues of severance, fragmentation, impact on holdings and are not economic. Issues of § Upgrade is a compromise. economic impact are related to compensation
129 Departmental Response Objection by Messrs Aidan & James § The Department has powers to vest land McGonagle under the Roads Order (1993) and the Local Inquiry Reference: OA-1074 Government Act (1972). Compensation is considered by Land and Property Services; The objectors were represented by Thomas Donaghy of Frank Donaghy, Auctioneers Ltd. § On-line widening can be more difficult and expensive than off-line construction. The alignment of the existing A5 is substandard. Summary of Objection Specific on-line improvements were An upgrade of the current A5 would suffice, considered and can be found in published given the current traffic levels, the needs of the reports; environment and economic climate. § A Stage 1 Road Safety Audit has been completed. Should wind become an issue Departmental Response appropriate measures will be taken; § On-line widening can be more difficult and § Improving the network of Key Transport expensive than off-line due to the need to Corridors is critical to the Northern Ireland accommodate existing accesses, and the economy and is reflected in the Executive’s effect on adjacent property; Programme for Government; § The present traffic level on the A5 exceeds § The validity of the modelling approach the threshold for a dual carriageway, over the has been accepted by the Rivers Agency. majority of the A5 route; Connector structures have been incorporated § The environment will be protected and suitable in the design to maintain flood plain mitigation measures taken; equilibrium; § The Scheme is included in the Northern Ireland § The project will act as a catalyst for economic Executive’s Programme for Government, and growth. It is acknowledged that the Proposed budget provision made, thus reflecting the Scheme will impact on the environment and priority accorded to it. countryside. Potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures have been reported Comment in the Environmental Statement. The large majority of impacts would be effectively § We consider that the Departmental response mitigated. adequately addresses the matters raised in this objection; Comment § See also Chapter 6; § We recognise that the adverse impact of § We also note the Department’s response to the Scheme on some individuals is a very the environmental issues and further details emotive and personal issue and this is most can be found in the Environmental Statement. regrettable. However, the overall benefits of the Scheme would be significant in a wider Objection by Mr & Mrs John Lennox Northern Ireland context; Inquiry Reference: OA-1075 § We consider the Department has adequately addressed the matters raised in this The objector was represented by Mr Crawford objection; McCann of J Boggs, Estate Agents. § Some of the matters raised in this objection Summary of Objection have also been dealt with in Chapter 6, including traffic levels and environmental Land required only for temporary works should impact. be taken by legal agreement, and returned to landowners when construction is complete.
130 Departmental Response thus reducing the risk of accidents due to Roads Service is currently in discussion with movements in and out of private and public the Departmental solicitors regarding a leasing accesses and improving the quality of life for arrangement for land required temporarily. The inhabitants of the village; Department is sympathetic to Mr & Mrs Lennox’s § It is acknowledged that the Scheme would request. impact upon agricultural land and on the countryside. However, it is promoted in the Comment context of broader policies which address the future planning for the economy, development The request made by Mr & Mrs Lennox is a and infrastructure; reasonable one, and one articulated by a number § It is also acknowledged that it would have a of objectors. We note that the Department is moderate impact on the valley to the west of sympathetic to this request, and is consulting its New Buildings. The siting of the road along the solicitors as to the process to be used. river and using local landform would reduce the impact; Objection by Mr James Foster § The commencement of the A5WTC at New Inquiry Reference: OA-1076 Buildings is influenced by the wider strategy for Londonderry, including a possible A5 / Summary of Objection A6 link. However, such a potential link is not envisaged for several years and is outside the Mr Foster entered his objections on his own scope of the Inquiry; behalf and on behalf of the other residents of Carrowreagh Park and Edgewater, New Buildings. § This new bypass at New Buildings would cost approximately £4M but the long term cost / § The proposed riverside single carriageway benefits are £30M; between Junctions 1 and 2 is unnecessary and § The impacts are clearly set out in the unjustified use of public money; Environmental Statement. § This road is not justified by traffic levels and will damage the landscape, and will be Comment prejudicial to agricultural land; § We understand the concerns and objections § It would breach the unspoiled landscape of the residents of Carrowreagh Park and between New Buildings village and the Foyle Edgewater; we have visited the location. which is in the Area of High Scenic Value; However, we consider that after construction § No decision on this road should be made the residents would still have a pleasant view before the feasibility of a link from A5 south across the river to Donegal; of New Buildings to the A6 in the vicinity of Drumahoe, is known. § It is noted that the Department has undertaken to take all possible measures to In a verbal presentation to the Inquiry Mr Foster minimise the visual impact, to maintain the air also made the following additional points: quality and to reduce noise; § The road would serve no purpose in terms of § If the new carriageway was relocated to the the strategic road network in the Londonderry east, there would be extensive disturbance urban area; to residents and property. There would be § Improvement of the existing route through New similar difficulties if the existing route through Buildings would be a satisfactory alternative. the village was upgraded with increased safety risks; Departmental Response § See also our comments on New Buildings in § Consideration was given to the use of the Chapter 6. existing A5 through New Buildings. The proposal to bypass the village removes traffic,
131 Objection by Ms Helen McKean § Full and proper consideration has not been given to the impact of the Scheme on the Inquiry Reference: OA-1077 objector’s land; Summary of Objection § The objector will be unable to replace lands taken and this will have a major effect on his § The alteration of the Preferred Route farming enterprise. (Ballymagorry alternative) will now impact on the objector’s family farming enterprise truncating and destroying it. This alteration Departmental Response goes beyond the 20m buffer zone and § On-line widening can be more difficult and emanates from maladministration by DRD expensive than off-line construction. The Roads Service. It results from objections by alignment of the existing A5 is substandard; other farmers significantly affected by the § The Department will pay all reasonable Preferred Route. agent’s fees following a recommendation of § The road is not needed; acceptance by the Land & Property Services, § The planners have not considered the effects who are responsible for the agreement and on people and wildlife. approval of fees; § If additional expertise is sought, clear need Departmental Response must be shown and prior approval sought from § It was stated in the published documents that the Department. The Department’s policy on the Preferred Route could change; awarding costs is similar to that applicable in Great Britain. Reasonable and relevant costs § Since July 2009 a number of alternatives have been considered as a result of additional incurred by an objector are reimbursable information from a variety of sources. The only where the objector has the threat of alternative adopted was more favourable than compulsory acquisition removed from his land; the Preferred Route when assessed using the § The Agricultural Impact Assessment reported five key criteria; in the Environmental Statement resulted from § This project will act as a catalyst for economic an assessment by an experienced independent growth; consultant, site visits and discussion between the objector and the expert advisor. § Environmental impact assessments and mitigation measures are reported in the Environmental Statement. The large majority Comment of adverse impacts would be effectively § We consider that the Department has mitigated. adequately addressed the issues raised in this objection; Comment § See also Chapter 6. We consider that the Department has adequately addressed the issues raised in this objection. Objection by Mr Aidan McGonagle Objection by Mr Geoffrey L Rankin Inquiry Reference: OA-1079 Inquiry Reference: OA-1078 Summary of Objection The objector was represented by Mr Alan Burns of § The proposed road will traverse many Areas Burns & Co Commercial. of Outstanding Natural Beauty such as the Mourne Valley and will destroy Sollus Hill at Summary of Objection Bready and will adversely affect those living along the route; § An upgrade of the existing A5 would suffice; § An upgrade of the existing road would be § The lack of funds available to landowners to more sensible. fight the Scheme is unfair – where are their human rights?
132 Departmental Response § The overall impact on the economic well being § Environmental impact assessments and of the farming industry in County Tyrone has mitigation measures are reported in the been almost totally disregarded; Environmental Statement. The vast majority of § There are numerous businesses along the A5 impacts would be effectively mitigated; which will suffer if this project is allowed § On-line widening can be more difficult and to proceed. expensive than off-line construction. The alignment on the existing A5 is substandard. Departmental Response Landtake and associated costs for an on-line § The assessment of the route options and the 2+1 carriageway could be more than that for determinations of the Preferred Route are set an off-line dual carriageway. out in the Preferred Options Report; § Climate change and concerns such as self Comment sufficiency form an important part of the § We consider that the Department has dealt decision making process; adequately with the matters raised in this § It is acknowledged that the A5WTC, as a objection. component of wider strategies, would be one § The matters relating to environmental impacts of the projects contributing to an increase in and on-line widening are dealt with in further emissions; detail in Chapter 6. § The UK takes a long term view of traffic growth and publishes its forecasts in a computer Objection by Mr John Dunbar program, the Trip End Model Program, which is constantly updated to take account of trends; Inquiry Reference: OA-1080 § The Northern Ireland Executive included a dual Summary of Objection carriageway in its Programme for Government and made provision for it in its budget, § Loss of precious carbon sink. Global warming reflecting the priority accorded to this project; and man assisted climate change will affect us all, including our ability to feed ourselves; § Whilst consideration was given to upgrading the existing A5, this would be more costly, § Loss of food producing vegetation; mainly due to the need to accommodate the § It is sinful to permanently destroy fine many existing accesses. More demolition agricultural land when a clear alternative had would be necessary and the engineering and been planned two or three years ago; safety risks during construction would be § In the light of falling vehicle densities, an greater; upgrade of the existing A5 would be more § As illustrated, a 2+1 on-line road would appropriate; require more landtake than an off-line dual § It is sad that we have a transport department carriageway; “hell bent” on building an 80km road linking § The provision of improved infrastructure two villages, Ballygawley and New Buildings, does contribute positively to economic neither of which is of economic significance. regeneration and this is reflected in the Mr Dunbar made a verbal presentation to the Executive’s Programme for Government Inquiry which included the following additional and many policy documents including the points: Regional Development Strategy and Regional Transportation Strategy; § The most sensible option is a 2+1 upgrade of the A5 and this has not been properly § It is acknowledged that the A5WTC will have considered; impacts on businesses along the A5 route and on agricultural holdings. Every effort will be § A modest 2+1 upgrade would save a lot of the made to mitigate these impacts. 3000+ acres to be lost from food producing farmland. It would also avoid severance of farms;
133 Comment § A 2+1 solution would require more landtake than an off-line dual carriageway, due mainly § We consider that the Department was to the need to mainstream the many existing constrained by its brief from the Programme accesses; for Government for a dual carriageway; § There are many benefits associated with § The Department concluded that on-line the A5WTC but it is recognised that some dualling could be more expensive and cause businesses, property owners and farmers will more disruption than off-line; We consider be adversely affected. However, the overall that although there was not any detailed benefits far exceed the individual disbenefits; costing to support this theory, there are § The existing A5 will continue to be maintained strong arguments to suggest that the theory but due to the transfer of traffic to the new is valid; road, it is expected that its maintenance § Equally, we consider that there is no evidence requirements will be reduced; to show that it would be less expensive, § The A5WTC will have no impact on the level although the Department was probably of funding for maintenance of the network, correct in not spending considerable sums of including salting in winter. public money on full costing; § See also our comments in Chapter 6. Comment § We consider that the Departmental response Objection by Mr Patrick McNamee has adequately addressed the concerns Inquiry Reference: OA-1082 raised in this objection; The objector was represented by Mr Alan Burns of § See also Chapter 6. Burns & Co Commercial. Objection by Ms Carol Porter Summary of Objection Inquiry Reference: OA-1083 § It is a disgrace for both North and South to spend this money in hard times. Some of Summary of Objection the money would be better used to improve § The Preferred Route displayed at a meeting in the smaller roads, attract tourists and assist the Silverbirch Hotel in July 2009 was a clever smaller country businesses; amalgamation of routes, a deceitful move; § All that is needed is an extra lane for passing § Compensation will never be adequate to make on the A5; up for loss of livelihood and the resulting stress § Small farmers will suffer whilst the new road and worry. Compensation will be taxable is for the rich city dweller who will be able to unless re-invested within 3 years; afford to motor at high speeds despite the § This Scheme is not financially viable, and is increasing cost of fuel. Who will pay for the salt unwise at a time of financial stringency. The for this road in winter? money would be better spent on hospitals and § The existing A5 should be upgraded. schools; § Was thought given to a major upgrade, a rail Departmental Response link, etc? § The Northern Ireland Executive has included § Can another country demand land vested in a dual carriageway in its Programme for another jurisdiction? Government and made provision for it in the Executive’s budget, reflecting the priority § The tourist industry will be adversely affected accorded to this project by Government; by this blot on the landscape; § Upgrading the existing A5 to dual carriageway § The Scheme will increase traffic problems standards would be more costly and cause between New Buildings and Londonderry; more disturbance than the off-line proposal;
134 § Concerns about CO2 emissions; § The A5WTC lies entirely within Northern Ireland § If the A5WTC proceeds, will the existing A5 be and Northern Ireland legislation would apply to gritted in winter? all aspects of the Scheme; § The new road would benefit only a small § Provision / improvement of infrastructure percentage of local traffic; contributes positively to economic regeneration of the region. Assessments have § Effects on wildlife; shown that there would be no direct impacts § It is against the law to destroy badger setts, on tourism related assets, though there would such as in Mulvin Woods; be a large adverse impact on the setting of § Other creatures such as owls will have their Harry Avery’s Castle; habitats destroyed; § It is not expected that the A5WTC will cause § The built heritage is also at risk; any increase in congestion at either end of the route. Time savings would generate substantial § Rock from Cavanacaw Goldmine is economic benefits on existing roads which contaminated and should not be used; would be relieved by the new road; § How is it that Mouchel is allowed to plan this § Upgrading the existing A5 would not realise road and do the Environmental Assessment for the accident reductions that the A5WTC is this project? estimated to achieve; Departmental Response § Climate change commitments form an important part of the decision making § At the Route Options exhibition in February process when national strategies for the 2009 it was emphasised that the Preferred economy, development and infrastructure are Route may be one of the route options, a considered; combination of sections from more than one route. The Preferred Route announcement § It is the case that some components are in July 2009 made it clear that it would be focused on a reduction in emissions whilst it subject to further development; is accepted that others, such as the A5WTC, would contribute to an increase; § It is recognised that the construction of a new road can cause anxiety and stress for § Winter service throughout the road network will those affected. A number of measures has continue to be delivered in accordance with been undertaken to alleviate the impacts by established policies; providing regular communication of Scheme § The proposed road has junctions at 15 information; locations, providing easy access from all A & B § Roads Service cannot comment on capital class routes; gains tax matters; § It is acknowledged that the proposal would § The Northern Ireland Executive included involve loss of natural resources and specific the dual carriageway in its Programme for impacts on flora and fauna. However, the Government and made provision for it in its Scheme is promoted in the context of broader capital budget, thus reflecting the priority policies which address the future planning for accorded to the project by Government; the economy, development and infrastructure; § The Benefit Cost Ratio is compatible with § The assessments relative to nature the criteria adopted by highways agencies conservation are set out in the Environmental in England. Economics is only one of several Statement (ES). They show that the Scheme factors which are considered when deciding to would be unlikely to affect the integrity of progress a scheme; statutory designated sites. Where there is potential for impacts on non-designated sites, § The landtake for an on-line 2+1 would be mitigating measures will be taken; more than that required for an off-line dual carriageway, mainly due to the additional parallel roads to accommodate the many accesses along the route;
135 § It is acknowledged that the loss of Castletown Departmental Response House is regrettable but unavoidable. § The Northern Ireland Executive’s Programme Mitigation in the form of detailed recording for Government prescribed a dual carriageway. will be conducted to ensure that there is a To upgrade the existing A5 to a dual permanent record. Where the Scheme is carriageway would be more expensive and located close to sites and features of cultural cause more disturbance and more demolition heritage value, the design seeks to reduce than the proposed off-line road; potential impact; § There will be many benefits resulting from § No contaminated material from any source will the A5WTC but it is recognised that some be used; business owners, property owners and farmers § It is not accepted that this project has been will be adversely affected. Overall, the benefits influenced by construction companies or far exceed individual disbenefits; Scheme consultants. § The Scheme is promoted in the context of broader policies which address the future Comment planning for the economy, development and § Compensation is outside the scope of this infrastructure; Inquiry; § Assessments have shown that the Scheme § A rail link is outside the scope of this Inquiry; would have a substantial impact on 52 farms, a moderate impact on 67 and slight impact on § We must accept the assurances, given at 163. All possible steps will be taken to reduce the Inquiry, that no contaminated materials the landtake and to mitigate the impacts on from Cavanacaw Goldmine or elsewhere will the countryside. be used in the Scheme. Roads Service must be open and transparent on the testing of Comment materials to reassure the public; § We consider that the matters raised in this § Personal taxation issues are not for objection have been adequately addressed consideration by this Inquiry; by the Departmental response; § We have seen no evidence to question § We note the assurances given by the the professional integrity of the Scheme Department that landtake will be reduced consultants in their work on the ES; where possible and that mitigation measures § See also Chapter 6. will be taken to minimise impacts on agriculture and the countryside; Objection by Mr & Mrs Crawford § See also Chapter 6. McFarland Inquiry Reference: OA-1084 Objection by Mrs Hazel Henderson Inquiry Reference: OA-1085 Summary of Objection § Strongly object to the proposal. It is not Summary of Objection needed. A more cost effective proposal would § The road will destroy many acres of good be to upgrade the existing A5, particularly in a farmland and will sever some, making severe economic recession; them unviable; § It may give short term employment during § If the road is to be on the Tyrone side of the construction, but it will have far reaching Foyle, it would have to be on an embankment severe consequences for the long term as the land on the east will be very acidic. How agricultural industry. many bridges will be built to let farmers work their land on both sides?
136 § Cattle cannot be driven long distances on (iv) Full cost of crossing; a regular basis. How many engineers and (v) Extent of severance. planners underestimated the needs § Roads Service believes that the access of agriculture? provision for farmers throughout the Scheme is § There is not enough traffic to justify this road, adequate but will continue to discuss areas of which by the time it is built could double concern with a view to finding resolutions; in cost; § An agricultural specialist provided advice and § A more realistic option would be to upgrade support with respect to farming operations. the present A5 to three lanes. The ES details the outcome of the agricultural Mrs Henderson also made a verbal presentation to assessments undertaken; the Inquiry which included the following additional § The Northern Ireland Executive’s Programme points: for Government prescribed a dual carriageway § Agriculture is a main industry and all available and has provided for it in its budget, thus agricultural land is needed for food production reflecting the priority accorded to this Scheme as the world population is rising; by the Executive; § This new road will demolish everything in its § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway is path and spoil tourism; already exceeded over most of the existing A5; § How much money has been spent on this § The landtake and associated costs for a 2+1 project to date? carriageway on the line of the existing A5 would be more than required for an off-line Departmental Response dual carriageway, as proposed, with greater benefits and reduced safety risks; § It is acknowledged that the Scheme would involve loss of agricultural land and specific § Great care has been taken and will continue to impacts on farm holdings. It would have a be taken to mitigate the impacts on farmland, substantial impact on 52 farm holdings, a the community and the environment. New moderate impact on 67 and a slight impact opportunities for tourism and other enterprises on 163; will open up; § The Scheme is promoted in the context of § £34M has been spent so far on the planning of broader policies which address the future this project; planning and infrastructure. The order of § The Department has consulted all relevant overall loss and impact on individual holdings statutory bodies, including the Northern Ireland is detailed in the Environmental Statement Environment Agency. There has been no (ES); substantial objection from them. More details § The Scheme has been processed through a of the mitigation measures can be found in programme of development and consideration the ES. of alternatives based on 5 key criteria; safety, economic, environmental, integration and Comment accessibility. It has proved most favourable § We consider that the Department has when measured against the criteria; adequately addressed the concerns raised in § The main criteria for providing farm this objection; accommodation crossings are: § It is noted that discussions about bridges and (i) The needs of the farm; underpasses will continue with farmers and (ii) The availability and convenience of other others, seeking satisfactory resolution in each means of access; case; (iii) The other uses to which a bridge or underpass § See also Chapter 6. might be put;
137 Objection by Mr Fleming McFarland, § The existing A5 could be modestly upgraded Frances McFarland & Ms Joy at a fraction of the cost of the A5WTC leaving Krammer substantial funds available for other road works; Inquiry Reference: OA-1086 § The Department has not given adequate The objectors were represented by James consideration to the environmental impact of McFarland of McFarland Graham McCombe, the road; Solicitors. § No assessment has been done by the Department within its own resources of that Summary of Objection impact, in particular the unique fauna, wildlife, § The proposed Vesting Order is ultra vires in wetlands and peat bogs. There is virtually that the road is to facilitate traffic between two no assessment regarding interference with parts of an adjoining state. It could only be drainage and discharge of surface water, justified if it brings benefits to the population of disposal of excavated material, pollution of Northern Ireland; streams and rivers; § With limited access points for local traffic, a § There has been virtually no assessment considerable proportion of traffic presently regarding the visual impact and the aspect of using the A5 will be obliged to continue to existing listed dwellings; use it; § The road will cause hardship to farmers. § The road is primarily a politically induced Over 400 farms will be affected at a time of project, influenced by the contribution economic difficulty; promised by the Irish Government; § The project will have a severe impact on § The Department has not caused an the local economy. Small businesses on the Environmental Assessment to be carried out existing A5 and many farmers will probably fail; by an independent consultation body; § Departmental spokesmen have misrepresented § The extent and impact of the road will infringe that compensation will be on a generous scale; human rights; § Farmers are being forced to employ experts § The holding of a Public Inquiry has been and legal services to protect their heritage by pre-empted by decisions made at a political representations to the Public Inquiry. meeting in St Andrews in 2009; Mr James McFarland also made a verbal § The Project has been pre-ordained by the presentation to the Inquiry making the following award of construction contracts before the additional points: Inquiry has issued its report; § Concern about the number of roads to be § The Minister is not a fit and proper person to stopped-up and the effect this will have on make an objective assessment, or to decide on the two parts of County Tyrone, divided by the the Inspectors’ Report. Such a decision should new road; be made by the Northern Ireland Assembly in plenary session; § Possible upgrading of the existing A5 has not been properly examined or costed. § Current traffic on the A5 falls short of that which would justify a dual carriageway; Departmental Response § The road would sever and gravely impair § The A5WTC lies entirely within Northern Ireland existing communication amongst and between and Northern Ireland legislation applies; dispersed rural communities; § The proposed road has 15 junctions which § Projections of future traffic flows predict no will provide easy access from all A & B class long term sustained increase; routes; § The expense of this road will consume the § The dual carriageway is prescribed in the finance which is needed for urgent road repairs Northern Ireland Executive’s Programme for in the Province; Government and provided for in its budget,
138 thus reflecting the priority accorded to it by the consideration in the ES to issues such as Executive; dispersal of excavated material and possible § It is recognised that provision / improvement pollution of streams and rivers; of infrastructure contributes to economic § The proposals allow for the safeguarding of regeneration of the region. This project will act flood plain capacity and characteristics as well as a catalyst for economic growth; as the species associated with them; § The Department is answerable to all relevant § It is acknowledged that the Scheme would legislation and is satisfied that all legal and impact on the countryside. Integration into statutory obligations have been complied with; the differing landscape types has been an § Roads Service has completed a human rights important consideration in planning, design assessment which recognises that the Scheme and the assessment process. The assessment will have an adverse impact on some land and concluded that 68.5% of the corridor would property owners; be sufficiently well integrated that the impact would be slight, against only 7% which would § The contractors’ scope during this stage be subject to large adverse impact, allowing is limited to providing advice and support. for mitigation; There is a break in their contracts to ensure that construction does not commence until § It is also accepted that the project would successful completion of statutory procedures have impacts on agricultural land and farm and approval of the business case by the businesses. However, the Scheme is being Department of Finance and Personnel; promoted in the context of broader policies which address the future planning for the § Reliable forecasts, using the Trip End Model economy, development and infrastructure. Program, indicate a growth in traffic; Measures are proposed to address issues of § The A5WTC would have no impact on the severance; funding for maintenance of the road network. § There are many benefits to flow from the An additional 85km is insignificant in relation to A5WTC but it is acknowledged that some the total length of the existing road network; businesses and property owners will be § A 2+1 road would require greater landtake, adversely affected. However, on balance, it with associated costs, than a dual carriageway, is considered that the benefits far exceed the mainly due to the necessity to provide disbenefits; additional parallel roads to accommodate the § Reasonable and relevant costs incurred by many accesses on the A5 route. In any case, an objector attending or being represented the Programme for Government specifies a at an Inquiry are reimbursable only where dual carriageway; that person has had the threat of compulsory § The Department is satisfied that the acquisition removed. Environmental Statement (ES) was properly researched and provides the relevant Comment information; § Including this Project in the Programme § The assessments have identified locations for Government indicates support for the where there would be impacts on habitats and concept; the mitigation measures are set out in the ES; § After the Inquiry Report is submitted to the § It is acknowledged that the A5WTC would Department, it is not for is to indicate how the cross rivers and many watercourses and process should be taken forward; drainage ditches. The design measures and construction methods recognise their § Matters of compensation and interpretation importance in terms of water quality and of human rights legislation are not for the habitats. A study has concluded that potential Inquiry; impacts would be well mitigated; § The Department has given extensive
139 § We do not consider that our Report is not § Various businesses along the existing A5 will relevant. We accept the Minister’s assurance be severely impacted; that he will await our Report before making a § Insufficient consultation with affected final decision; landowners. § We consider the other objections raised have been addressed by the Departmental Departmental Response response; § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway is exceeded over most of the existing A5; § See also Chapter 6. § The proposed road has junctions at 15 Objection by Mr Mervyn Porter locations which will provide easy access from all A & B roads; Inquiry Reference: OA-1087 § The Northern Ireland Executive has included The objector was represented by Mr James the dual carriageway in its Programme for McFarland, of McFarland Graham McCombe Government, and in its budget, thus reflecting Solicitors. its high priority within the Executive;
The matters raised in this objection are identical to § The existing A5 will continue to be properly those raised in objection OA-1086. maintained but maintenance costs will be reduced by the transfer of traffic to the A5WTC; Objection by Messrs Brian & Richard Pinkerton § On-line widening of the A5 would be more difficult and costly than off-line, as Inquiry Reference: OA-1089 proposed. This is mainly due to the need to accommodate the many existing accesses on The objectors were represented by Mr Kevin the A5. Demolition of property and landtake McCauley of J G Fleming LLP, Estate Agent. are likely to be greater for the former; Summary of Objection § It is acknowledged that the Scheme would § Does the volume of traffic justify a dual involve impacts on the environment and carriageway? countryside, but it is promoted in the context of broader policies which address the § There will be limited access or exit points for economy, development and infrastructure; local traffic; § Environmental impacts have been assessed § Difficult to justify the costs in a period of in the Environmental Statement (ES), which economic uncertainly, and cuts in other public also describes mitigation measures to be put services; in place. The ES demonstrates that whilst in § Both old and new roads will require some areas the impacts will be of a high order, maintenance which will reduce the funds the large majority of impacts will be effectively available for work to other roads; mitigated; § A detailed examination of other options, § It is not agreed that the Scheme would have a including improvements to existing A5, do not devastating effect on wildlife. The assessments appear to have been considered; conclude that whilst there would be impacts § There will be a severe impact on the in a small number of locations, these would environment; not be significant in the context of nature conservation. Details can be found in the ES; § The road will devastate wildlife; § A greater number of receptors will experience § It will result in increased noise and pollution generally a reduction of 3 decibels, or more, from vehicle emissions; than would experience increases of 3 decibels § Hardship will be caused to farmers at a time of or more; already difficult circumstances;
140 § It is accepted that the dual carriageway Objection by Mr Robert Baskin will have an impact on views currently experienced. 68.5% of the corridor would have Inquiry Reference: OA-1091 only slight impacts, compared to 7% which will suffer large adverse impact; Summary of Objection § It is recognised that the Scheme would have The matter raised in this Objection was deemed to a substantial impact on 52 farms, a moderate be of a local nature and is dealt with in Chapter 8. impact on 67, and a slight impact on 163; § From the start of the Scheme, the Department Objection by Mr & Mrs David has made extensive efforts to have meaningful Matthews consultation with all concerned. Over 6,600 Inquiry Reference: OA-1092 people attended public events. The A5WTC Helpline and website have been widely used. The objectors were represented by Mr Kevin McCauley of J G Fleming LLP, Estate Agents. Comment § The A5WTC is prescribed by Government as Summary of Objection a dual carriageway. We are satisfied with the The objection is identical to OA-1049. explanation given by the Department why it has to be off-line; Objection by Mr Timothy Sproule § Whilst it is acknowledged that there will be Inquiry Reference: OA-1093 adverse impacts on the environment and The objector was represented by Mr Kevin countryside, we note that the Department has McCauley of J G Fleming LLP, Estate Agents. undertaken to minimise these impacts by all possible means. Summary of Objection § Whether the A5WTC should proceed in the present financial climate is ultimately a matter The objection is identical to OA-1049. for the Northern Ireland Executive. § There have been several adverse comments Objection by Mr & Mrs Raymond on the consultation process but, in the main McKinley and despite some failings, the relevant Inquiry Reference: OA-1094 messages have been, and are being, The objector was represented by Mr Kevin delivered to those affected. McCauley of J G Fleming LLP, Estate Agents. § All the benefits and disbenefits of the Scheme must be weighed against the greater public Summary of Objection good. The objection is identical to OA-1049. Objection by Mr & Mrs Joseph Gallagher Objection by Mr William Thomas Beggs Inquiry Reference: OA-1090 Inquiry Reference: OA-1095 The objectors were represented by Mr Kevin The objector was represented by Mr Kevin McCauley of J G Fleming LLP Estate Agents. McCauley of J G Fleming LLP, Estate Agents. The matters raised in this objection are dealt with in detail in Chapter 5.2. Summary of Objection The objection is identical to OA-1049.
141 Objection by Mr & Mrs Objection by Messrs David, Frank Maguire William & Arthur Dunbar Inquiry Reference: OA-1096 Inquiry Reference: OA-1097 The objectors were represented by Mr Alan Burns Summary of Objection of Burns & Co Commercial. § The Scheme proposed a minimal approach on environmental issues; Summary of Objection § There was an absence of consultation; § The Scheme is unnecessary and an upgrade § There is a lack of provision for (a) low-noise of the existing A5 would suffice; surfacing on ancillary roads, roundabouts, slip § The lack of funds available to landowners roads, etc. and (b) noise mitigation measures to fight the Scheme is unfair. This is an such as earth bunding, etc; infringement of human rights; § Beltany Road should be dualled. § Full and proper consideration has not been given to the impact of the Scheme on the Departmental Response objectors’ lands and business; § All statutory requirements had been complied § General concerns related to the viability of with in preparing the Environmental Statement farming, noise, pollution, privacy and quality (ES); of life. § It had held a series of public consultation events, had produced information brochures Departmental Response and set up telephone information lines and a § The project will act as a catalyst for economic web site. With regard to the proposed Junction growth; 11, discussions were necessary only with § On-line widening can be more difficult and landowners affected; expensive than off-line construction. The § There is no commitment to provide low- alignment on the existing A5 is substandard; noise surfacing on roads other than the dual § The Department’s policy on awarding costs is carriageway. As noise levels along the route similar to that applicable in Great would not exceed 68 decibels (one of the indicators in the Noise Insulation Regulations) § Britain. Reasonable and relevant costs further mitigation measures would not be incurred by an objector are reimbursable required; only where the objector had the threat of compulsory acquisition removed ; Comment § The Agricultural Impact Assessment reported in the Environmental Statement resulted from § We have commented on noise issues and on an assessment by an experienced independent upgrading the existing A5 in Chapter 6; consultant, site visits and discussion between § In the absence of any reference to the objectors and the expert advisor. specific instances of the inadequacy of the Environmental Impact Assessment Comment and proposed mitigation measures we are We consider the Department has adequately satisfied in general terms with the ES. We addressed the issues raised in this objection. are content with the Department’s response in relation to low-noise surfacing on ancillary roads.
142 Objection by Mr Robert McKinley, Mr § We note that at design stage where any & Mrs David McKinley maintenance strips could be dispensed with, the draft Vesting Order would be amended Inquiry Reference: OA-1098 accordingly. We encourage stringent The objectors were represented by Mr Alan Burns examination of this issue in order to minimise of Burns & Co Commercial. landtake.
Summary of Objection Objection by Mr and Mrs Nicholas § The route between Omagh and McKinley Newtownstewart was not the best option. Inquiry Reference: OA-1099 The road could be constructed between the existing road and the Strule River; The objectors were represented by Mr Alan Burns of Burns & Co Commercial. § Insufficient attention was paid to issues of human impact and agricultural impact; Summary of Objection § There was no need to vest land for maintenance strips as powers of access were The objection is identical to OA-1098. available. An assurance was sought that only land required for construction of the new road Objection by Mr Derek Longwell would be vested. Inquiry Reference: OA-1100 Departmental Response The objectors were represented by Mr A Burns of § One of the factors in determining the route Burns & Co Commercial. between Omagh and Newtownstewart was to obtain an earthworks balance i.e. material Summary of Objection gained from cutting could be utilised within the The objection is identical to OA-1098. Scheme; § Routing the road between the existing road Objection by Mr Caldwell McAskie and the Strule River would impact on the Strule Special Area of Conservation. Also, Inquiry Reference: OA-1101 assessment of buildability impacts would raise The objector was represented by Mr Robert doubts about the viability of such a route; Pollock of RA Pollock, Estate Agent & Valuer. § The maintenance strips are required for (a) Although Mr McAskie’s objection was submitted pre-earthworks drainage, (b) to protect the to the Strategic Inquiry all of the issues raised boundary and (c) to protect the integrity of the were local in nature and, consequently, are dealt earthworks. If, at detailed design stage, it is with in Chapter 8. determined that any maintenance strips are not needed the land would be omitted from the Objection by Mr Ian & Ms Sarah Vesting Order. Gilmour Comment Inquiry Reference: OA-1102 The objectors were represented by Mr § We are satisfied that (a) an adequate Robert Pollock of RA Pollock, Estate Agent & assessment of alternative routes was carried Valuer. out, taking all factors into account and (b) the provision of maintenance strips as described Although Mr & Ms Gilmour’s objection was would not be excessive; submitted to the Strategic Inquiry all of the issues raised were local in nature and, consequently, are dealt with in Chapter 8.
143 Objection by Mr Derek Colhoun Comment Inquiry Reference: OA-1103 § While the objectors may not agree with The objector was represented by Mr Robert the specific findings of the agricultural Pollock of RA Pollock, Estate Agent & assessment, we are satisfied that the Valuer. Department has taken cognisance of farmers’ interests and the agricultural industry in Summary of Objection preparing the Environmental Statement; The realignment of the original Preferred Route § See also Chapter 6. has had a major impact on the objector’s farm due to landtake area and proximity to farm buildings. Objection by Mr Sean Bradley Inquiry Reference: OA-1105 Departmental Response The objector was represented by Mr Alan Burns of Since July 2009 a number of alternatives Burns & Co Commercial. have been considered as a result of additional information. Those adopted compared more favourably than the Preferred Route using five key Summary of Objection assessment criteria. Upgrading the existing A5 would cater for the increase in traffic. Comment Departmental Response This is substantially a local matter and we § Widening of the existing A5 to dual consider that the Department has adequately carriageway could be more difficult and addressed the issue of realignment of the expensive than off-line construction; Preferred Route. § The alignment of the existing A5 is substandard. Objection by Messrs James & David Crosbie Comment Inquiry Reference: OA-1104 The upgrading of the existing A5 is dealt with in The objectors were represented by Mr Thomas detail in Chapter 6. Donaghy of Frank Donaghy Auctioneers Ltd. Objection by Messrs Gordon & Summary of Objection Aubrey Smyth The Department had taken no account of farmers Inquiry Reference: OA-1106 or of the agricultural industry in preparing the Scheme. The objectors were represented by Mr Alan Burns of Burns & Co Commercial. Departmental Response Summary of Objection An impact on agricultural holdings was undertaken by an independent consultant and reported on in § No necessity for the Scheme; the Environmental Statement. The consultant had § Unfairness to landowners in respect of costs visited the objectors’ farm and had discussions to fight the proposal; with their agent. § Unlikely to find replacement land convenient to farm. Mr Gordon Smyth and Mr Ross Smyth also made a verbal presentation to the hearing which included the following additional points:
144 § A lesser scheme would meet the Department’s Summary of Objection aims and objectives; § The Scheme is not necessary. An upgrade to § Pollution and devastating effects on fish the existing A5 would suffice; stocks; § Concern at the unfairness shown to § Possible use of contaminated material from landowners who have to bear the cost of Cavanacaw mine. fighting this proposal whilst Roads Service seems to have the funds to employ a whole Departmental Response range of experts. Where are the human rights § The Northern Ireland Executive has included in this? the Scheme in its Programme for Government, and in its budget, indicating the priority Departmental Response accorded to the A5WTC. At the North South § The Northern Ireland Executive prescribed Ministerial Council meeting on the 21st of a dual carriageway in its Programme for January 2011, the Taoiseach confirmed the Government, and made provision for it in its commitment of Irish Government to the budget, thus reflecting the priority accorded Scheme; to it. The A5WTC will act as a catalyst for § Reasonable and relevant costs are only economic growth; reimbursable where a threat of compulsory § On-line widening would be more difficult and acquisition is removed; costly, and would cause greater disruption and § There are no statutory powers allowing the property demolition to accommodate the many acquiring authority to provide replacement existing accesses; land; § Reasonable and relevant costs incurred by § A lesser scheme would not meet the an objector attending or being represented requirements of the Programme for at an Inquiry are reimbursable only where Government; that person had the threat of compulsory acquisition removed. § The Environmental Statement recognises possible adverse effects on fish, and indicates the mitigation measures to be undertaken; Comment § No contaminated material would be used in § We consider that the Departmental response the Scheme. has adequately addressed the concerns raised in this objection; Comment § See also Chapter 6. § See our comments in Chapter 6 on alternative (lesser) schemes, and on contaminated Objection by Mr Gerard Devine material from Cavanacaw mine; Inquiry Reference: OA-1108 § In all other respects, we consider that the § The objector was represented by Mr Alan Departmental response has adequately Burns of Burns & Co Commercial. addressed the concerns raised in this objection. Summary of Objection § An upgrade to the existing A5 would suffice; Objection by Mr Raymond Crosbie § Concern about the unfairness shown to Inquiry Reference: OA-1107 landowners who have to bear the cost of The objector was represented by Mr Alan Burns of fighting this proposal whilst Roads Service Burns & Co Commercial. seems to have the funds to employ a whole range of experts. Where are our human rights in this? § Unlikely to find replacement lands within the vicinity. 145 Departmental Response § Reasonable and relevant representation § The Northern Ireland Executive specified costs are only reimbursable where a threat of a dual carriageway in its Programme for compulsory acquisition is removed; Government, and made provision for it in its § Removal of hedges is a matter for landowners budget, thus reflecting the priority accorded to to seek DARD approval; this project; § Temporarily acquired land, when returned, will § On-line widening would be more difficult and have been restored to agricultural standards. costly, and would cause greater disruption and demolition of property to accommodate the Comment many existing accesses; § We consider that the Departmental response § Reasonable and relevant costs incurred by has adequately addressed the concerns an objector attending or being represented raised in this objection; at an Inquiry are reimbursable only where that person had the threat of compulsory § See also Chapter 6. acquisition removed; § There are no statutory powers to allow the Objection by Mrs Olive Wauchob Department to provide replacement land. Inquiry Reference: OA-1110 The objector was represented by Mr Kevin Comment McCauley of J G Fleming LLP, Estate Agents. § We consider that the Departmental response has adequately addressed the concerns Summary of Objection raised in this objection; The objection is identical to OA-1062. § See also Chapter 6. Objection by Mr Edward Harvey Objection by Mr Robin Sterritt Inquiry Reference: OA-1111 Inquiry Reference: OA-1109 The objector was represented by Mr Kevin The objector was represented by Mr Alan Burns of McCauley of J G Fleming LLP, Estate Agents. Burns & Co Commercial. Summary of Objection Summary of Objection Objects to the route. § No necessity for the Scheme; § Unfairness to landowners in respect of costs Departmental Response to fight the proposal; § The Scheme has been through a phased § Removal of hedges to help field size; programme of development, leading to the § State of temporarily acquired land when Preferred Route. Alignment designs, including returned. alternatives, were considered, based on five key criteria: safety, economic, environment, Departmental Response integration and accessibility. The Scheme has proved most favourable when measured § The Northern Ireland Executive has included against these criteria; the Scheme in its Programme for Government, and in its budget, indicating the priority § The A5WTC has been assessed and accorded to the A5WTC. At the North designed to Design Manual for Roads & South Ministerial Council meeting on 21st Bridges standards published through the January 2011, the Taoiseach confirmed the Environmental Statement, and draft orders. commitment of the Irish Government to the Scheme;
146 Comment § Personal contact has been made with all affected land and property owners, and in We consider that the Departmental response has many cases, their views and concerns have adequately addressed the concerns raised in this been reflected in the design; objection. § The Scheme is included in the Northern Ireland Executive’s Programme for Government, and Objection by Mr Alan & Mrs Heather in its budget, reflecting the priority attached to Kemps the A5WTC at Government level. Inquiry Reference: OA-1112 During the Hearing on 12th May 2011, the Department’s representatives expressed sympathy Summary of Objection with Mr & Mrs Kemps, especially in relation to the § Injustice of the Scheme; loss of their home and assured the Inquiry that this was unavoidable if the Scheme were to proceed. § Lack of respect for those affected; § Inadequate compensation; Comment § Lack of communication with those affected; § Mr & Mrs Kemps articulated their concerns § Justification for dual carriageway; with great dignity and we very much regret § Were alternatives researched? the potential loss of their home. Nevertheless, § Mr & Mrs Kemps also made a verbal we accept that this is unavoidable in the submission to the Hearing which included the circumstances; following additional points: § Compensation, and human rights issues, are § They are to lose their home, some land, and outside the scope of this Inquiry; will endure the dual carriageway, slip roads, § In all other aspects we consider that the major junction, a roundabout, and a bridge; Departmental response addresses the § Home was built 20 years ago on a carefully objections raised; selected site; § See also Chapter 6. § Effect this Scheme has on human lives, stress, and little support; Objection by Mountjoy Presbyterian § Human rights. Church, Mr David Garrett, Secretary Departmental Response Inquiry Reference: OA-1113 § Roads Service has completed a human rights Summary of Objection assessment for the project which recognises that it will have an adverse effect on some land The Church may seek representation on this and property owners; matter and may look to Roads Service for recovery of associated costs involved. § It is accepted that a new road can cause anxiety and distress. In the Scheme a number of measures have been taken to help alleviate Departmental Response some of the impacts by providing regular, § The Department’s policy on awarding costs is accessible and transparent communication; similar to that in GB. Reasonable and relevant § Compensation is a matter for Land & Property costs incurred by an objector attending Services; or being represented at an Inquiry are reimbursable only where that person had the § A series of events was held to inform and threat of compulsory acquisition removed; consult with the public, and these were attended by over 6,600 people. The A5WTC § Mountjoy Presbyterian Church does not website and Information Line have been have any land in the proposed Vesting Order widely used; and the Department could not pay any fees incurred by the Church.
147 Comment Departmental Response § The appointed contractor will be responsible We consider that the Departmental response for securing the site, and maintaining gives a clear indication of the accepted practice temporary boundary fencing; throughout the UK. However, we have made a recommendation on support in Chapter 11. § It is expected that existing security levels will be maintained; Objection by Mr Alan Armstrong § No contaminated material will be used in this Scheme; Inquiry Reference: OA-1114 § Compensation is a matter for Land & Property The objector was represented by Mr Stephen Keys Services. of Markethill Property Sales. Summary of Objection Comment The Scheme continues to cause anxiety and We consider that the Departmental response has uncertainty for the future. adequately addressed the concerns raised in this objection. Departmental Response Objection by Mr R J Smyth The Roads Service has maintained dialogue with Mr Armstrong to mitigate future uncertainty. Inquiry Reference: OA-1116 The objector was represented by Mr William Smith Comment of W J Smith, Auctioneer, Valuer. We acknowledge the impact of the Scheme on the Armstrong family. We consider that the Summary of Objection Department has adequately addressed the § The Scheme will have a detrimental effect on matters raised in this objection and ask that they the environment; continue to liaise with the Armstrong family to § No need for this road. allay their concerns as much as possible. Mr W J Smith also made a verbal presentation which included the following additional points: Objection by Mr A O’Neill of A & B Contracts § Alien to wildlife; § Upgrade existing A5 instead. Inquiry Reference: OA-1115 The objector was represented by Mr D O’Neill, Departmental Response Architectural & Design Services. § The environmental risks are addressed in the Environmental Statement together with details Summary of Objection of mitigation measures; § A Health & Safety plan will be required to § The Scheme is included in the Northern Ireland establish the safety of workers and visitors to Executive’s Programme for Government and in the farm; its budget, thus reflecting the priority accorded § Indemnity insurance will have to be provided to the A5WTC. for family and visitors to the farm. § Upgrading the existing A5 would not meet the Mr D O’Neill made a verbal presentation to requirement for a dual carriageway and is likely the Hearing in which he raised the matter of to be more costly, causing more demolition of contaminated material. property and with more safety risks in construction.
148 Comment Departmental Response § The traffic level for a dual carriageway is § See our comments in Chapter 6; exceeded over most of the existing A5. While § In all other respects, we consider that the projected traffic volumes on the Ballygawley Departmental response has adequately - Aughnacloy link would be below that level it addressed the objections. would be preferable on engineering grounds and from a safety perspective to have Objection by Mr Joseph Sidney consistency of standards over the entire length Pinkerton of the Scheme; § Public consultation was carried out in Inquiry Reference: OA-1117 accordance with established policy and The objector was represented by Mr Kevin guidelines. Roads Service had organised a McCauley of J G Fleming LLP, Estate Agents. series of public consultation events attracting attendances of over 6600 and liaison meetings Summary of Objection with landowners were held. Brochures The objection is identical to OA-1062. outlining scheme design, etc and information leaflets were also made available. A web site and telephone information line were set up. Objection by Mr John & Mrs Sharon Information gathered was fully considered in Buchanan the design of the Scheme and of mitigation measures; Inquiry Reference: OA-1118 The matters raised in this objection were deemed § It is acknowledged that the Scheme would to be of a local nature and are dealt with in involve the loss of a considerable area of Chapter 9. agricultural land which would be necessary in the context of broader policies addressing future planning for the economy, development Objection by Mr Jordan Cullen and infrastructure; Inquiry Reference: OA-1119 § At a national level, while some development projects would add to carbon emissions the Summary of Objection overall objective of reducing the national total § Traffic flows did not justify the Scheme; would remain; § There was no evidence of public consultation; § Dual carriageways built to modern standards have much lower accident rates; § The Scheme would eliminate 400 acres of farmland and hinder Northern Ireland’s effort to § Legal issues are for the courts to determine; reduce carbon fuel emissions; § The project was approved at the North / South § With higher speed limits, the new road would Ministerial Council meeting on the 17th of lead to increased road tragedies; July 2007 and provision has been made in the Northern Ireland Executive’ s current budget. § The legal authority to vest land for the Scheme; Comment § The cost of the Scheme would be better allocated to hospitals, schools, reinstatement § We are satisfied that the Departmental of the railway or upgrading of the existing A5. response adequately answers the matters raised by Mr Cullen; § We have commented on upgrading the existing A5 in Chapter 6.
149 Objection by Mr Samuel Morrow the economic generation of the region and the Scheme is included in the current budget; Inquiry Reference: OA-1120 § While bypasses of Omagh and Strabane The objector was represented by Mr Roy on their own would deliver some local McCracken of W R J McCracken, Estate Agent. improvement they would not be in keeping The matters raised in this objection are dealt with with the overall objectives of the Scheme. in detail in Chapter 5.2. § Completion of the Scheme would have no impact on the road maintenance programme. Objection by Mr John Wilson and The length of the new road would be Mrs Anna Wilson insignificant compared with the existing road network; Inquiry Reference: OA-1121 § The loss of 800 hectares of agricultural land would not be significant compared with the Summary of Objection 993,500 hectares of agricultural land across § Traffic levels and trends would not justify the Northern Ireland; Scheme; § Public consultation was carried out in § The Scheme would bring little benefit to the accordance with established policy and people of Tyrone and would not improve the guidelines. Roads Service had organised a local economy; series of public consultation events attracting § Bypasses of Omagh and Strabane, together attendances of over 6600 and liaison meetings with additional traffic lanes where necessary, with landowners were held. Brochures would suffice; outlining scheme design, etc, and information leaflets were also made available. A web site § Expenditure on the Scheme is not justified at a and telephone information line were set up. time of economic recession; Information gathered was fully considered § The cost of maintenance of the completed in the design of the Scheme and in Scheme would result in a reduction of mitigation measures; maintenance in local areas; § It is inevitable that a scheme of this nature § The loss of large areas of agricultural would have some impact on the environment land would reduce the availability of crop and farmland but it is being promoted in the production to replace reducing oil stocks; context of broad policies addressing the future § There was a lack of meaningful consultation; planning of the economy, development and infrastructure; § The Scheme would result in a loss of precious agricultural land and carbon sink and would § Potential environmental impacts of the Scheme have an adverse effect on the agricultural have been assessed and reported in the industry; Environmental Statement. Appropriate design and mitigation measures have been included § The preservation of the countryside was within the Scheme which should effectively inadequately considered; mitigate against most of the impacts, although § The Scheme was causing great stress to the there would be a number of locations where farming community. impacts would be of a high order; Departmental Response § Assessments have indicated that the Scheme would have a substantial effect on 52 farm § Traffic forecasts are based according to the UK holdings, a moderate effect on 67 and a Trip End Model Program. While the program slight impact on 163. Where impacts relate to is to be revised, it is expected that it will show severance or movement of livestock, provision substantial growth in traffic levels; would be made for access along existing § The Northern Ireland Executive’s Programme tracks via a bridge or underpass or, where for Government accepts that the provision / appropriate, provision of new tracks; improvement of infrastructure contributes to
150 § It is recognised that the building of any § Extensive work was carried out over 3 years on new road can cause anxiety and stress for the impact of the Scheme on the countryside the people affected. It is hoped to alleviate and on communities. An Environmental some of these impacts by providing regular, Statement reporting the findings of the accessible and transparent communication of study and assessments was published and the Scheme information and progress. Help advertised in November 2010 and was made and support is also provided by Rural Support. available for inspection; § Tourist related interests were considered Comment as part of the Regional Strategic Transport § We are satisfied that the Department has Network. It is expected that the Scheme adequately responded to the issues raised in would provide overall improvements for both this objection; business and tourist sectors. § We realise that the Scheme is causing Comment anxiety and stress for many people affected and we wish to emphasise the need for We have commented in detail in Chapter 6 on all the Department to take whatever steps are of the issues raised in this objection. necessary to lessen the trauma; § We have commented specifically in Chapter Objection by Ballygawley Veterinary 6 on matters raised which were of common Practice, Mr Brian Keown concern to many objectors. Inquiry Reference: OA-1123 Objection by Mr Trevor Stewart Summary of Objection Inquiry Reference: OA-1122 The impact of the Scheme with particular regard to the layout around Ballygawley village. Summary of Objection § The Scheme has infringed legal human rights Departmental Response requirements; § The Scheme includes the upgrade of the A4 § Traffic levels do not justify the proposed at this location to dual carriageway and the scheme which squandered public money; removal of the existing roundabout junction on the A4 / A5 Tullyvar Road and would ensure § Upgrading the existing A5 may be all that is that the maximum benefit is delivered in terms needed; of journey time savings; § Whether an environmental impact study § While there are many benefits associated was carried out. with the Scheme, including the opening up of Departmental Response business opportunities, it is recognised that some business owners would be seriously § A human rights assessment was carried out affected. On balance the overall benefits which recognised that the Scheme would have should far outweigh individual disbenefits and adverse effects on some land and property the Scheme should proceed in the wider owners; public interest. § The traffic level for a dual carriageway is exceeded over most of the existing A5. While Comment projected traffic volumes on the Ballygawley A number of other objectors raised the same - Aughnacloy link would be below that level it issue. We have considered the Department’s would be preferable on engineering grounds reply and have set out our detailed and from a safety perspective to have recommendations in Chapter 6. consistency of standards over the entire length of the Scheme;
151 Objection by Mr Irwin Short § The Northern Ireland Executive included a dual carriageway in the Programme for Inquiry Reference: OA-1124 Government, and provided funding in its The objector was represented by Best Property budget, reflecting the priority accorded to this Services. Scheme. Studies show that, in the long term, traffic levels will increase; Summary of Objection § It is widely recognised that provision or § Objects to the route of the A5WTC. Proposes improvements to infrastructure do contribute an alternative route which would by-pass Mr positively to economic regeneration of the Short’s farm; region. This was quantified in published documents; § The proposed roundabout at Moylagh Road will affect sites with actual planning consents. § Winter service will continue in accordance with The suggested alternative route would avoid established policies. The A5WTC will have no this, and also reduce costs; impact on the funding from the Department for Regional Development for the maintenance § Dual carriageway not necessary, as traffic of the road network. An additional 85km is levels are reducing. No justification for insignificant when compared to the total new road which will in no way improve the existing road network; economy in County Tyrone; § It is accepted that up to 1200 hectares is § Winter salting of the A5WTC will leave many included in the draft Vesting Order and that other roads untreated; over 800 hectares of agricultural land will be § Why ruin over 3000 acres of food producing lost to the Scheme, out of a total of 993,500 farmland at a time when we will need all good hectares of agricultural land in Northern land to feed future generations; Ireland; § Any present congestion on the A5 could be § On-line widening of the A5 is likely to be resolved by upgrading at a tiny fraction of the more costly than the off-line dual carriageway £850m it will take to build the A5WTC; proposed, mainly due to the need to § The spending on this new road is not accommodate the many existing accesses. necessary at a time of economic recession. There would be more property demolition, Those who live and work at farming and greater engineering problems due to the small business along the existing A5 will sub-standard alignment of the existing A5, be seriously affected. and increased safety risks to road users and construction workers; Mr Law appeared at the Hearing on the 13th of May 2011 on behalf of Mr Short and a number of other § The alternative route suggested, performs clients. He reiterated the Strategic objections and less well against the assessment criteria (see handed in a written statement from Mr Short. above) and the Department therefore, is not This statement supported the objections already prepared to support this alternative proposal. on record. Comment Departmental Response § The Department is constrained by the § The proposed Scheme has been through a requirement for a dual carriageway in the phased programme of development from the Programme for Government and although initial study to the Preferred Route. Roads other alternatives have been considered, the Service must comply with the assessment Department has concluded that the Scheme criteria of safety, economy, environment, is the best way forward; integration and accessibility in determining the route; § Compensation is not a matter for this Inquiry; § The possible impact on sites with planning consent may be a compensatable issue for the Land & Property Services;
152 § We consider that the Departmental response § The Scheme will be less than 1 mile from the has addressed the matters raised in this village which will be connected to the dual objection; carriageway by Tullybryan Road which would be improved; § See also Chapter 6. § Consideration has been given to tourist related interests and resources; Objection by Mr & Mrs Suitor § The Department has received much Inquiry Reference: OA-1125 correspondence and petitions supporting the objections expressed. The vast majority want Summary of Objection to retain the recently constructed roundabout, § Protest against the proposal to move the but its retention would cause traffic delay, junction connecting the Tullyvar Road with the whilst there would be an overall saving in new A4 half a mile towards Augher; construction costs; § This would affect business very badly. It is § A safety audit for the alternative proposal will a tourist business with approximately 38 be carried out; bus tours calling every summer and with § There is a ‘fine call’ between the two options. customers from all over Ireland. If the junction is moved, these people will travel on to Comment Fermanagh or Sligo. § Mr & Mrs Suitor have made a strong case for Mr Suitor appeared at the Hearing on the 16th changes to the proposals for the Ballygawley of May 2011. He reiterated the objections and area; explained how the move of this junction would affect his business which might be forced to close. § It is noted that the Department is willing to He contended that no consideration had been consider the alternative proposals; given to the quality of life of local people. The § See our comments on Ballygawley in Chapter recently constructed roundabout should remain 6. as few people are going to travel back 1.6km from the interchange towards Enniskillen to get to Ballygawley. Objection by Councillor Samuel Brush Departmental Response Inquiry Reference: OA-1126 § The proposed Scheme has been a phased programme of development from the initial Summary of Objection study area through to the Preferred Route. The proposed Scheme has proved most favourable § The proposed Scheme is unnecessary as when measured against the key criteria: safety, an upgrade to the existing A5 would service economic, integration, environment, and local residents much better and cause less accessibility; upheaval; § There would be significant economic benefits § The proposed loop around Aughnacloy would in providing unimpeded flow of strategic traffic add 50% to journey length and would have an between the A4 and the A5WTC; adverse affect on traffic to and from the Irish Republic; § There would be many benefits associated with the A5WTC but it is recognised that some § A junction linking the A5WTC and the businesses and property owners would be Carnteel Road, north of Aughnacloy should be adversely affected by the project. On balance, considered. No one can understand the need the overall benefits of the Scheme far exceed for a 5 km loop around Aughnacloy; individual disbenefits; § The limited number of access points means that Aughnacloy will be isolated from passing trade, destroying many businesses;
153 § The proposal to extend the A4 dual § Mass employment in manufacturing is no carriageway from the new roundabout at longer viable in this area and so another artery Ballygawley to another new one at Crossboy of transport running parallel to the existing A5 would have an adverse affect on both the local is unnecessary. The consequent loss of jobs population and business in Ballygawley, if would be a serious blow to the local economy; there is no access to the A4 at Ballygawley; § There is a need for improvement of the § It is a serious waste of public funds to bulldoze secondary road network feeding into an a roundabout built a short time ago, and upgraded existing A5. This would be more replace it with a bridge and realigning the A5 beneficial to the residents, farmers and again. Why not keep the roundabout as it is? businesses in the area. § I suggest that if this bridge is built, it should Councillor Brush appeared at the Hearing on be located where the present roundabout is the 16th of May 2011 when he reiterated and and that access slip roads are provided so elaborated on his written objections and made that traffic can join and leave the A4 at this additional points as follows: location; § At Aughnacloy the new route will be from § There is no access to the A4 between Cabragh Caledon Road, which is unfamiliar to drivers and Ballygawley, so it is important that a presently using the A5; junction at Ballygawley is maintained; § It would be more important to have had the § Ulsterbus intend to locate a park and ride junction on the existing Monaghan Road; facility near Grange Park and so access to the § The difficulty in securing signage for local A4 is a must. The Council are also considering services at Ballygawley. an industrial estate in the Ballygawley area for which access to the A4 is required; Departmental Response § There is already adequate ground in public § On-line widening is likely to be more ownership to place the bridge and access slip expensive, cause more disruption and involve roads where the roundabout is now; more demolition of property, mainly because of § The low number of vehicles using the existing the need to accommodate the many existing A5 is far short of the requirements for a dual accesses on the route, as well as increased carriageway; safety risks to road users and construction § No evidence provided by government to justify workers; almost £1 billion of tax payer’s money on this § A decision to by-pass to the east followed an Scheme; assessment of route options east and west of § There is no meaningful long term Aughnacloy. The assessment looked at all the environmental impact study; constraints including proximity of buildings, local topography, side road connectivity, § The current accident black spots on the flooding, environmental issues and the need to existing A5 will remain, and as there is little tie in to the N2 at a future date. A determining access to the A5WTC, all local traffic will factor was the “Thistle”, a designated site continue to use the existing A5 which would located to the west of Aughnacloy and which be unlikely to be maintained to the present spans from the development limits of the town level; to the border; § The needs of existing businesses in towns and § The distance from the N2 / A5 south of villages along the A5 route are being ignored; Aughnacloy to the A4 / A5WTC roundabout at § The negative impact on up to 400 agricultural Ballygawley will be slightly longer, but will be holdings cannot be over-stated. Many will be quicker and safer than the existing road; rendered uneconomical, leading to job losses § Longer distance through traffic will no longer in the most vital sector of Ulster’s economy; have to negotiate through the towns along the route. There will be a reduction in traffic using the existing A5 with improvements in safety,
154 noise and air quality; 40% between now and 2030. The A5 also § There are many benefits to be gained experiences slow journey times and many from the Proposed Scheme, opening up accidents. The A5WTC will dramatically opportunities. However, it is recognised that improve journey times and road safety, and will some businesses and property owners will be reduce traffic on the existing A5 by 60-90% adversely affected. On balance, the overall between urban centres, and by 25-50% within benefits exceed individual disbenefits; the main urban areas; § Retaining the existing roundabout would mean § It is acknowledged that the proposals would two roundabouts very close to each other and involve loss of agricultural land, and specific cause delays to through A4 traffic and would impacts on farm holdings. The Scheme, adversely affect the economic benefits of the however, is promoted in the context of broader Scheme; policies which address the future planning for the economy, development and infrastructure. § The A5 Tullyvar Scheme was planned and Assessments have shown that the Scheme will contracted for prior to the decision to take have substantial impact on 52 farm holdings, a forward the A5WTC; moderate impact on 67, and slight impact on § There would be significant economic benefits 163; in providing an unimpeded flow of strategic § Consideration has been given to tourist related traffic between the A4 and the A5WTC. The issues. The A5 forms part of the Regional proposal would ensure that the Scheme Strategic Transport Network, the improvement delivers the maximum benefit; of which is linked to the economy of the § While not part of the A5WTC, the benefits of region, providing improvements for both the both Park and Ride and Park and Share are business and tourism sectors; fully recognised; § The “Thistle”, which is a constraint to the west § Regarding the proposed bridge, the option of Aughnacloy, is a matter of concern to the described has been investigated and rejected Northern Ireland Environmental Agency; for engineering and cost reasons; § It is a “very close call” between the Scheme § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway is Proposals for the Ballygawley area, and the already exceeded over most of the existing A5. alternatives suggested, which will be subjected However, it is accepted that volumes on the to a safety audit. Ballygawley - Aughnacloy link in the opening year would be below the threshold but from an Comment engineering and safety perspective, it is better § Councillor Brush reiterated views held to have consistency of standards along the by many people in the Ballygawley and entire length of route; Aughnacloy areas; § The Northern Ireland Programme for Government prescribes the dual carriageway § We have noted the Department’s admission and costs are included in the Executive’s that it is a “very close call” at Ballygawley, budget, reflecting the priority accorded to the and its willingness to subject the alternative project by government. The Irish Government’s to a safety audit; contribution of £400M was agreed at the North § We consider the remaining objections raised / South Ministerial Council on 17 July 2007 have been addressed by the Departmental and has since been confirmed by the newly response; formed Irish Government; § See also our comments in Chapter 6 § For environmental assessments and mitigation regarding Ballygawley and Aughnacloy. measures, please see the Environmental Statement; § The present A5 experiences high volumes of traffic and congestion at peak times. It is estimated that this traffic will increase by
155 Objection by Mr and Mrs Keith § Maintenance and salting of 200 extra miles Mosgrove of traffic lanes will leave many other roads neglected. Inquiry Reference: OA-1127 The objectors were represented by Mortgage and Departmental Response Property Plus. § The Northern Ireland Executive included the Scheme in its Programme for Government, Summary of Objection reflecting the priority given to it. It is expected that there will be a substantial growth in traffic This project will speed up traffic and create more levels in the future; collisions and deaths on our roads. § It is widely recognised that improved Departmental Response infrastructure contributes positively to economic regeneration of the region; § The sinuous nature of the link between Killadroy Road and Greenmount Road will § Short by-passes at Omagh and at Strabane ensure that speeds are kept low. The provision would deliver some local journey time saving of verge and curve widening will improve but it would be much less than the Proposed visibility of opposing vehicles; Scheme; § Regarding the A5WTC, this dual carriageway § On-line widening can be more difficult and would be built to modern standards and have expensive than off-line due to the need to much lower accident rates than the existing accommodate existing accesses and minimise A5. The economic appraisal of the Scheme the effect on adjacent property. The landtake predicts a substantial reduction in the number for an on-line 2+1 carriageway could be and costs of accidents. greater than that needed for an off-line dual carriageway; Comment § Winter service will continue to be delivered, catering for the needs of 80% of all vehicle We consider that the Departmental response has miles. The Scheme would have no effect on adequately addressed the matter raised in this the level of funding available for maintenance objection. of the network. The additional 85km is insignificant when compared with the total Objection by Mrs Geraldine Wilson length of the existing road network; Inquiry Reference: OA-1128 § It is accepted that up to 1200 hectares of land may be required, including 800 hectares Summary of Objection of agricultural land, which is not considered significant in relation to the total of 993,500 § The dual carriageway is not necessary as hectares of agricultural land in traffic levels are going down; Northern Ireland. § The Scheme will not improve the economy of County Tyrone; Comment § Short periods of traffic congestion at Omagh § We consider that the Departmental response and Strabane could easily be cured with by- has adequately addressed the matters raised passes; in this objection; § Minor congestion on other parts of the A5 could be cured by an extra lane, at a fraction § See also Chapter 6. of the cost of the proposal; § We need all good agricultural land to feed future generations; § Spending a vast amount of money on a road that is not needed is not in the best interests of our people; 156 Objection by Ms Joan Stewart Objection by Ms Doreen Best Inquiry Reference: OA-1129 Inquiry Reference: OA-1130 Summary of Objection Summary of Objection § The Scheme is a waste of public money; § Retaining the existing roundabout, but with § Major areas of natural beauty, farmland and a bridge, would lessen impact on local wildlife will be destroyed; properties and provide better access for local people and businesses; § The by-passing of Aughnacloy will destroy beautiful natural areas, make farming non- § The land already vested is more than sufficient. viable and disrupt local business and residents. Departmental Response § The options described were investigated Departmental Response and rejected during the outline design stage. § The Proposed Scheme is being promoted in Providing unimpeded flow of strategic traffic the overall context of future planning for the with removal of the existing junction, on the Northern Ireland economy; A4 / A5 Tullyvar Road, would deliver maximum benefit in journey time and fuel savings; § Environmental impact assessments and mitigation measures are reported in the § The land being vested is considered essential Environmental Statement (ES). The vast to deliver all aspects of the Proposed Scheme; majority of impacts would be effectively mitigated; Comment § In the ES, it is concluded that the integration § We have considered in detail the matter of the of the road into the landscape to the east of Tullyvar roundabout in Chapter 6; Aughnacloy would result in a slight impact § We feel the Department has adequately rather than the destruction of the area; addressed the other matter raised in this § There would be impacts on some farming objection. businesses, but this would not render farming unviable; Objection by Mr Wesley Rea § The removal of through traffic will improve road safety, community severance and noise / air Inquiry Reference: OA-1131 quality as well as providing time savings for The objector was represented by Mr Brian Clarke strategic traffic; of Best Property Services. § The introduction of the junction to the north and east of Aughnacloy will restore provision Summary of Objection for passing trade to the businesses and Current farm regulations advise against any shared community of Aughnacloy. access arrangements so as to discourage the spread of disease. We thus request a separate Comment underpass for the adjoining landowner. § We consider the Department has adequately addressed the matters raised in this objection; § See also Chapter 6.
157 Departmental Response Departmental Response Shared tracks are considered an acceptable The alignment near the objector’s property means of providing access unless there is was determined by design standards and clear evidence that the landowner has taken consideration of impacts along the entire length of precautions to prevent bio-security risk. The bio- the curve around Aughnacloy. security risks are considered to be no different from those where livestock currently use public Comment roadways to gain access to fields or to conacre or owned land remote from the farmyard. Although classified as Strategic / Local we consider this objection to be primarily of a local nature and it is dealt with in Chapter 9. Comment § Although classified as Strategic / Local we Objection by Ms Maud Houston consider this objection to be primarily of a local nature and it is dealt with in Chapter 9; Inquiry Reference: OA-1134 The objector was represented by Best Property § Matters relating to the wider implications of Services. bio-security are dealt with in detail in Chapter 6. Summary of Objection Objection by Mr John James McGirr The proposed road will be extremely close to Ms Houston’s dwelling. There is a possibility to move Inquiry Reference: OA-1132 the road further away as there is sufficient room at The objector was represented by Mr Conor Mallon the opposite side of the road. of Best Property Services. Departmental Response Summary of Objection Landtake has been included within the draft The access to severed land will be provided by a Vesting Order to allow for any upgrade works shared structure which could cause issues with to Tullybryan Road. It is envisaged that minimal moving stock and machinery, etc. works would be required to the existing road near the property. Departmental Response Shared tracks are considered an acceptable Comment means of providing access. The matters raised in this objection were deemed to be of a local nature and are dealt with in Comment Chapter 9. Although classified as Strategic / Local we Objection by Mr Brendan McKenna consider this objection to be primarily of a local nature and it is dealt with in Chapter 9. Inquiry Reference: OA-1135 The objector was represented by Best Property Objection by Mr Eamon Quinn Services. Inquiry Reference: OA-1133 The objector was represented by Mr Conor Mallon Summary of Objection of Best Property Services. Mr McKenna’s land will be severed, and part will only be accessible via a shared accommodation lane. Great inconvenience will be caused by the Summary of Objection distance Mr McKenna will have to travel to reach The road could have been located further away different parcels of land. During construction Mr from the objector’s dwelling. McKenna will have to make unnecessary journeys to reach different parts of his land. 158 Departmental Response Summary of Objection This may be a compensatable issue and is for In the event of this area being used as mitigation consideration by Land & Property Services. The for flooding and irrigation, will there be contractor would seek to minimise disruption contamination from the domestic septic tank when during construction, including noise, vibrations, the drains are flooded? traffic routes, working times etc. The contractor’s public liaison officer would work closely with Departmental Response landowners and others to resolve potential § Any approval that is needed will be dealt with; conflicts in advance. § If there is an impact, alternative systems will be explored and a satisfactory solution found. Comment The matters raised in this objection were Comment deemed to be of a local nature and are dealt with The matters raised in this objection were in Chapter 9. deemed to be of a local nature and are dealt with Objection by Mr Nigel Thomas Steele in Chapter 8. Inquiry Reference: OA-1136 Objection by Mr William Thomas The objector was represented by Best Property Armstrong Services. Inquiry Reference: OA-1138 Summary of Objection Summary of Objection Essential farmland is being lost, which is § With reducing traffic levels, this dual necessary for the maintenance of a profitable carriageway is unnecessary. It will in no way farm business. The road could be re-designed to improve the economy of County Tyrone; minimise this impact. § There is only evidence of short periods of traffic congestion at Omagh and Strabane, Departmental Response which could be cured with suitable by-passes; This may be a compensation issue to be § Upgrade the existing A5 for a fraction of the determined by Land and Property Services. cost of the proposed dual carriageway; The land included in the draft Vesting Order § The spending of the vast amount of money is considered to be essential for the Scheme. on a road which is not needed, at a time of However, if at more detailed design stage it is economic recession, is not in the best interests found that less is required, this would be reflected of those who live and work at farming and in the Vesting Order. other small businesses in this area; § The maintenance costs, especially in winter, Comment of an extra 200 miles of traffic lanes will leave We consider that the Departmental response has many other roads neglected; adequately addressed the strategic element of § We need all good agricultural land to feed this objection. future generations.
Objection by Mr Robert Stanley Departmental Response Gilmore § The Northern Ireland Executive has prescribed Inquiry Reference: OA-1137 a dual carriageway in its Programme for The objector was represented by Mr D O’Neill, Government, and has provided for it in the Architectural & Design Services. budget, reflecting the priority accorded to this project. Support for the project was re-affirmed at the North / South Ministerial Council on 21 January 2011
159 § The accepted model of traffic forecasting § The Environmental Statement appears to suggests a substantial increase in the future; address only issues relating to adjacent land § It is widely recognised that provision / and property but failed to consider the effect improvement of infrastructure contributes on properties and residents further afield. positively to economic regeneration of the Their living conditions and quality of life will be region; detrimentally affected by the increase in traffic, noise, vibration, and reduction in air quality, § Short by-passes at Omagh and Strabane and road safety issues on the substandard would deliver some local journey time savings Moylagh Road; but would not fulfill the objective of a dual carriageway as prescribed by the Programme § Disappointing that there are no plans to for Government and endorsed by the North / improve the B46 Moylagh Road in conjunction South Council of Ministers; with the proposed Scheme. § On-line widening is likely to be more difficult Departmental Response and costly than the off-line proposal, mainly due to the need to accommodate the many § It is not expected that there will be a material accesses and minimise the effect on adjacent change in traffic numbers on the B46 as a property; result of the junction at Moylagh; § Winter service will continue to be delivered § The prediction is that some traffic from West in accordance with established policies. The Tyrone which presently uses the B46 to access A5WTC will have no impact on the level of the A5, will divert to the A32 and join the funding for overall road maintenance; A5WTC at Junction 13. The route via the A32 will be more attractive as the distance will be § The additional 85km length is insignificant reduced because the A5WTC would run west when compared to the total length of the of Omagh; existing road network; § The assessments of impacts appropriately § It is accepted that up to 1200 hectares of land focus on areas where there would be direct is included in the draft Vesting Order, and over loss or severance of land. The assessments 800 hectares of agricultural land will be lost to for noise, air quality and visual impact the Scheme, out of a total of 993,500 hectares take account of people who are at varying of agricultural land in Northern Ireland. distances from the Scheme; § For noise, a greater number would generally Comment experience perceptible reductions of 3 § We note Mr Armstrong’s concerns; decibels or more than would experience § The Department and its consultants are increases of 3 decibels or more. It is accepted constrained by the brief from Government; that some receptors would be subject to § We consider that the matters raised in this higher orders of increase, particularly where objection have been addressed by the traffic related noise is currently low; Department’s response; § Regarding air quality, the assessments were § See also Chapter 6. based on both local and regional air quality models. These assessments demonstrated Objection by Mr Alistair MacLaine that many more receptors would find reductions in traffic related pollutants than Inquiry Reference: OA-1139 would suffer slight increases; Summary of Objection § Any improvements to existing side roads that are identified post-construction would be § The B46 Moylagh Road will be subjected to a considered for inclusion in Roads Service’s hefty increase in traffic as drivers from West Local Transport and Safety Measures Tyrone and East of Fermanagh will be attracted Programme. to join the new road at the Moylagh junction;
160 Comment Departmental Response We consider the Departmental response has The Department addressed these issues in their adequately addressed the matters raised in this responses in OA-1035 and OA-1126. objection. Comment Objection by Mr Emmett O’Neill § Mr Coote’s Strategic objection is similar Inquiry Reference: OA-1140 to objections raised by others in the The objector was represented by Best Property Ballygawley area; Services. § See the comments in OA-1035 (Councillor Mulligan) and OA-1126 (Councillor Brush); Summary of Objection § See also our comments on Ballygawley in Chapter 6. The new road could have been located further away from Mr O’Neill’s dwelling. Objection by Aughnacloy Presbyterian Church, Mr Robert Departmental Response Brush § The proposed Scheme has been through a phased programme of development from Inquiry Reference: OA-1142 initial study to Preferred Route. The Scheme has proved most favourable when measured Summary of Objection against the five key criteria; safety, economic, The existing Ballygawley / Aughnacloy road was environment, integration and accessibility; fairly adequate particularly since half of it was § The alignment design at Mr O’Neill’s location newly constructed and opened for traffic in Spring has taken account of existing topography, 2010. environmental factors and the need to balance the impacts between properties and existing Departmental Response side roads. § It is accepted that the traffic flows for the Ballygawley / Aughnacloy link are below the Comment threshold for a dual carriageway but from Although classified as Strategic / Local we engineering and safety perspectives it is better consider this objection to be primarily of a local to have consistency of standards over the nature and it is dealt with in Chapter 9. entire length of the Scheme; § The contract for the A5 Tullyvar project was Objection by Mr Eric Samuel Coote awarded prior to the decision to proceed with the current Scheme. Given the likely cost of Inquiry Reference: OA-1141 renegotiating the contract and considering The objector was represented by Best Property that the current Scheme was in the early Services. stage of development and subject to statutory procedures and availability of funding, it was Summary of Objection decided to proceed with the Tullyvar project. § People travelling from Dungannon, Belfast, etc, Comment would not travel back to Ballygawley under the Scheme and would take their business See our comments on Ballygawley in Chapter 6. on to Augher, Clogher and Fivemiletown, and Ballygawley businesses will miss out; § The recently built A4 / A5 roundabout should not be removed and the alternative scheme proposed by Councillor Brush and Councillor Mulligan should be substituted. 161 Objection by Mr and Mrs William § Public consultation was carried out in Robinson accordance with established policy and guidelines. Roads Service had organised a Inquiry Reference: OA-1143 series of public consultation events attracting attendances of over 6600 and liaison meetings Summary of Objection with landowners were held. Brochures § The Scheme would impinge on 400 agricultural outlining Scheme design, etc, and information holdings rendering many uneconomical, leaflets were also made available. A web site resulting in job losses; and telephone information line were set up. Information gathered was fully considered § It would destroy the beauty and heritage of the in the design of the Scheme and design of countryside; mitigation measures. § An upgrade of the existing A5 would suffice; § A rail network would be better; Comment § There would be little benefit to the people of § We are satisfied that the Departmental Tyrone as there were insufficient access points response has adequately dealt with the to the proposed dual carriageway; matters raised; § There is a need for thorough consultation. § We have made detailed comments in Chapter 6 on each of the points which Departmental Response were also matters of common concern to a number of objectors. § It is acknowledged that the Scheme would involve the loss of about 800 hectares of Objection by Ballygawley Traders, agricultural land but this is considered Ms Isobel Coote & Mr Dillon Morris insignificant in overall terms compared with a total of 993,500 hectares of agricultural land Inquiry Reference: OA-1144 across Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Executive’s Programme for Government Summary of Objection accepts that the provision / improvement of § There is no need for this new road; infrastructure contributes to the economic § There will be a detrimental effect on generation of the region; businesses in Ballygawley. Since the new A4 § It is inevitable that a scheme of this nature opened, many people by-pass the town via the would have some impact on the countryside. new roundabout; However integration of the Scheme into § There is no signage for local services; the different landscape types has been an important aspect of the planning, design and § Local communities will suffer from severance assessment process. The assessment reported and will have to travel a distance to join the new A5; in the Environmental Statement concluded that almost 70% of the corridor would be § Ballygawley has a population of 600 with 35 sufficiently well integrated such that impact to 40 businesses battling against the bigger would be slight compared with 7% which towns for survival. There are presently 11 would be subject to large adverse impact; vacant premises; § The Scheme would have junctions at 15 § The fear is what the new road will do to locations along its route which would provide Ballygawley. The recently opened A4 has easy access from all class A & B roads. meant loss of trade, and the present proposals Transfer of traffic from the existing A5 to the will make matters worse; new dual carriageway would be influenced § The traders are generally in favour of the primarily by the origin and destination of A5WTC provided proper access and signage individual trips and whether journey time are provided; savings could be made;
162 § The new A4 roundabout is 200 yards from the Objection by O’Neill’s Pharmacy village, but if this is removed, the access point will be half a mile away, giving local resident’s Inquiry Reference: OA-1145 additional mileage and it will deter motorists from visiting Ballygawley. Summary of Objection The objection is identical to OA-1144. Departmental Response § It is widely recognised that provision / Objection by Mr and Mrs John Starrs improvement of infrastructure contributes positively to economic regeneration of the Inquiry Reference: OA-1146 region; The objectors were represented by Mr Tom Kirby of GVA NI. § It is recognised that there are many benefits associated with the A5WTC project but it is also recognised that some businesses and Summary of Objection property owners will be adversely affected. § Impact on Environmental Statement if, at However, on balance, the overall benefits far design stage, road levels were changed exceed individual disbenefits; affecting access, vistas and noise; § The project is included in the Northern Ireland § Initially not affected by the line of the Preferred Programme for Government and provided for Route but now affected by the proposed in the Executive’s budget, reflecting the priority alternative route; accorded by Government; § The alternative route would be more costly § The signage strategy for the new road will be to construct (through bogland), would have developed during the detailed design phase; greater environmental impact and would § The alternative proposal for the Ballygawley impinge on landowners having turbary rights; area is regarded as a “very close call” and will § An assessment of the economic impact of the be further considered. alternative route was sought; § See also Chapter 5.2. Comment § Ms Coote and Mr Morris have highlighted the Departmental Response concerns of the traders in Ballygawley; § The alternative route would be a better, more § We note the Department’s willingness to strategic option and much more attractive on consider the merits of the alternative scheme economic and general environmental grounds; for the Ballygawley area as suggested by § The potential ecological impacts associated several objectors; with the alternative route would be greater § Please see Objections OA-1035 (Councillor but not of such order as would preclude its Mulligan) and OA-1126 (Councillor Brush); adoption; § The Department should sympathetically § It would be 500 metres shorter, resulting in consider signage for Ballygawley; shorter journey times and the bridges over the § See also our comments on Ballygawley in existing A5 would not be needed; Chapter 6. § The whole-life cost savings would far outweigh additional construction costs, although detailed solutions for constructing the road through bogland have yet to be developed; § Comparative cost details would be provided.
163 Comment Objection by Mr Brian and Mrs Pauline Starrs The Department’s initial cost comparison showed that the alternative (incorporated in the Scheme) Inquiry Reference: OA-1147 would cost £645k more than the Preferred The objectors were represented by Mr Tom Kirby Route. Subsequently a table of revised estimates of GVA NI. illustrated the following comparison of total costs
Preferred £21.765M Summary of Objection Route The objection is identical to OA-1146. Alternative £23.5M On-line £22.41M Objection by Mr Barney and Mrs option Teresa Starrs Inquiry Reference: OA-1148 The on-line option was not discussed at the The objectors were represented by Inquiry although it showed a substantial saving Mr Tom Kirby of GVA NI. in construction costs over the Alternative Route now proposed. Subsequent to the Inquiry the Summary of Objection Department provided us and the objectors The objection is identical to OA-1146. with further information supporting its choice of the alternative route. While the cost table above would have suggested adopting the on- Objection by Mr and Mrs Hugh Ward line option (as it was cheaper) the Department Inquiry Reference: OA-1149 stated that it was recognised at the time that The objectors were represented by the estimate associated with the alternative Mr Tom Kirby of GVA NI. was perhaps conservative and that there were other hidden costs not reflected in the on-line estimate, e.g. traffic management and delay Summary of Objection during construction, safety of road users and The objection is identical to OA-1146. contractors’ employees during construction. The Department furnished a cost revision of the Objection by Ms Geraldine McKenna alternative at approx £20.5M and stated that this latest cost revision supports the decision taken at Inquiry Reference: OA-1150 the time that it was the best option for inclusion The objector was represented by Mr Tom Kirby in the Scheme. of GVA NI.
Recommendation Summary of Objection We are not satisfied that the costings presented The closure of Cormore Road will increase journey to the Inquiry are adequate to justify the decision times to and from the farmhouse and yard. to adopt the alternative route. We recommend that cost revisions, on a similar basis to that Departmental Response relating to the alternative route, should be prepared in respect of the Preferred Route Access via the structures on Tullnafoile Road and and the on-line route to demonstrate which is Springhill Road are reasonable alternatives. the most economic and environmentally acceptable option. Comment Although classified as Strategic/Local we consider this objection to be primarily of a local nature and it is dealt with in Chapter 9.
164 Objection by Mr Steven and Mrs § It is difficult to justify the cost of this road at Melanie Kee this time; § The existing road would still require substantial Inquiry Reference: OA-1151 maintenance costs; Summary of Objection § The construction costs will eat into the finance budget of the Province-wide existing road § Roads Service and its agents have not infrastructure for many future years; provided a reasonable justification for locating the road through the objectors’ property; § Alternative options have not been considered; § Mouchel have acknowledged that the § Upgrading the existing road would be change in alignment will result in additional sufficient and a fraction of the cost of the construction costs and more ecological proposed dual carriageway; impacts; § The Proposed Scheme will have a severe § Financial justification for the alternative route impact on the environment; has not been provided. § The Scheme will have a devastating impact on wildlife in mature woodland, peat bogs and Departmental Response watercourses; § Discussions have taken place regarding the § The road will have a detrimental impact on a differences in cost between the Preferred large number of dwellings in terms of noise, Route and the alternatives. The whole-life cost pollution and visual impact; saving of the Proposed Scheme far outweighs § The road will result in hardships to the farming the construction cost comparison between the community, affected by the extensive landtake options; and severance; § The potential ecological impacts associated § Businesses along the existing A5 will be with the Scheme would be greater than with severely impacted, with some likely to face the wider alignment but not of such an order closure and with local job losses possibly that they would preclude the adoption of the resulting; Scheme. § There has not been sufficient consultation with the affected landowners. Comment We consider that the Department has adequately Departmental Response addressed the matters raised in this objection. § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway is exceeded over the majority of the route Objection by Mr Tom and Mrs except for the Ballygawley – Aughnacloy link. Henrietta Watterson It is better to have consistency along the route from both an engineering and road safety Inquiry Reference: OA-1152 perspective; The objectors were represented by Mr Kevin § The Proposed Scheme has 15 junctions McCauley of J G Fleming LLP, Estate Agent. providing easy access from all A & B routes. The traffic model used for the Scheme Summary of Objection indicates that there will be significant transfer to the proposed dual carriageway. Long § It is questionable whether or not the current distance through traffic will no longer travel and proposed volume of traffic on the existing through towns along the route, thereby A5 justifies the proposed dual carriageway; reducing traffic levels on the existing A5 with § Limited access or exit points along the improvements in safety, noise and air quality; proposed dual carriageway will result in a § The funding for the A5 is included in the considerable portion of local traffic continuing budget agreed by the Northern Ireland to use the existing A5; Executive, reflecting its high priority;
165 § The cost of maintaining the existing A5 will not § From the start of the Scheme a series of well be as onerous as at present. The progress of attended public consultation events have been the A5 Scheme will have no impact on funding held locally. Public consultation events were for maintenance of the network; held in April 2008, February 2009, July 2009 § On-line widening can be more difficult and and November 2010. A project website and expensive than off-line construction. The information line were introduced together with alignment on the existing A5 is substandard. a series of publications to provide information. Landtake and associated costs for an on-line Meetings with landowners followed public 2+1 could be more than that for an off-line consultation, with summary letters from key dual carriageway; meetings issued to provide a written record of key points discussed. § Environmental impacts and mitigation measures are reported in the Environmental Statement. The vast majority of impacts would Comment be effectively mitigated; § The adverse impacts for some individuals § Assessments have concluded that impacts and businesses is regrettable but we consider on bogland and woodland would not that the overall benefits of the Scheme will be significant in the context of nature be significant in a wider Northern Ireland conservation value; economic and infrastructural context; § Potential impacts on watercourses would be § Concerns expressed by the objectors in well mitigated with no significant effect on relation to traffic volumes, cost / benefit, them or the nature conservation values of alternative options / upgrading the existing species associated with them; A5, impact on the environment, increased § More receptors will experience reductions noise levels, air quality, effects on agriculture, of 3 decibels or more in traffic related noise and lack of consultation are addressed in than increases. It is accepted that for those detail in Chapter 6. experiencing higher levels of noise the effects § We consider that the Department has would be more marked in the context where adequately addressed other matters raised in traffic related noise is not currently significant; this objection. § More receptors close to the existing A5 and the Scheme would experience a slight Objection by Mr and Mrs reduction in traffic related pollutants than would experience increases; Thomas Allen § Seven percent of the corridor would be Inquiry Reference: OA-1153 subject to large adverse impacts on character, The objectors were represented by Mr Kevin following mitigation, affecting adversely the McCauley of JG Fleming LLP Estate Agent. view of 140 receptors; § The Proposed Scheme will have a substantial Summary of Objection impact on 52 farm holdings, a moderate impact on 67 and a slight impact on 163; The objection is identical to OA -1051. § Severance compensation is considered by Land and Property Services; Objection by Mr and Mrs § The overall benefits of the Scheme far Frederick Giles outweigh individual disbenefits; Inquiry Reference: OA-1154 The objectors were represented by Mr Kevin McCauley of J G Fleming LLP, Estate Agent.
Summary of Objection The objection is identical to OA -1051.
166 Objection by Mr and Mrs Malcolm of Ballygawley was adopted with a roundabout Simpson junction which would best serve the needs of traffic flows in the area and which had the least Inquiry Reference: OA-1155 overall impact in terms of flooding, properties, The objectors were represented by Mr Kevin landtake, environment and buildability. Every McCauley of J G Fleming LLP, Estate Agent. effort was made to keep landowners informed as early as possible; Summary of Objection § The consultants met with the objectors at the public exhibition in July 2009 and at public § The initial objections were in similar terms to exhibitions on 2nd and 5th November 2010. those in OA-1049; Specific meetings were also held in September § The Scheme would be on a flood plain already 2009 and in April, May, June, July and October carrying two roads; 2010. In addition there were exchanges by § There would be an impact on their Post Office phone, email and letter; business; § The Northern Ireland Executive has agreed § There was no complete explanation of the a budget which includes the Scheme. change from the Preferred Route to the Implementation is subject to the Inquiry which alternative route; would take account of all the objections received. § Meetings with the Department’s consultants were unsatisfactory; Comment § The road is being forced through despite opposition. § See OA-1049; § We are satisfied that the Department has Departmental Response adequately responded to the issues raised; § See OA-1049; § See also Chapter 6. § Hydraulic models have been developed to identify the extent of the flood plain Objection by Mr and Mrs and associated depth of water. Flood compensation would be taken to match the Keith Mitchell volume of water displaced by the road, close Inquiry Reference: OA-1156 to the same level and location at which the The objectors were represented by Mr Kevin storage would be lost. The lands identified are McCauley of J G Fleming LLP, Estate Agent. deemed appropriate and hydraulically linked to the existing flood plain; § While many benefits would accrue from Summary of Objection provision of the Scheme, it is accepted that The objection is identical to OA-1051. some businesses and properties would be adversely affected. On balance, the overall Objection by Ms Margaret Buchanan benefits in the public interest would far outweigh individual disbenefits; Inquiry Reference: OA-1157 § When the Preferred Route was announced The objector was represented by Mr Kevin it was stated that it was subject to change. McCauley of J G Fleming LLP, Estate Agent. Since then the design was developed taking account of local information from landowners Summary of Objection as well as more detailed information from further ground investigation, drainage and The objection is identical to OA-1051. environmental surveys and flood modelling work. Over 30 alternatives were identified and after assessment, 11 were incorporated into the Scheme. An alternative route to the west
167 Objection by Mr Eamon Hackett § An alternative route to the west of Ballygawley was adopted with a roundabout junction which Inquiry Reference: OA-1158 would best serve the needs of traffic flows in The objector was represented by Mr Kevin the area and which had the least overall impact McCauley of J G Fleming LLP, Estate Agent. in terms of flooding, properties, landtake, environment and buildability. Every effort was Summary of Objection made to keep landowners informed as early as possible. The objection is identical to OA-1051. Comment Objection by Mr and Mrs Drew Lynd § See OA-1049; Inquiry Reference: OA-1159 § See also our comments on Ballygawley in The objectors were represented by Mr Kevin Chapter 6; McCauley of JG Fleming LLP Estate Agent. § We are satisfied with the Departmental response relating to the change to the Summary of Objection Preferred Route. The objection is identical to OA-1051. Objection by Mr William Cecil Boyd Objection by Mr and Mrs Paul Barrett Inquiry Reference: OA-1161 Inquiry Reference: OA-1160 The objector was represented by Mr Kevin The objectors were represented by Mr Kevin McCauley of J G Fleming LLP, Estate Agent. McCauley of J G Fleming LLP, Estate Agent. Summary of Objection Summary of Objection The objection is identical to OA-1049. § The strategic aspects were in similar terms to those in OA-1049; Objection by Mr Mervyn § Objected to the change of route from the Alexander Bell original Preferred Route without meaningful consultation with the landowners affected. Inquiry Reference: OA-1162 The alternative route (a) only met 2 of the 5 The objector was represented by Mr Kevin key criteria for route selection and (b) would McCauley of J G Fleming LLP, Estate Agent. result in nugatory expenditure re the recently constructed A4. Summary of Objection Departmental Response The objection is identical to OA-1049. § See OA-1049; Objection by Mr Frederick McDowell § When the Preferred Route was announced it was stated that it was subject to change. Inquiry Reference: OA-1163 Since then the design was developed taking The objector was represented by Mr Kevin account of local information from landowners McCauley of J G Fleming LLP, Estate Agent. as well as more detailed information from further ground investigation, drainage and environmental surveys and flood modelling Summary of Objection work. Over 30 alternatives were identified and The objection is identical to OA-1049. after assessment, 11 were incorporated into the Scheme;
168 Objection by the Allen Family (i) Agricultural industry; (ii) Maintenance of local roads; Inquiry Reference: OA-1164 (iii) Countryside. The objector was represented by Mr Kevin McCauley, J G Fleming LLP, Estate Agents. § Extreme stress and anxiety being caused by the Scheme; Summary of Objection § Compensation issues. § The Strategic issues were identical to those in objection OA-1049; Departmental Response § In addition, at the Hearing, Mr David Allen § Due to changes in design standards (2008) objected to the change from the Preferred the landtake and associated costs required Route. to facilitate an on-line 2+1 carriageway could be more than that required for an off-line dual Departmental Response carriageway because of the need to provide additional parallel roads to accommodate § See OA-1049; the many accesses along the existing route. § When the Preferred Route was announced In terms of road safety and journey times it was stated that it was subject to change. the benefits of a dual carriageway would be Since then the design was developed taking greater than those of a 2+1 solution. Other account of local information from landowners significant factors include the substandard as well as more detailed information arising alignment of the existing A5, alteration of from further ground investigation, drainage and utilities, traffic disruption, delays during environmental surveys and flood modelling construction and safety risks to road users and work. Over 30 alternatives were identified and, construction workers; after assessment, 11 were incorporated into § When the Preferred Route was announced the Scheme. it was stated that it was subject to change. Since then the design was developed taking Comment account of local information from landowners § Please see OA-1049; as well as more detailed information arising from further ground investigation, drainage and § We are satisfied with the Departmental environmental surveys and flood modelling response relating to the change from the work. Over 30 alternatives were identified and. Preferred Route. after assessment, 11 were incorporated into the Scheme; Objection by Mr and Mrs William Law § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway Inquiry Reference: OA-1165 is exceeded over most of the existing A5. The objectors were represented by Mr Trevor Law Although the Ballygawley-Aughnacloy link of CPS Dungannon. fell below the threshold it was better to have consistency of standard throughout, particularly from the safety aspect; Summary of Objection § In overall terms the Scheme would deliver a § An upgrade of the existing A5 would suffice. net economic benefit to the region which far The cost would not be justified in view of other outweighs the costs of implementing it; priorities; § Completion of the Scheme would have no § The change from the Preferred Route to the impact on the level of funding available for the alternative needs to be explained; roads maintenance programme. The additional § Evidence of traffic levels to justify the Scheme 85km would be insignificant compared with needs to be provided; the extent of the existing road network; § The Scheme would have an adverse effect on the:
169 § It is acknowledged that the Scheme would Comment impact on the countryside. However many of the planning, design and mitigating measures § See OA-1165; which have been incorporated into the § We trust that Mr Murray will not be put at any Scheme are specifically focused on preserving disadvantage because of the late notification the existing qualities of the countryside; of his involvement. § The Department accepted that the building of any new road can cause anxiety and stress for Objection by Mr Joseph Gallagher the people affected. It was hoped to alleviate some of these impacts by providing regular, Inquiry Reference: OA-1167 accessible and transparent communication of the Scheme information and progress. Help Summary of Objection and support is also provided by Rural Support. Although classified as Strategic / Local we consider this objection to be primarily of a local Comment nature and it is dealt with in Chapter 9. § As we have explained elsewhere, matters relating to compensation fall outside the remit Objection by Mr Thomas Moore of the Inquiry; Inquiry Reference: OA-1168 § We realise that the Scheme is causing anxiety and stress for many people affected Summary of Objection and we wish to emphasise the need for Objection to the entire Scheme and in particular to the Department to take whatever steps are the proposed roads layout at Ballygawley. necessary to lessen the trauma; § See also Chapter 6. Departmental Response § The North / South Ministerial Council in July 2007 noted the Irish Government’s intention Objection by Mr William Samuel to contribute £400M towards the cost of Murray providing dual carriageways on key corridor routes. The Northern Ireland Executive has Inquiry Reference: OA-1166 approved the project in principle. The project The objector was represented by Mr Trevor Law of would act for economic growth in keeping CPS Dungannon. with the Department’s objective to support the economy by planning, developing Summary of Objection and maintaining safe and sustainable transportation networks; § The objection was in similar terms to those in § There is substantial benefit for strategic traffic OA-1165; in extending the A4 dual carriageway to the § Why had Mr Murray only been notified in proposed A5 dual carriageway and providing September 2010 that his land would be unimpeded flow over this length. This would affected? require the removal of the recently constructed A4 / Tullyvar roundabout. Ballygawley would Departmental Response therefore require a link to the strategic § See OA-1165; network and this would best be achieved by § With regard to the latter point, the land in maximising the use of Tullybryan Road to question was unregistered but was shown acceptable design standards. in error on its mapping as belonging to a neighbour. When the error was discovered the Department notified the objector as quickly as possible and subsequently had a number of meetings with him.
170 Comment Comment § We consider that the Departmental response § We consider the Department has adequately has adequately addressed the matters raised addressed the matters raised in this in this objection; objection; § See our comments on Ballygawley in § See also Chapter 6. Chapter 6. Objection by Aughnacloy Objection by Mr John and Mrs Development Association, Liz Salter Helen Simpson Inquiry Reference: OA-1172 Inquiry Reference: OA-1169 Summary of Objection Summary of Objection § Need to maintain current passing trade in Although classified as Strategic / Local we Aughnacloy; consider this objection to be primarily of a local § Need for slip roads for easy access to the Main nature and it is dealt with in Chapter 9. Street; § Need for signage to existing services; Objection by Mr and Mrs § New service areas detrimental to existing trade Leonard Keys and businesses; Inquiry Reference: OA-1170 § Traffic accessing Aughnacloy from the north would have to negotiate two roundabouts. Summary of Objection Although classified as Strategic / Local we Departmental Response consider this objection to be primarily of a local § The removal of longer distance traffic from nature and it is dealt with in Chapter 9. Aughnacloy would be of benefit to the town in terms of improved road safety, community Objection by Mr Robert Stephen severance, noise / air pollution; Johnston § Inevitably some businesses would be affected but the overall benefits of the Scheme Inquiry Reference: OA-1171 would exceed the individual disbenefits. The The objector was represented by Mr Robert junctions to the north and east of Aughnacloy Pollock of RA Pollock, Estate Agent & would restore some provision for passing Valuer. trade; § The question of signage would be addressed Summary of Objection at the design stage; The proposed route will make the recently § Any new enterprises such as service stations constructed Ballygawley – Aughnacloy scheme would need planning permission; more or less obsolete to mainstream traffic. § The Aughnacloy north junction would present an ideal solution to make this connection Departmental Response readily understood and promote safe use by The A5 Tullyvar Scheme formed part of the drivers leaving / entering Aughnacloy; Design, Build, Finance and Operate package of schemes planned to support the economy. The A5 Scheme was in the early stages of development. The investment of £5.5M construction costs was recognised as providing benefits to the road user for a minimum of 6 years and thus the decision was made to proceed.
171 Comment Departmental Response § We are content with the Departmental § The roundabouts on the junction north of response. We are satisfied that the proposals Aughnacloy form part of the grade separated for this part of the Scheme are in keeping junction as determined by traffic flows and with the general strategy of free flowing design standards. The junction would provide a free-flow mainline while maintaining access traffic by-passing towns and settlements between Ballygawley and Aughnacloy for and that the overall benefits of the Scheme those wishing to stay on the existing A5; should outweigh some individual disbenefits; § See also Chapter 6. § A simple at grade roundabout would not be cost effective considering loss in time / cost Objection by Mr Kenneth Hawkes savings for strategic traffic. Inquiry Reference: OA-1173 Comment The objector was represented by Mr Roy Although classified as Strategic / Local we McCracken of W R J McCracken, Estate Agent. consider this objection to be primarily of a local nature and it is dealt with in Chapter 9. Comment Objection by Mr Darren Coote Although classified as Strategic / Local we consider this objection to be primarily of a local Inquiry Reference: OA-1176 nature and it is dealt with in Chapter 9. The objector was represented by Mr Conor Mallon of Best Property Services Objection by Mr Phillip Coote Inquiry Reference: OA-1174 Comment The objector was represented by Mr Conor Mallon Although classified as Strategic / Local we of Best Property Services consider this objection to be primarily of a local nature and it is dealt with in Chapter 9. Comment Objection by St. Patricks Although classified as Strategic / Local we consider this objection to be primarily of a local Archdiocesan Trust Ltd., Fr. M Seery nature and it is dealt with in Chapter 9. Inquiry Reference: OA-1177 Objection by Mr Wildridge John The objector was represented by Mr Conor Mallon of Best Property Services. Coote Inquiry Reference: OA-1175 Summary of Objection The objector was represented by Mr Conor Mallon The Tullybryan Road will now be carrying an of Best Property Services. excessive amount of traffic which will have an adverse effect on movements to and from the Summary of Objection school. One roundabout would suffice rather than the two proposed along with the tie-ins to the Departmental Response existing road. It is predicted that there will be approximately 1000 vehicles per day along the eastern part of Tullybryan Road in 2030 if the A5WTC is not built and approximately 2000 vehicles per day if it is. It is proposed to construct a new portion of roadway and improve the existing Tullybryan Road to cater for this increase in traffic. However, 2000 vehicles per day is still a relatively low flow. 172 Comment Departmental Response § We consider that the Departmental response § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway is has adequately addressed this objection; already exceeded over most of the existing A5. It is accepted that traffic on the Ballygawley § See our comments on Ballygawley in / Aughnacloy link will be below the threshold Chapter 6. in the initial year but from an engineering Objection by Mr Mervyn Parr and safety perspective, it is better to have consistency of standards along the entire Inquiry Reference: OA-1178 route; The objector was represented by Mr Conor Mallon § The dual carriageway is included in the of Best Property Services. Northern Ireland Programme for Government and provision is made for the cost in the Summary of Objection agreed budget, reflecting the priority accorded to this project by the Executive. The road could have been located further away from Mr Parr’s dwelling. Comment Departmental Response § We consider that the objection has been adequately addressed in the Departmental § The Scheme has been through a phased response; programme of development from initial study to Preferred Route. It has proved most § See also Chapter 6. favourable when measured against the five key criteria: safety, economic, environment, Objection by Ms Mary Irene Stewart integration and accessibility; Inquiry Reference: OA-1180 § The design at Mr Parr’s location has taken account of the topography, environmental Summary of Objection factors, and the need to balance the impacts A far less damaging solution should be sought to between properties and existing side roads. the problem of traffic on the present A5. In particular, the need to avoid properties and provide an at-grade junction with A4 have Departmental Response contributed to the proposed alignment. A dual carriageway is prescribed in the Northern Ireland Programme for Government, and funding Comment provided in the agreed budget thus reflecting the We consider that the Department’s responses priority accorded to this project by Government. have adequately addressed this objection. It was also accepted in principle by the North / South Ministerial Council in July 2007, and Objection by Mr James Lewis reaffirmed at a further Council meeting on 21 Taggart January 2011. Inquiry Reference: OA-1179 The objector was represented by Mr Conor Mallon Comment of Best Property Services. § The Department and its consultants have considered a number of options to Summary of Objection fulfill its brief from Government and have concluded that the Scheme represents the The traffic volumes do not justify the new road. best way forward. We are satisfied with the Department’s conclusion; § See our comments on A5 upgrading in Chapter 6.
173 Objection by Mr David Brush § There are many benefits in the Scheme, but it is accepted that some business and property Inquiry Reference: OA-1181 owners will be adversely affected. On balance, the overall benefits far exceed Summary of Objection individual disbenefits. § The Public Participation Guidelines do not appear to have been followed; Comment § Traffic on existing A5 falls far short of § We consider that the Departmental response justification for a dual carriageway; adequately addresses this objection; § What evidence is there that a comprehensive § See also Chapter 6. economic appraisal has been carried out? § The proposed new road is a misuse of public Objection by Mr Victor Brush money; Inquiry Reference: OA-1182 § It will require land to be taken from people for a second time in 5 years; Summary of Objections § Passing trade will be lost to Ballygawley and § The traffic numbers do not justify a dual Aughnacloy, and to catering premises and carriageway; service stations along the existing A5. § If the dual carriageway is built, the new 3 lane road between Ballygawley and Aughnacloy will Departmental Response have been a waste of public money; § A series of well attended public consultations § What legal right has the Roads Service to vest was held locally, attracting over 6,600 people. land from farmers for a second time? The A5WTC website and information phone § The Scheme will deplete the countryside of line have been widely used. Direct contact was mature hedgerows and trees; made with each landowner affected. In many cases, the views expressed were reflected in § Unresolved problems regarding unfounded the final design; allegations made against Mr Brush by Mouchel personnel. § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway is already exceeded over most of the A5. It is accepted that levels on the Ballygawley Departmental Response – Aughnacloy link are currently below this § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway threshold but from an engineering and is already exceeded over most of the A5. It road safety perspective, it is better to have is accepted that levels on the Ballygawley consistency of standards along the entire – Aughnacloy link are currently below this length of a route; threshold but from an engineering and safety perspective, it is better to have consistency of § An Economic Assessment was included in the standards along the entire length of a route; Preferred Options Report (July 2009). A full business case and economic appraisal will § The A5 Tullyvar Scheme was part of a separate be completed after the outcome of the Public package for which a contract was awarded Inquiry; prior to Government decision to take forward the A5WTC Scheme. Apart from long term § The A5 Tullyvar Scheme was part of a separate benefits, major benefits will be enjoyed for at package for which a contract was awarded least 6 years; prior to the Government decision to take forward the A5WTC Scheme. Apart from the § The Department has powers to vest lands long term benefits, major benefits will be under the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 enjoyed for at least 6 years; and the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972;
174 § Detailed studies and assessments have been account of local information from landowners undertaken to ensure that environmental as well as more detailed information arising resources are fully considered in the design from further ground investigation, drainage and process, and that appropriate mitigation environmental surveys and flood modelling measures are taken; work. Over 30 alternatives were identified and. § Mouchel and Roads Service much regret that after assessment, 11 were incorporated into Mr Brush was contacted in error by PSNI. They the Scheme. have made contact with PSNI in Omagh in an attempt to find a resolution. Comment § We consider that the Departmental response Comment re the Preferred Route process is satisfactory; § The unresolved problems relating to Mouchel § We have commented in Chapter 6 re the are not for this Inquiry to deal with, but we Ballygawley / Aughnacloy link. trust that the parties involved will find an early resolution by personal contact; Objection George McClelland § We are satisfied with the Departmental Inquiry Reference: OA-1184 response to this objection; § See also Chapter 6. Summary of Objection § No need for the Scheme which was a waste of Objection by Mr Harry and Mrs good farmland and was for the benefit of traffic Myrtle McBride from Dublin to Donegal; Inquiry Reference: OA-1183 § No evidence of traffic levels justifying the Scheme; Summary of Objection § Most of the Tyrone traffic would continue to § The process to determine the Preferred Route use the existing A5; was flawed; § Upgrading the existing A5 would be sufficient. § There was no need to dual the Ballygawley / Aughnacloy road which was recently Departmental Response upgraded. § The North / South Ministerial Council in July 2007 noted the Irish Government’s intention Departmental Response to contribute £400M towards the cost of § It is accepted that the traffic flows for the providing dual carriageways on key corridor Ballygawley / Aughnacloy link are below the routes. The Northern Ireland Executive has threshold for a dual carriageway but from approved the project in principle. The project engineering and safety perspectives it is better would act for economic growth in keeping to have consistency of standards over the with the Department’s objective to support entire length of the Scheme; the economy by planning, developing and maintaining safe and sustainable § The contract for the A5 Tullyvar project was transportation networks; awarded prior to the decision to proceed with the current Scheme. Given the likely cost of § It is accepted that over 800 hectares of renegotiating the contract and considering agricultural land would be lost to the Scheme. that the current Scheme was in the early Compared with a total of 993,500 hectares of stage of development and subject to statutory agricultural land across Northern Ireland the procedures and availability of funding, it was reduction would not be significant; decided to proceed with the Tullyvar project; § When the Preferred Route was announced it was stated that it was subject to change. Since then the design was developed taking
175 § The Scheme would have 15 junctions Ballygawley / Aughnacloy link are below the providing easy access from all A & B class threshold for a dual carriageway but from roads. The traffic model devised for the engineering and safety perspectives it is better Scheme indicated that there would be to have consistency of standards over the significant transfer to the proposed dual entire length of the Scheme; carriageway; § The contract for the A5 Tullyvar project was § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway awarded prior to the decision to proceed with is exceeded over most of the existing A5. the current Scheme. Given the likely cost of Although the Ballygawley-Aughnacloy link renegotiating the contract and considering fell below the threshold it was better to that the current Scheme was in the early have consistency of standard throughout, stage of development and subject to statutory particularly from the safety aspect; procedures and availability of funding, it was decided to proceed with the Tullyvar project; § Due to changes in design standards (2008) the landtake and associated costs required § It is inevitable that a scheme of this nature to facilitate an on-line 2+1 carriageway could would have some impact on the countryside. be more than that required for an off-line dual However integration of the Scheme into carriageway because of the need to provide the different landscape types has been an additional parallel roads to accommodate important aspect of the planning, design the many accesses along the existing route. and assessment process. The assessment In terms of road safety and journey times reported in the Environmental Statement the benefits of a dual carriageway would be concluded that almost 70% of the corridor greater than those of a 2+1 solution. Other would be sufficiently well integrated such significant factors include the substandard that impact would be slight compared with alignment of the existing A5, alteration of 7% which would be subject to large adverse utilities, traffic disruption, delays during impact. The Scheme is being promoted in the construction and safety risks to road users context of broader policies which address the and construction workers. future planning for the economy, development and infrastructure. Comment § We accept that the Department has Comment adequately responded to this objection; See our comments on the Ballygawley to § See also Chapter 6. Aughnacloy segment, on traffic levels and on environmental issues in Chapter 6. Objection by Kenneth Rea Objection by Mr & Mrs David Inquiry Reference: OA-1185 Armstrong Summary of Objection Inquiry Reference: OA-1186 § Traffic levels did not justify the Scheme; Summary of Objection § The recent upgrade of the Ballygawley / § The cost of maintaining the new road would Aughnacloy link should be adequate; impinge on the maintenance of the existing A5; § The Scheme would cause an environmental § There would be no local benefit - small disaster. businesses would be adversely affected. Departmental Response Departmental Response § Traffic forecasts are based according to the § Completion of the Scheme would have no Trip End Model Program. While the program impact on the level of funding available for the is to be revised, it is expected that it will roads maintenance programme. The additional show substantial growth in traffic levels. 85 km would be insignificant compared with It is accepted that the traffic flows for the
176 the extent of the existing road network. The Mr Paul McClean stated that he appeared on his existing A5 would continue to be maintained own behalf and on behalf of his wife and father- although, due to the significant transfer of in-law Mr Bill Falls whose land would be affected traffic to the proposed dual carriageway, the by the Vesting Order. He submitted that there maintenance requirement would not be as were insufficient traffic volumes to justify such an onerous as at present; elaborate design. § While there are many benefits associated He referred to the Environmental Statement which with the Scheme, including the opening up of acknowledged that traffic between Ballygawley business opportunities, it is recognised that and Aughnacloy was much lower than for the some business owners would be seriously remainder of the A5 and less than the threshold affected. On balance the overall benefits range for a dual carriageway. He suggested that should far outweigh individual disbenefits and the traffic survey carried out in May 2008 may be the Scheme should proceed in the wider public invalidated due to the subsequent completion of interest. the A5 realignment at Tullyvar. The previous substandard design issue at Tullyvar Comment had been addressed but the new roundabout would now be made redundant by the Scheme. We are satisfied that the Department’s response Many people in the area had been seriously adequately deals with the objections. inconvenienced by the realignment project and would face further disruption if the Scheme were Objection by Mrs Collette McCaffrey to proceed. Inquiry Reference: OA-1187 He pointed out the final section of the road would be single carriageway to tie into the N2 Comment in Monaghan. Future dualling of the N2 would necessitate additional works on the A5. The issues raised by this objector were deemed to be of a local nature and are dealt with in Chapter 9. Departmental Response § The road alignment had been designed to Objection by Mr Paul and Mrs Nicola the lowest possible elevation to satisfy flood McClean requirements. It was acknowledged that there would be a marked increase in noise levels Inquiry Reference: OA-1188 which would be partially offset by use of low- noise surfacing. Proposed planting on west Summary of Objection facing embankments and alongside the road § The height and proximity of the road to the boundary would ameliorate the visual intrusion; McClean property would result in significant § Substantial economic benefit would attach noise and visual impact; to strategic traffic by extending the A4 to the § Mitigation measures should be provided such Scheme and allowing unimpeded traffic flow. as a lower road elevation, noise baffles and This would result in the removal of the recently visual barriers; constructed roundabout at A4 / Tullyvar. The § The absence of direct access to the A4 would existing Loughans Road / Tullyvar junction result in a detour adding to journey times and would be severed but the Loughans Road costs; roundabout in conjunction with the Aughnacloy North junction would meet relevant traffic § The provision of a roundabout at Loughans needs; Road was unnecessary; § As far as possible, the side road would remain § Closure of the Lisginny Road throughout the open during the construction stage until such construction period would add significantly to time as realigned roads were available. journey times and costs.
177 Comment Objection by Mr William Norman Beggs § We accept that the proposed mitigation measures are reasonable and that adequate Inquiry Reference: OA-1191 provision would be made to ensure continuity The objector was represented by Mr Kevin of access during the construction period; McCauley of JG Fleming LLP Estate Agent. § We accept the Departmental response addresses the issues raised in this objection; Summary of Objection § See also our comments on Ballygawley in § Does the traffic level justify a dual Chapter 6. carriageway? § With limited access and exit points, local traffic Objection by Mr Ruari Maguire will continue to use existing A5; Inquiry Reference: OA-1189 § Difficult to justify the costs of this road in a period of economic uncertainty; Comment § If new road is built, substantial maintenance costs would be required to maintain existing Although classified as Strategic / Local we A5; consider this objection to be primarily of a local nature and it is dealt with in Chapter 9. § Alternative options do not appear to have been considered; Objection by Ms Sara Campbell and § Severe impact on the environment; Mr John Lynn § Devastating impact on wildlife; Inquiry Reference: OA-1190 § Watercourses will be affected; The objectors were represented by Mr § Increases in noise and emission pollution; Robert Pollock of RA Pollock, Estate Agent & § Hardship to farmers; Valuer. § Businesses will be severely impacted; § Insufficient meaningful consultation with Summary of Objection landowners affected. Object in principle to entire Scheme Departmental Response Departmental Response § The traffic threshold for a dual carriageway is § The Northern Ireland Executive included the already exceeded over most of the existing A5; Scheme in its Programme for Government, and § The proposed road has junctions at 15 made provision for the Scheme in its budget, locations which will provide easy access from this reflecting the priority accorded to it; all A & B routes; § The Irish Government offered to make a § The Northern Ireland Executive has included financial contribution, confirmed by the the Scheme in its Programme for Government, Taoiseach on 21 January 2011; and in its budget, reflecting the Scheme’s high § The Scheme would act as a catalyst for priority within the Executive; economic growth in the area. § The existing A5 will continue to be maintained, but the costs will be lower due to the transfer Comment of traffic to the dual carriageway; § The Departmental response has adequately § It is acknowledged that the Scheme would addressed the objection; involve impacts on the environment and countryside. Potential impacts and mitigation § See also Chapter 6. measures are described in the Environmental Statement (ES);
178 § It is not agreed that the Scheme would have Objection by Ms Gladys Emily a devastating effect on wildlife. The detailed Bingham findings are reported in the ES; § The Scheme would cross a number of rivers, Inquiry Reference: OA-1192 local watercourses and drainage ditches. The objector was represented by Mr Conor Mallon The design takes account of the importance of Best Property Services. of water quality and the habitats of wildlife. Potential impacts would be well mitigated by Summary of Objection measures taken; The road could have been located further from § It is recognised that some receptors would the dwelling. be subject to increased noise levels and mitigation measures would be taken where Departmental Response appropriate. Assessment has shown that many more receptors would be subject to slight Alignment designs including alternatives have reductions in traffic related pollutants, than been considered based on safety, economic, would be subject to slight increases, none of environment, integration and accessibility. The which would be above a level considered as a alignment design at this location has taken threat to health; account of all relevant factors. § It is acknowledged that the Scheme would have an impact on views through Comment the landscape but the design would have This is largely a local issue - see Chapter 9. endeavoured to minimise this impact. 68.5% In any case the Departmental response is of the corridor would be sufficiently integrated adequate. to ensure only a slight impact, compared with 7% which would be largely adversely affected; Objection by Ballygawley § Assessments have shown that there would be Development Association substantial impact on 52 farms, a moderate Inquiry Reference: OA-1193 impact on 67, and a slight impact on 163. Severance is a compensatable issue to be Mr Jim Tallon, Chairperson of Ballygawley considered by Land & Property Services; Development Association submitted the objection on behalf of the Association. § There are many benefits associated with the A5WTC but it is recognised that some businesses and property owners will be Summary of Objection adversely affected. On balance, the benefits § Closure of recently constructed roundabout at exceed individual disbenefits. Ballygawley; § Threat to Ulsterbus and CIE services in the Comment area; § The Departmental response has adequately § Isolation of Ballygawley; addressed this objection; § Request meeting to discuss. § See also Chapter 6. At the Hearing on the 16th of May 2011, Mr Tallon, and others, reiterated these objections and made additional points as follows:
§ The additional journey times that would be suffered by local residents, and others; § Threat to business in Ballygawley. At our invitation Mr Tallon joined a panel of objectors for a question and answer session, as reported in OA-1194.
179 Departmental Response Departmental Response § The Scheme has been developed on five § Mr Loughrey on behalf of the Department, key criteria; safety, economic, environment, explained in detail, the proposals of the integration and accessibility, and proved most Scheme for the Ballygawley area; favourable when measured against these § He said that the A5 Tullyvar Scheme was part criteria. There would be economic benefits in of an A4 package for which a contract was providing unimpeded flow of strategic traffic awarded prior to the Government decision to between the A4 and the A5WTC; take forward the A5WTC Scheme; § A dedicated link will be included on the A4 / § The alternative proposals for the area, as A5 roundabout with signage to Ballygawley; put forward by a number of objectors, was a § It is expected that Translink journey times will “close call” and the Department would submit reduce, and be more reliable as a result of the it to a safety audit; Scheme. Roads Service have had discussions § Further consideration would be given to the with Translink and these will continue; objectors’ proposals, including issues § Roads Service will be in contact about the and costs. requested meeting. Comment Comment § We consider that the Departmental response § Councillor McGonnell’s objections have been has adequately addressed this objection; articulated by a number of other objectors and are addressed in this Report; § However, the Department has agreed to consider alternative proposals for the § We welcome the Department’s undertaking to Ballygawley area which would appear to carefully examine the alternative proposals; meet many of the listed objections; § See also Chapter 6. § See also Chapter 6. Objection by Mr Noel Brush Objection by Councillor Anthony McGonnell Inquiry Reference: OA-1290 The matters raised in this objection were deemed Inquiry Reference: OA-1194 to be of a local nature and are dealt with in Chapter 9. Summary of Objection § Does not object in principle to the A5WTC, but Objection by Ms Elizabeth Stinson supports it; § However, does object to the removal of the Inquiry Reference: OA-1301 roundabout at Ballygawley; Summary of Objection § Its importance to the economy, especially § An upgrade to the existing A5 would be Ballygawley area. adequate; Councillor McGonnell made these objections § There is no need for a by-pass around verbally at the Hearing on the 16th of May 2011. Aughnacloy as the traffic is never at a standstill At our invitation he later participated in a question in this small town. and answer session with other objectors including Mr Morris, Ms Coote, Councillor Brush, Mr Suitor and Councillor Mulligan. This session ranged over the various issues relating to the Ballygawley area proposals.
180 Departmental Response § On-line widening can be more difficult and expensive than off-line due mainly to the need to accommodate the many existing accesses; § The sub-standard alignment of the existing A5, alterations to utilities, traffic disruption and delays during construction, and increased safety risks to road users and construction workers are significant factors which mitigate against on-line widening; § The landtake for a 2+1 road is actually greater than that required for a dual carriageway due to the need to provide parallel roads to accommodate accesses. In any case, the brief from the Programme for Government is for a dual carriageway; § It is the objective to develop a high standard dual carriageway and the standards required could not be secured by using the main street in Aughnacloy with its many accesses.
Comment § The Programme for Government prescribed a dual carriageway, and that ruled out other options that were proposed; § We consider that the Departmental response adequately addressed this objection; § See also Chapter 6.
181 5.2 Generic Multiple Objections
Generic Multiple Strategic Objection Mr Robert Pollock, RA Pollock, Estate Agent & Valuer Mr Robert Pollock, Estate Agent and Chartered Surveyor appeared at the Inquiry on Tuesday the 17th of May 2011, representing the following clients:
Client Strategic Objection Local Objection Number Number
Mr Nigel Giles OA-1195 03-152 Mr & Mrs Ian Gilmore OA-1102 02-250 Mr Robert S Hamilton OA-1196 02-201 Mr Stephen Johnston OA-1197 03-093 Mr David Armstrong OA-1186 03-139 Mr Leslie Beggs OA-1198 03-095 Mr Derek Colhoun OA-1103 02-051 Mr Stephen Walmsley OA-1199 02-002 Mr James McFarland OA-1200 02-001 Mr Caldwell McAskie OA-1101 02-048 Mr Paul McClean OA-1201 - Mr Bert Wilson OA-1202 - Mr WT Armstrong OA-1138 03-027 Mrs Pauline O’Hagan OA-1203 03-028 Mr Alan Kemps OA-1112 02-062 Mr Solomon Darragh OA-1204 02-049 Mr David Witherow OA-1205 01-006 Mr Robert Cummings OA-1206 01-005 Mr Heather Cummings OA-1207 01-081 Mr John Robinson OA-1208 02-007 Mr Ann Teague OA-1209 02-064 Mr & Mrs William Armstrong OA-1210 - Mr Alister Buchanan OA-1211 - Ms Margaret Fyffe OA-1212 02-039 Mr George Moffitt OA-1213 - Mr B McKay OA-1214 -
182 Mr Pollock expressed that all of his clients are in favour of progress and recognise the need to improve road infrastructure in the west of the Province. However, this Scheme has been initiated and progressed by political pressure with little emphasis on the impact on individual families and communities.
Summary of Objection § During a time when all Government Departments are being forced to implement cutbacks, upgrading the existing A5 would be a more practical option; § Passing lanes along the existing route would reduce traffic congestion and could be constructed at much less cost, minimum disruption and very little loss of land; § Some of the most fertile farmland is being taken, leaving some of our most productive farming enterprises unworkable at a time when the economy needs the support of the agricultural industry more than ever; § Consideration should have been given to identifying a route which would have caused least hardship; § The proposed closure of minor roads affects individual homes and landowners and will have a negative impact on local communities; § Land will be vested at a time when land prices are lowest for several years and that will determine the level of compensation; § Landowners have no impact into decisions to vest. This is not fair, and infringes their human rights.
Departmental Response The Department declined to respond in detail as all of the points raised by Mr Pollock were already addressed at earlier Hearings, but assured Mr Pollock that those objections of a local nature would be full addressed at the Section Inquiries.
Comment § The local issues were addressed at the Section Inquiries and we agree with the Department that the strategic matters have all been dealt with in earlier cases; § In particular, reference should be made to Chapter 6.
183 Generic Multiple Strategic Objection Mr Alan Burns of Burns & Co Commercial Mr Alan Burns, Estate Agent and Chartered Surveyor appeared at the Inquiry on Tuesday the 17th of May 2011, representing the following clients:
Client Strategic Objection Local Objection Number Number
Mr Leslie Christie OA-1000 01-077 Mr David Throne OA-1057 01-088 Mr Derick Donnell OA-963 01-086 Messrs William & Norman OA-1059 01-090 Crumley & Victor Love Mrs Jude Crumlish OA-1056 01-087 Messrs William & Robin Fulton OA-1058 01-089 Mr Cecil Henderson OA-1060 01-091 Mr Raymond Crosbie OA-1107 02-055 Messrs David & Robert McKinley OA-1098 02-042 Mr Nicholas McKinley OA-1099 02-043 Messrs David, William & OA-1097 02-041 Arthur Dunbar Mr Robin Sterritt OA-1109 02-058 Mr Gerald Devine OA-1108 02-057 Mr Patrick McNamee OA-1082 02-009 Mr Sean Bradley OA-1105 02-053 Messrs Gordon & Aubrey Smyth OA-1106 02-054 Mr Derek Longwell OA-1100 02-044 Mr Geoffrey Rankin OA-1078 01-145
Summary of Objection § Concern about the cost of legal and other representation for those affected by the Scheme. Contact has been made with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission on this subject. Until this matter is resolved, the Inquiry should be put on hold; § Mr Burns’ clients are all farmers and all but one would lose land. In some cases, the route taken could well mean the demise of their farming businesses; § Surprise and disappointment at the delay in receiving a response to their objections; § Roads Service has not given full and proper consideration to the impact of this Scheme on my clients’ lands and businesses.
184 Departmental Response § The Department contended that all the strategic objections from Mr Burns and his clients have been dealt with earlier in the Inquiry; § The Department did not wish to further address the strategic objections some of which perhaps should have been classified as local; § All the local objections would be fully addressed at the Section Inquiry.
Comment § The local issues were addressed at the Section Inquiries and we agree with the Department that the strategic matters have all been dealt with in earlier cases; § In particular, reference should be made to Chapter 6; § We do not have power to grant financial assistance to those affected by the Scheme.
Generic Multiple Strategic Objection Mr Tom Kirby of GVA Donal O Buachalla Mr Tom Kirby, a Chartered Surveyor from GVA Donal O Buachalla, appeared at the Inquiry on the 17th of May 2011, representing the following clients:
Client Strategic Objection Local Objection Number Number
Mr Aidan Lynch OA-1215 03-065 Mr Aidan Meegan OA-1216 03-130 Mr Arwin Sharma OA-1217 01-064 Mr Bryan Campbell OA-1218 02-033 Ms Elizabeth O’Hagan OA-1219 03-053 Mr Emmett McGrady OA-1220 03-061 Mr Eugene McCaughey OA-1221 - Mr Gerald Heaney OA-1222 02-035 Ms Geraldine McKenna OA-1223 03-059 Mr Hugh McAleer OA-1224 03-051 Mr Hugh Ward OA-1149 03-058 Mr Joe Lowry OA-1225 02-036 Mr Kieran Hackett OA-1226 - Mr & Mrs Liam Woods OA-1227 03-130 Mrs Kelly OA-1228 03-103 Mr Patrick Meegan OA-1229 - Hacketts, Newtownsaville OA-1230 03-050 Mr Raymond Curran OA-1231 02-034 Mr Seamus Woods OA-1232 03-067 Mr Sean McKenna OA-1233 - Mr Seamus McCarron OA-1234 03-064
185 Client Strategic Objection Local Objection Number Number
Mr Stephen McGee OA-1235 03-060 Mr Barney Starrs OA-1148 03-057 Mr Brian McGee OA-1236 03-063 Mr Brian Starrs OA-1147 03-056 Mr Cathal Blee OA-1043 01-063 Mr Cecil Martin OA-1042 01-061 Mr John Starrs OA-1146 03-055 Mr & Mrs Kieran O’Neill OA-1237 03-054 Mr Pat Blee OA-1238 - Mr Pat O’Neill OA-1239 02-032 Mr Stephen Kee OA-1151 03-066
Summary of Objection § General dissatisfaction with consultation around the Environmental Statement (ES). Whilst the consultation has been frequent, it has not been meaningful; § Concern about the amount of land in the draft Vesting Order; § Can the contractors depart from the design envisaged in the ES? § If the design is not yet finalised, how can his clients properly prepare a claim for compensation?
Departmental Response § The Environmental Impact Assessment is necessarily carried out in advance of impacts being realised and is used to inform the design; § Any major changes at detailed design stage would be subject to further scrutiny and assessment before they could be accepted; § The consultation process has been thorough and many consultees have made a helpful contribution; § If, at detailed planning stage, it may be possible to reduce the landtake, the Department would be pleased to do so.
Comment § We were assured by the Department that, as the work progresses there would be continuous scrutiny by the Department and by the contractors’ own environmental expert, to ensure that there would be no significant departures from the ES; § We consider that the other issues raised by Mr Kirby were adequately addressed in the Departmental response.
186 Generic Multiple Strategic Objection Mr Tom Kirby of GVA Donal O Buachalla Mr Tom Kirby, a Chartered Surveyor from GVA Donal O Buachalla, appeared at the Inquiry on 17th May 2011, representing a number of objectors from Doogary, as follows:
Client Strategic Objection Local Objection Number Number
Mr Barney Starrs OA - 1148 03 - 057 Mr Brian Starrs OA - 1147 03 - 056 Mr John Starrs OA - 1146 03 - 055 Mr Stephen Kee OA - 1151 03 - 066 Mr Hugh Ward OA - 1149 03 - 058
Mr Kirby said that his clients are all affected landowners, none of whom was unaffected by the route originally chosen. There was a subsequent re-routing which also affects his clients.
Summary of Objection § Disagree that the alternative was promoted on the basis of economy and lesser environmental impacts; § Land to the north of the existing A5 is good agricultural land, whilst that to the south contains a large section of bog peat land so designers usually look for good land on which to build; § If the design is not complete, how can the costs of constructing it be concluded? § It is said that a number of landowners affected by the Preferred Route is 14, and 12 directly affected by the alternative. Account has not been taken of Tattykeel Cottages which have their access altered by the Scheme.
Departmental Response § The route finally selected best scored against the key criteria of safety, economic, integration, environment and accountability; § Costs are estimated at this stage; § Account has been taken of all the relevant factors relating to this part of the route.
Comment § We consider that the Departmental response has adequately addressed the objections raised by Mr Kirby; § Compensation is not a matter for this Inquiry.
187 Generic Multiple Strategic Objection Mr Kevin McCauley, JG Fleming LLP Mr McCauley of JG Fleming LLP appeared at the Inquiry on the 17th of May 2011, representing the following clients: Client Strategic Objection Local Objection Number Number
Mr & Mrs Christopher Throne OA-1061 01-102 Mr Robert Gamble OA-1048 01-078 Mr & Mrs Mark Adams OA-1050 01-080 Mr Eddie Harvey OA-1111 02-061 Mr & Mrs Robert McKean OA-1062 01-103 Mr & Mrs Stephen Boyd OA-1052 01-082 Mr & Mrs William Boyd OA-1051 01-081 Mr & Mrs Sidney Pinkerton OA-1117 02-076 Mr & Mrs John Wauchob OA-1240 02-059 Mrs Olive Wauchob OA-1110 02-060 Mr & Mrs David Matthews OA-1092 02-027 Mr Philip Matthews OA-1241 - Mr & Mrs Raymond McKinley OA-1094 02-030 Mr William Beggs OA-1095 02-031 Mr & Mrs Joseph Gallagher OA-1090 02-025 Mr & Mrs Timothy A Sproule OA-1093 02-028 Mr & Mrs Drew Lynd OA-1159 03-076 Mr & Mrs F Giles OA-1154 03-071 Mr Norman Boyd OA-1242 03-082 Mr William Cecil Boyd OA-1161 03-078 Miss Margaret Buchanan OA-1157 03-074 Mr Eamon Hackett OA-1158 03-075 Mr Mervyn Bell OA-1162 03-079 Mr & Mrs Paul Barrett OA-1160 03-077 Mr & Mrs Keith Mitchell OA-1156 03-073 Mr Norman Beggs OA-1191 03-372 Mr & Mrs Tom Watterson OA-1152 03-068 Mr & Mrs Frederick McDowell OA-1163 03-080 Mr & Mrs Malcolm Simpson OA-1155 03-072 Mr & Mrs Tom Allen OA-1153 03-069 Mrs Elizabeth Allen OA-1164 03-081 Mr James Allen OA-1164 03-081 Mr & Mrs David Allen OA-1164 03-081 Mr Hamilton Hassard OA-980 -
188 Client Strategic Objection Local Objection Number Number
Mr John Dunbar OA-1080 02-003 Messrs Brian & Richard Pinkerton OA-1089 02-023 Mr & Mrs Keith Mosgrove OA-1127 03-011
Summary of Objection § Traffic level is just bordering on that set for a dual carriageway, whilst routes such as the A6 appear to be in much more need for such a road; § The journey times will be reduced but this will cause a bottleneck at New Buildings at peak times; § The Scheme appears to be a priority because of funds from the Irish Republic, and not because of need; § The Department’s survey asked the public if they would like to see the existing road upgraded and 93% said ‘yes’ but Roads Service used this in a misleading way to illustrate that the public wanted to see a dual carriageway; § The majority of local traffic will continue to use the existing A5 which will still require maintenance. Are the additional costs in improving and maintaining both roads taken into account in the cost benefits analysis? § A detailed examination of alternative options does not appear to have been carried out; § Why have railways not been considered? § There will be adverse impact on the environment and wildlife; § A number of dwellings will be vested; § A large number of dwellings near the new road will be adversely affected, many suffering increases in noise levels, and pollution; § It will cause hardship to farmers at a time when the farming community is already struggling in adverse economic conditions; § Farms will be severely affected by extensive landtake, some will be severed, and some rendered uneconomical; § The loss in value of the production on the 2832 acres of farmland over the next 60 years does not appear to have been taken into account in the Cost Benefit Analysis; § Various businesses along the existing A5 and in the villages to be bypassed will be severely impacted; § It is difficult to justify costs of such a road as the A5WTC in a period of economic uncertainty. It is questionable whether this is the best use of taxpayers’ money.
Departmental Response The Department did not directly respond on the grounds that all the objections had already been addressed in the Inquiry.
Comment § The local issues were addressed at the Section Inquiries and we agree with the Department that the strategic matters have all been dealt with in earlier cases; § In particular, reference should be made to Chapter 6.
189 Generic Multiple Strategic Objection Mr Roy McCracken, W R J McCracken Estate Agent Mr Roy McCracken, member of the Institute of Professional Auctioneers and Valuers, appeared at the Inquiry on 20th May 2011, representing the following clients:
Client Strategic Objection Local Objection Number Number
Mr Samuel Morrow OA-1120 03-003 Mr Kenneth Hawkes OA-1173 03-102 Mr Taylor Lindsay OA-1243 01-002 Mr Ivan Lindsay OA-1244 01-002 Mr Alan McCrea OA-1245 01-001 Mr Derek McCrea OA-1246 01-001 Mr Richard McKelvey OA-1088 02-019 Mr Alan Buchanan OA-1247 02-066 Mr Mark Wilson OA-1248 03-101 DO McCracken & Sons OA-1249 03-010 Mr Frederick McDowell OA-1250 03-100 Mr Cyril McDowell OA-1251 03-100 Mr Kenneth McDowell OA-1252 03-100 Mr Tom Kyle OA-1253 03-016 Mr Mervyn Magee OA-1254 03-099 Mr Noel McFarland OA-1255 03-098 Ms Mary Teresa Horisk OA-1256 - Mr David Wilson OA-1257 -
Summary of Objection § Challenge that the A5WTC is a least-cost route; § Drumlins are being excavated to road level, but the excavated material is to be used as fill for other areas, and the landowners will not get compensation for this fill; § The adverse economic effect of the A5WTC on agriculture has not been properly assessed; § The human cost cannot be measured against models, modules or manuals; § My clients’ human rights have been infringed upon.
190 Departmental Response § Compensation in respect of fill used may be an issue for Land & Property Services; § An agricultural assessment was prepared in respect of each farm affected; § It is accepted that there will be adverse affects on the lifestyles and livelihoods of a number of landowners and others. It is suggested that the overall benefits of the Scheme outweigh the disbenefits to any one individual; § In terms of human rights, certain rights of individuals can be set aside in the interests of the greater public need.
Comment § Compensation is not a matter for this Inquiry but for Land & Property Services; § Interpretation of human rights legislation is a matter for the Courts; § We consider that the Department’s response has adequately addressed the other objections; § See also Chapter 6.
191 Generic Multiple Strategic Objection Mr Crawford McCann, J Boggs Estate Agent and Valuer Mr McCann, Estate Agent and Valuer appeared at the Inquiry on 13th May 2011, representing the following clients:
Client Strategic Objection Local Objection Number Number Mr & Mrs John Lennox OA-1075 01-136 Ms Mary Maguire (rep of the late OA-1044 01-072 Patricia Monaghan) Mr & Mrs W Ward OA-1291 01-066 Mr & Mrs Ecklin O’Kane OA-1292 01-073 Mr Peter McShane OA-1293 01-067 Ms Ruth Acheson OA-1294 - Messrs Richard and OA-1295 01-009 Sydney Gamble Mr Robert Rankin OA-1296 01-070 Mr & Mrs Adrian Patterson OA-1297 01-069 Mr James McKean OA-1298 01-071 Mr Patrick Dooher OA-1299 01-068
Summary of Objection On behalf of his clients, Mr McCann stated that most of his clients are statutory objectors and they would prefer that the land not required on a permanent basis be taken by legal agreement on a temporary basis.
Departmental Response This is a reasonable request. The matter has been referred to the Departmental Solicitors Office for advice and the Department would like to facilitate the request. It would leave landowners with the certainty that land used on a temporary basis would be returned to them.
Comment Mr McCann’s clients have made a reasonable request, similar to that made by a number of others. Every effort should be made by the Department to accede to this request.
192 5.3 Standard Letters & Petitions Standard Letter / Petition No. 4 We note that a number of persons who signed Inquiry Reference: OA-1261 standard letters or petitions also submitted individual objections and some made personal Summary of Objection appearances at the Inquiry. § Environmental devastation; § Departmental compliance with all relevant Standard Letter / Petition No. 1 laws. Inquiry Reference: OA-1258 Departmental Response Summary of Objection The Department confirmed that it had complied § No need for Scheme; with all legislation pertinent in Northern Ireland applicable to the Scheme. § Need for alternative transportation strategy; § Scheme not justified by traffic levels; Comment § Upgrade existing A5. § See Chapter 6.17 for the Departmental Comment response and our comments; § We are satisfied that all relevant legislation See Chapter 6.4, 6.5, 6.15 and 6.18 for the has been complied with. Departmental response and our comments. Standard Letter / Petition No. 5 Standard Letter / Petition No. 2 Inquiry Reference: OA-1262 Inquiry Reference: OA-1259 Summary of Objection Summary of Objection Ballygawley to Aughnacloy segment (a) waste of Disruption and severance of families and public funds and (b) disruption to local community. communities. Comment Comment See Chapter 6.11 for the Departmental response See Chapter 6.3 for the Departmental response and our comments. and our comments.
Standard Letter / Petition No. 3 Inquiry Reference: OA-1260 Summary of Objection
§ Pollution – increase in noise and vehicle emissions; § Mental and physical health implications.
Comment See Chapter 6.3, 6.6 and 6.16 for the Departmental response and our comments.
193 Standard Letter / Petition No. 6 Departmental Response Studies into the mental health and well-being of Inquiry Reference: OA-1263 people along the route are not within the scope of Summary of Objection the Scheme assessment procedure. § Waste of money at a time of fiscal austerity; § Normal measurement criteria side-stepped. Comment § See Chapter 6.3 for the Departmental Departmental Response response and our comments; Standard measurement criteria were applied. § We recommend that the Department should maximise the extent of personal contact with Comment individuals and communities. § See Chapter 6.5 for the Departmental Standard Letter / Petition No. 9 response and our comments; Inquiry Reference: OA-1266 § We are satisfied that the Scheme has been developed in accordance with standard Summary of Objection measurement criteria. § Scheme could be construed as a crime against the indigenous people; Standard Letter / Petition No. 7 § Destruction of human and wildlife habitats. Inquiry Reference: OA-1264 Comment Summary of Objection See Chapter 6.2 and 6.17 for the Departmental § Waste of public funds; response and our comments. § Source and associated costs of funding. Departmental Response Standard Letter / Petition No. 10 The Scheme would be funded by the Northern Inquiry Reference: OA-1267 Ireland Executive with a contribution by the Irish government from their annual budgets. Summary of Objection Repayment periods and interest payments are not § Stopping the road before New Buildings will relevant. result in major traffic delays; § Limited access to the road would cause local Comment traffic to continue to use the existing road § See Chapter 6.5 for the Departmental raising safety concerns; response and our comments; § Immense environmental damage; § We are content with the Department’s § Rural landscape along Foyle Valley destroyed; response re funding. § Negative impact on local businesses; § Severance of farming enterprises; Standard Letter / Petition No. 8 § Scheme should be reviewed due to current Inquiry Reference: OA-1265 recession. Summary of Objection § Adverse impact on the lives, health and well- being of people along the route; § Studies undertaken to mitigate the potential for mental anguish and illness.
194 Departmental Response Departmental Response § The Scheme would have 15 junctions which § Consideration has been given to tourist related would provide easy access from all A & B class interests and resources associated with the routes. Transfer of traffic from the existing road corridor and surrounding area, including A5 to the proposed dual carriageway would facilities such as the Ulster American Folk be influenced primarily by the origin and Park, Harry Avery’s Castle, the Sperrins scenic destination of individual trips and consequently routes, the Ulster Way and the Sperrins Area of whether or not journey time savings could be Outstanding Natural Beauty. The assessments made; demonstrated that there would be no direct § The traffic model for the Scheme takes adverse impacts apart from the setting of this into account and indicates that there Harry Avery’s Castle. The transfer of traffic would be significant transfer to the new dual away from sections of the existing A5 which carriageway. The existing road would continue are part of the scenic routes would enhance to be monitored and if necessary improved their recreational appeal. It is anticipated that road safety measures would be implemented; the proposed dual carriageway would benefit the tourism industry by providing greater § The Scheme would generate many benefits accessibility to and between tourist areas in including the possible opening up of business Tyrone, Fermanagh and Donegal; opportunities. However it is recognised that some existing businesses would be § With regard to the matter of the Green Book adversely affected by the Scheme. On balance guidelines, the Scheme is being developed the overall benefits would far exceed the in accordance with approved governmental disbenefits and the Scheme should therefore guidance and appropriate procedures have proceed in the wider public interest. been agreed with the Department of Finance and Personnel. Comment Comment § See Chapter 6.5, 6.7, 6.8, 6.13 and 6.17 for the Departmental response and our § See Chapter 6.7, 6.13, 6.14, 6.16, 6.18 and comments; 6.20 for the Departmental response and our comments; § In relation to the other issues raised we are § We are content with the Department’s satisfied with the Department’s response. response re the impact on tourism; § We are satisfied that the necessary financial Standard Letter / Petition No. 11 controls have been implemented. Inquiry Reference: OA-1268 Standard Letter / Petition No. 12 Summary of Objection Inquiry Reference: OA-1269 § Scheme not justified by traffic volumes; § Parallel road to existing A5 is a waste of Summary of Objection farmland and carbon sink; § Rural landscape destroyed and polluted; § Environmental and economic damage to § Upgrade existing A5. tourism industry outweighs economic benefits; § Failure to adhere to proper procedures; Comment § Stopping the road at New Buildings will lead to See Chapter 6.4 and 6.17 for the Departmental traffic congestion. response and our comments.
195 Standard Letter / Petition No. 13 Standard Letter / Petition No. 15 Inquiry Reference: OA-1270 Inquiry Reference: OA-1272 Summary of Objection Summary of Objection § Destruction of rural landscape along Mourne § Traffic levels showing downward trend; Valley and Sollus Hill; § Scheme will not improve local economy; § Upgrade existing A5. § Upgrade existing A5; § Severance of farm businesses; Comment § Environmental impact of noise and other § See Chapter 6.4 and 6.19 for the pollution; Departmental response and our comments. § Waste of money during a time of fiscal austerity; Standard Letter / Petition No. 14 § Impact of maintenance of new road on local Inquiry Reference: OA-1271 roads and footways.
Summary of Objection Departmental Response § Waste of money at a time of fiscal austerity; Implementation of the Scheme would have no § Road not justified by traffic levels; impact on the level of funding for the maintenance of the road network. The existing A5 would § Parallel road is a waste of farmland; continue to be maintained. However, because of § Impact on farm businesses not adequately significant transfer of traffic to the proposed dual assessed; carriageway maintenance requirements would § Recent upgrade of road between Ballygawley not be as onerous as at present. Winter service and Aughnacloy now a waste of money; would continue to be delivered in accordance with § Impact on local businesses and communities; established practice. § Upgrade existing A5. Comment Departmental Response § See Chapter 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, 6.8, 6.16 and § The Scheme would generate many benefits 6.18 for the Departmental response and our including the possible opening up of business comments; opportunities. However it is recognised that § We are satisfied with the Department’s some existing businesses would be adversely response relating to maintenance. affected by the Scheme; § On balance, the overall benefits would far Standard Letter / Petition No. 16 exceed the disbenefits and the Scheme should Inquiry Reference: OA-1273 therefore proceed in the wider public interest. Summary of Objection Comment Closure of Cormore Road. § See Chapter 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.11 This was dealt with at the Section 3 Inquiry – see and 6.18 for the Departmental response and Chapter 9. our comments; § We accept that some businesses may be adversely affected but in a Scheme of this nature we consider that the wider public benefit should prevail.
196 Standard Letter / Petition No. 17 § Limited access will be of little benefit to local traffic; Inquiry Reference: OA-1274 § Alternative transportation strategy; Summary of Objection § Affordability by Irish government. § Waste of public funds; § Upgrade existing A5. Comment See Chapter 6.1, 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, 6.8, 6.14, 6.15, Comment 6.16 and 6.17 for the Departmental response and our comments. § See Chapter 6.4 and 6.5 for the Departmental response and our comments. Standard Letter / Petition No. 20 Standard Letter / Petition No. 18 Inquiry Reference: OA-1277 Inquiry Reference: OA-1275 Summary of Objection Summary of Objection Limited access to new road will be of little local benefit. § Impact on retail businesses in Aughnacloy, Omagh, Sion Mills and Strabane and businesses along existing A5; Departmental Response § No economic benefit to business in Tyrone. One of the major benefits of the Scheme is that longer distance through traffic would no longer Departmental Response have to travel through the towns along the route. This would result in a reduction in traffic levels on § The Scheme would generate many benefits the existing A5 with corresponding improvements including the possible opening up of business in safety, noise levels and air quality. Also transfer opportunities. However it is recognised that of apposite local traffic to the dual carriageway some existing businesses would be adversely could result in journey time savings. affected; § On balance, the overall benefits would far exceed the disbenefits and the Scheme should Comment therefore proceed in the wider public interest. We are content with the Departmental response.
Comment Standard Letter / Petition No. 21 We accept that some businesses may be Inquiry Reference: OA-1278 adversely affected but in a scheme of this nature we consider that the wider public benefit should Summary of Objection prevail. § Scheme not justified by traffic volumes; § Standard Letter / Petition No. 19 Parallel road is a waste of farmland; § Environmental and economic damage to Inquiry Reference: OA-1276 tourism industry outweighs economic benefit; Summary of Objection § Failure to adhere to proper financial procedures; § Adverse impact on agriculture, farming § Upgrade existing A5. businesses, natural habitat and carbon sink; § Inadequate consultation process; § Waste of money at a time of fiscal austerity; § Upgrade existing A5;
197 Departmental Response Departmental Response Consideration has been given to tourist related § The Scheme would generate many benefits interests and resources associated with the road including the possible opening up of business corridor and surrounding area, including facilities opportunities. However it is recognised that such as the Ulster American Folk Park, Harry some existing businesses would be adversely Avery’s Castle, the Sperrins scenic routes, the affected; Ulster Way and the Sperrins Area of Outstanding § On balance, the overall benefits would far Natural Beauty. The assessments demonstrated exceed the disbenefits and the Scheme should that there would be no direct adverse impacts therefore proceed in the wider public interest. apart from the setting of Harry Avery’s Castle. The transfer of traffic away from sections of the Comment existing A5 which are part of the scenic routes would enhance their recreational appeal. It is § See Chapter 6.3 and 6.5 for the Departmental anticipated that the proposed dual carriageway response and our comments; would benefit the tourism industry by providing § We accept that some businesses may be greater accessibility to and between tourist areas adversely affected but in a Scheme of this in Tyrone, Fermanagh and Donegal. nature we consider that the wider public benefit should prevail. Comment § See Chapter 6.4, 6.7, 6.14, 6.17, 6.18 and Standard Letter / Petition No. 24 6.20 for the Departmental response and our Inquiry Reference: OA-1281 comments; § We are content with the Departmental Summary of Objection response re the impact on tourism. § Loss of local football pitch; Standard Letter / Petition No. 22 § Attenuation ponds pose safety risks. This was dealt with at the Section 1 Inquiry – see Inquiry Reference: OA-1279 Chapter 7. Summary of Objection § Destruction of rural landscape in Mourne and Standard Letter / Petition No. 25 Foyle valleys and on Sollus Hill; Inquiry Reference: OA-1282 § Upgrade existing A5. Summary of Objection Comment Impact of the Scheme on the residents and § See Chapter 6.4, 6.17 and 6.19 for the properties of Glenfinn Park, Strabane. Departmental response and our comments. This was dealt with at the Section 1 Inquiry – see Chapter 7. Standard Letter / Petition No. 23 Inquiry Reference: OA-1280 Standard Letter / Petition No. 26 Summary of Objection Inquiry Reference: OA-1283 § No need for the Scheme; Summary of Objection § Detrimental impact on businesses in § Impact of bypass of Aughnacloy; Ballygawley; § Destruction of local landscape; § Impact of severance on local communities. § Waste of public money.
198 Comment Comment See Chapter 6.5, 6.10 and 6.17 for the § See Chapter 6.5 and 6.14 for the Departmental response and our comments. Departmental response and our comments; § In respect of the remaining issues we are Standard Letter / Petition No. 27 content with the Departmental response. Inquiry Reference: OA-1284 Standard Letter / Petition No. 28 Summary of Objection Inquiry Reference: OA-1285 § Scheme is unnecessary and unaffordable; § Safety issues not addressed; Summary of Objection § Upgrade existing A5; § Economic benefits disputed; § Impact of severance on local communities; § Geological problems affecting construction in the Strabane area; § Interference of human rights of affected landowners; § Impact of the Scheme on maintenance of road network. § Impact on farm businesses not adequately assessed; Departmental Response § Visual impact on local landscape; § Over the years the Department has § Inadequate consultation process. implemented improved safety measures at locations along the A5 where there had been Comment frequent collisions and is not aware of any remaining black spots. It is expected that a See Chapter 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.7, 6.8 and significant volume of traffic on the existing A5 6.17 for the Departmental response and our would transfer to the dual carriageway thus comments. reducing accident potential still further; § Implementation of the Scheme would have Standard Letter / Petition No. 29 no impact on the level of funding for the Inquiry Reference: OA-1286 maintenance of the road network. The existing A5 would continue to be maintained. However, Summary of Objection although because of significant transfer of § Severance of farming businesses; traffic to the proposed dual carriageway maintenance requirements would not be as § Best agricultural land to be vested. onerous as at present. Winter service would continue to be delivered in accordance with Comment established practice; See Chapter 6.7 and 6.8 for the Departmental § Because of the difficulties with Scheme response and our comments. estimating, a range (£650M- £850M) has been used. Risks have been identified and the range caters for costs materialising as a result of those risks; § Geological problems in the Strabane area have been identified and solutions developed to solve them, including the use of piling, replacement of soft soil and accelerating settlement by surcharging. The choice of solution would depend on the particular location.
199 Standard Letter / Petition No. 30 § Implementation of the Scheme would have no impact on the level of funding for the Inquiry Reference: OA-1287 maintenance of the road network. The existing A5 would continue to be maintained although Summary of Objection because of significant transfer of traffic to Local impact of proposed junction at Park Road, the proposed dual carriageway maintenance Ballymagorry. requirements would not be as onerous as at present. Winter service would continue to This was dealt with at the Section 1 Inquiry - see be delivered in accordance with established Chapter 7 practice.
Standard Letter / Petition No. 31 Comment Issues Page Inquiry Reference: OA-1288 § See Chapter 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.17 and 6.18 for the Departmental response and our 6.1 No Meaningful Consultation 202 Summary of Objection comments; 6.2 Infringement of Human Rights 202 § Waste of money; § We are content with the Departmental § Upgrade existing A5; response to the remaining issues. 6.3 Impact on Individual Families and Communities 202 § Increased safety risks; 6.4 Upgrade existing A5 / Off-line 2+1 203 § Severe negative impact on farming business; 6.5 Waste of Public Resources / No Need for Scheme 203 § Limited access to new road will provide little local benefit; 6.6 Potential Effects of Increased Noise Levels 204 § Impact of the Scheme on the maintenance of 6.7 Loss of Agricultural Productivity 205 existing A5; § Impact on landscape and wildlife habitats; 6.8 Agricultural Impact Assessment 205 § Likely downturn in traffic levels; 6.9 Tullyvar Roundabout, Ballygawley 206 § Increased noise levels. 6.10 Aughnacloy By-Pass 207 Departmental Response 6.11 Ballygawley to Aughnacloy 207 § The Scheme would have 15 junctions which 6.12 Cavanacaw Goldmine 208 would provide easy access from all A & B class routes. Transfer of traffic from the existing 6.13 Effect of Scheme at New Buildings 208 A5 to the proposed dual carriageway would be influenced primarily by the origin and 6.14 Cost / Benefit Assessment 209 destination of individual trips and consequently 6.15 Need for Alternative Transportation Strategy 209 whether or not journey time savings could be made; 6.16 Air Quality 209 § The traffic model for the Scheme takes 6.17 Serious Adverse Environmental Impact 210 this into account and indicates that there would be significant transfer to the new dual 6.18 Traffic Levels 210 carriageway. The existing road would continue to be monitored and if necessary improved 6.19 Sollus Hill / Mourne Valley 211 road safety measures would be implemented; 6.20 Harry Avery’s Castle 212
200 CHAPTER 6 Common Issues
Introduction As stated in the introduction to Chapter 5, it was inevitable with a scheme of this size and with such a large number of objections that many issues raised would be of a common nature. In order to avoid constant repetition in Chapter 5 we have dealt with most of these issues in this Chapter to which there are appropriate cross references from Chapter 5.
Issues Page 6.1 No Meaningful Consultation 202 6.2 Infringement of Human Rights 202 6.3 Impact on Individual Families and Communities 202 6.4 Upgrade existing A5 / Off-line 2+1 203 6.5 Waste of Public Resources / No Need for Scheme 203 6.6 Potential Effects of Increased Noise Levels 204 6.7 Loss of Agricultural Productivity 205 6.8 Agricultural Impact Assessment 205 6.9 Tullyvar Roundabout, Ballygawley 206 6.10 Aughnacloy By-Pass 207 6.11 Ballygawley to Aughnacloy 207 6.12 Cavanacaw Goldmine 208 6.13 Effect of Scheme at New Buildings 208 6.14 Cost / Benefit Assessment 209 6.15 Need for Alternative Transportation Strategy 209 6.16 Air Quality 209 6.17 Serious Adverse Environmental Impact 210 6.18 Traffic Levels 210 6.19 Sollus Hill / Mourne Valley 211 6.20 Harry Avery’s Castle 212
201 6.1 No Meaningful Consultation of balancing an individual’s private rights with the needs of society as a whole. The Scheme was Departmental Response being promoted in the context of broader policies There has been a high level of consultation with which address the future planning of the economy, the public during the development of the Scheme, development and infrastructure. comprising an integrated strategy of public consultation events and individual landowner Comment consultations. Public consultation events were In the absence of evidence to the contrary, held in April 2008, July 2009 and November 2010 we must assume that, in accordance with the which were attended by over 6,600 people. In Department’s own procedures, it obtained the addition, the project web site and helpline were appropriate legal advice as to compliance. We extensively used by the public. are satisfied that the Department has taken into An initial round of meetings with affected account the impact of the Scheme on the human landowners was held in autumn 2009 to discuss rights of individuals affected and that appropriate details of land boundaries, land use and other mitigation measures would be put in place should matters of concern. A further round of meetings the Scheme proceed. was held between the spring and summer of 2010 to provide updates on road alignments and to 6.3 Impact on Individual Families and discuss access and mitigation measures. Communities All relevant statutory authorities and organisations were consulted throughout the environmental Departmental Response impact assessment process to gather data and The Department acknowledged that the Scheme to discuss the scope of the assessment and would have a potentially significant impact on mitigation measures. families and communities. Emphasis had been placed on the avoidance of direct impact on defined settlements. Mitigation measures had Comment been focused on the maintenance of access While we appreciate that some landowners may (by means of bridges over or under the dual feel that more individual attention could have carriageway) along local roads which would been paid to their concerns, we are satisfied otherwise be severed by the dual carriageway. In that despite some weaknesses, the Department some cases where local roads would be stopped- carried out a thorough and wide ranging up, access would be provided by diversion to consultation process. During the course of the nearby alternative road crossings, minimising the Inquiry, we were assured that the Department length of diversion as far as possible. would continue to have discussions with affected The Department accepted that the building of any landowners should the Scheme progress. road could cause anxiety and stress for people affected. To help alleviate some of these impacts 6.2 Infringement of Human Rights within the Scheme the Department would continue to provide regular, accurate and transparent Departmental Response communication of information and progress. In The Department completed a human rights addition assistance may also be available from assessment for the project which recognised that Rural Support, an organisation set up to provide the Scheme would have an adverse impact on help and support to farming and rural communities some land and property owners, particularly in in Northern Ireland. relation to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life) and Protocol 1, Article 1 (right to property). The assessment confirmed that there was a legal basis for such interference and indicated that the Scheme had the legitimate aim
202 Comment On-line widening could be more difficult and expensive than off-line construction due primarily We realise that any road Scheme can result in to the need to accommodate existing accesses significant trauma for people personally affected and minimise the effects on adjacent properties. who are not enamoured with the premise that the greater public good outweighs individual Whilst the alternatives were not costed it was disbenefit. We expect the Department to make considered that they would be more expensive every possible effort to alleviate such stress and than the proposed dual carriageway. anxiety. In addition to the measures outlined by the Department we would emphasise the need to maximise the extent of personal contact with Comment individuals and communities. We have not had the benefit of any evidence as to how the Northern Ireland Executive concluded 6.4 Upgrade existing A5 / Off-line 2+1 that a dual carriageway was required or of any professional advice that may have been given Departmental Response prior to its decision. We note that there was no The Northern Ireland Programme for Government latitude allowed to the Department to consider 2008-2011 prescribed a dual carriageway something less than or different to a dual upgrading of the A5. This was also agreed at the carriageway. North South Ministerial Council meeting held on The brief was to provide a dual carriageway and 17 July 2007. this was a Government decision which removes it from our remit. We have no grounds for An on-line dual carriageway was considered to be unsuitable due to: questioning that a reasonable assessment was made that off-line would be less expensive and § Number of settlements; cause less overall disturbance than on-line and § Number of accesses; would give greater benefits. § Sub-standard nature of the existing A5; 6.5 Waste of Public Resources / § Alteration of utilities; Scheme is not required § Safety of road users and construction workers during construction; Departmental Response § Disruption and delays to traffic during It is widely recognised that provision / construction. improvement of infrastructure contributes Although restricted to the provision of a dual positively to economic regeneration of the carriageway, the Department had examined an on- region. This is reflected in the Northern Ireland line 2+1 solution and presented evidence to the Executive’s Programme for Government 2008- Inquiry that it could be a more expensive option. 2011, and many policy documents including the Due to changes in design standards (2008), the Regional Development Strategy and Regional landtake and associated costs could be more Transportation Strategy. than that required for an off-line dual carriageway At its meeting on 17th July 2007, the North because of the need to provide additional parallel South Ministerial Council (NSMC) noted the roads to accommodate the many accesses Irish Government’s intention to make available along the existing route. A 2+1 solution would a contribution of £400m to help fund the major have a divided carriageway with a central barrier roads programme within Northern Ireland, precluding traffic crossing, especially right hand providing dual carriageway standard on routes turns. Also, the practical capacity of a 2+1 would serving the North West Gateway (A5) and on be limited by the capacity of the single lane the Eastern Seaboard Corridor between Belfast sections so that a theoretical capacity of 25,000 and Larne (A8). The Executive confirmed its vehicles per day would equate in practice to a acceptance, in principle, to take forward these two capacity of 10,000 vehicles per day. In terms of road safety and journey times the benefits of a major road projects. dual carriageway would be greater than those of a 2+1 solution. 203 At the NSMC meeting on 21 January 2011, the There is provision under the Noise Insulation Irish Government confirmed its commitment Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 for residents to fund the A5 and A8 dualling projects and in who are affected by noise associated with traffic March 2011, the Executive agreed a budget which using a newly constructed road to apply for the outlined the proposed funding for the various installation of insulation at their property should Departments for the period 2011-2015. The A5 there be an increase in level of at least 1 decibel dualling project was included within the budget, provided the increase is attributable to traffic reflecting its high priority within the Executive. using the road and the resultant level exceeds 68 However, should the contribution by the Irish decibels. Government be withdrawn the Executive would A number of alternatives for mitigation of have to consider the affordability of the Scheme. traffic-related noise were considered and it was concluded that the introduction of low-noise Comment surfacing would benefit everyone who would be We accept in principle the Department’s view subject to increases of more than 3 decibels. that in strategic terms the project would act as a It was also established that predicted levels, catalyst for economic growth in keeping with its allowing for low-noise surfacing, would not exceed objective of planning, developing and maintaining the 68 decibels adopted in the Noise Regulations a safe and sustainable transport network. It is as one of the three indicators that need to be not our function to question the Executive’s satisfied for any application under the regulations budget proposals, which were subject to public to be valid. It was concluded therefore that no consultation. further measures would be introduced. We note that since the closure of the Inquiry, questions have been raised regarding the funding Comment and timing of the Scheme. These are matters We noted the Department’s statement that “a beyond the scope of the Inquiry. greater number of receptors would experience a perceptible reduction of 3 decibels or more 6.6 Potential Effects of Increased in traffic related noise than would experience Noise Levels an increase of 3 decibels or more”. We do not consider that this statement is helpful to those Departmental Response adversely affected. The fact remains that a number of residents are affected by significant The Environmental Statement considered the increases in traffic related noise levels. The effects of noise at residential properties and question remains of the extent of mitigation other sensitive receptors. The assessments have measures required in addition to low-noise road demonstrated that a greater number of receptors surfacing. The 68 decibel criterion is a statutory would experience perceptible reductions of 3 condition relating to the provision of property decibels or more in traffic related noise than would insulation. We do not consider it should be a experience increases of 3 decibels or more. It is limiting factor in determining the need for other recognised however that the effect on receptors noise mitigation measures. subject to higher orders of increase would be likely to be more marked than for receptors subject to We acknowledge that noise nuisance is a reductions of higher order. very subjective matter and we appreciate the concerns of residents so affected, particularly It is the case that many of the receptors those living in a previously quiet ambience. A experiencing higher orders of increase would be number of specific cases have been identified doing so in a context where traffic-related noise within the Section Reports where increased is not currently a significant aspect of the local noise levels would have an intrusive effect on environment, whereas those experiencing higher individuals. orders of reduction would be doing so in a context where traffic-related noise is, and would remain, a significant aspect of the local environment.
204 Recommendation We accept that in percentage terms any impact We endorse the recommendations in the Section on the overall agricultural industry would be Reports that special mitigation measures should minimal. However, in the absence of appropriate be considered by the Department in those cases evidence we are unable to assess whether the referred to, in consultation with the residents loss of the agricultural land would have an impact affected. on the local economy although we expect that it For the benefit of future Inquiries, we recommend may. that the Department should present an audio demonstration of the effect of varying increases 6.8 Agricultural Impact Assessment in traffic noise levels. We expect that this would be a relatively simple exercise which would help Departmental Response Inspectors and assist subjective assessments The Agricultural Impact Assessment was reported in individual cases. We note that a similar in Chapter 15 of the Environmental Statement. recommendation was made in an Inspector’s A summary of the data collected was provided report on an earlier Inquiry. to each farmer and the impact of the Scheme was assessed having regard to landtake, new 6.7 Loss of Agricultural Productivity severance and potential changes to existing farm management. The assessments demonstrated Departmental Response that the Scheme would have a substantial impact § It was not conventional to include in the cost on 52 farm holdings, a moderate impact on 67 and benefit appraisal a value factor for loss of a slight impact on the remaining 163. Substantial agricultural production over the life of the adverse impacts would require owners to make Scheme, suggesting that it would be reflected major changes to their agricultural business if it in land values and thus indirectly as a cost were to remain viable. This may involve changing / item; adapting current practices or reducing the size of the business. § The loss of 800 hectares of agricultural land would be regarded as insignificant when Taking account of the Agricultural Impact compared with a total of 993,500 hectares of Assessment, the Department discussed and agricultural land throughout Northern Ireland. would continue to discuss mitigation measures and accommodation works with the landowners Comment concerned. The proposed Scheme area is rural in nature and there is a strong dependence on agriculture as Comment the main economic industry. The Scheme runs We accept that many objectors have grounds for predominantly across agricultural land. challenging the Agricultural Impact Assessment We note that the significance criteria used to and its value within the Environmental Statement. assess the agricultural impacts as neutral, slight, In some cases: moderate and substantial are based on the § A copy of the data or report had not been economic impact on the farming business, but delivered to affected landowners; that the assessment undertaken related to the overall scale of the land owned rather than to the § Verification of the data had been sketchy; specific economic impact on the viability of the § Viability of farms had been assessed relative farm business. We also note that the Agricultural to the overall area rather than in economic Impact Assessment carried out did not extend to terms; the loss of overall productivity. We further note § The importance to a farm business of conacre that the Compensation Guide states: land held over a long period had not been “In the case of agricultural land the future fully taken into account; profitability of the farming business is in effect included within the value of the land.”
205 § Bio-security impacts had not been fully § Feddan Road realigned and connected to A4 / addressed. A5WTC roundabout (may require land outside the vesting boundary to achieve acceptable It was also contended that in England and Wales standard of alignment but this will be offset by a loss of less than 2% of land was classified as reduced landtake elsewhere); “slightly adverse” and anything over 10% as “major adverse”. Much higher thresholds are § Drumcullion Lane upgraded between apparently being applied in Northern Ireland but Ballynany Road and A4. we were unable to access any authority for this The consequences of implementing the alternative which downgrades the effect on landowners are: who would lose part of their land. The current § Construction costs reduced by approximately gradings should be reviewed, codified and £3M, reduced impacts associated with notified to all concerned. disruption to existing traffic and reduced requirement for temporary traffic management; Recommendation § Less whole life traffic and economic benefits We recommend that the Department carries out due to increased journey times for trips using a review of the Agricultural Impact Assessments the A4 / A5 Tullyvar roundabout. The delay is to determine whether the impact of the Scheme estimated to be between 15 and 30 seconds on all affected farms has been adequately depending on the time of day. This equates to addressed. We recommend also that the a reduction in economic benefits of £10M over Department carries out a review of the impact a 60 year period; of mitigation and accommodation works on the Department of Agriculture & Rural Development’s § Retention of existing arrangements for bio-security code. residents and businesses of Ballygawley travelling from the east; 6.9 Tullyvar Roundabout Ballygawley § Makes continuing use of existing newly constructed roundabout; Departmental Response § Severance for properties south of A4 The Department stated during the course of (Tullywinny Road). This option will allow the Inquiry that it was prepared to consider consideration of a link from Tullywinny Road an alternative design to that proposed in the (north of Buchanan’s) to the A4 / A5 Tullyvar published Scheme relating to the Tullyvar roundabout which will allow improved access roundabout. Details are set out in Drawing No. to Tullywinny Road. This option, however, 718736-0800-DT-S01452 and are: would not be dependent on the provision of this link which would require land outside the § A4 dual carriageway extended from existing draft Vesting Order; A4 / A5 Tullyvar roundabout to new A4 / A5WTC roundabout. Existing A4 / A5 Tullyvar § The community to the North West (accessed roundabout to be retained; via Feddan Road) will use A4 dual carriageway to access Ballygawley and St Ciaran’s School. § Existing Tullybryan Road junction with A4 They will have basically the same journey as at western end stopped-up (adjacent to at present but with an extra roundabout (A4 / O’Donnell’s property); A5WTC) to negotiate, and a busier section of § Existing Tullywinny Road junction with A4 the A4; stopped-up (north of Buchanan’s); § Less overall landtake than would have been § Existing Ballynany Road junction with A4 required for the Tullybryan Road and A5 stopped-up (north of Moore’s); Tullyvar over bridge than required by the § Ballynany Road accessed via over bridge link original proposal; to Feddan Road (to give access to Moore, § Less severance of landholdings, particularly McCarron, McGarvey and Coote); those belonging to Alan Moore, Paul Moore § Existing Feddan Road junction with A4 and Eric Coote. stopped-up; 206 Comment Following approaches from Aughnacloy representatives and businesses, the Department We consider that the small increase in journey decided to incorporate a limited access junction times for some A4 road users, and the reduction north of Aughnacloy to facilitate and encourage of £10M in the cost benefits over a 60 year traffic into and out of the town. period are more than offset by the greater convenience to Ballygawley residents and businesses, by the reduced landtake, less Comment severance of landholdings, the reduction in We did not consider possible routing of the dual construction costs and lesser disruption during carriageway through the centre of the town as it construction. would be contrary to current design standards and would be disruptive to the town and its Recommendation population. It is recommended that the Department’s original Conflicting views were presented at the Inquiry proposals be set aside and the alternative as to the significance of the “Thistle”. However, be adopted, retaining the A4 / A5 Tullyvar we consider that the listing by the Northern roundabout in general accord with the views Ireland Environmental Agency indicates its expressed by several objectors. importance as a local historic feature and adds weight to the other constraints on siting the 6.10 Aughnacloy By-pass bypass to the west. In light of all the evidence presented to the Departmental Response Inquiry and the above considerations we support The Department’s case for the chosen (eastern in principle the proposal to construct the route) is summarised as follows: Scheme as shown in the design documentation. (See also paragraph 6.11) § The proposed eastern route was designated as 6.11 Ballygawley to Aughnacloy the Preferred Route after an extensive process from initial study to route selection; 6.11 Ballygawley to Aughnacloy § The eastern route at Aughnacloy scores best when measured against the key principles: Departmental Response safety, economics, integration, environment It is accepted that projected traffic volumes on the and accessibility; Ballygawley link in the opening year are below the § Other routes were considered and rejected for threshold levels as indicated in the Design Manual environmental, engineering, cost and safety for Roads and Bridges but from engineering and reasons. particularly road safety perspectives it would be There are major constraints on the western side better to have consistency along the entire length of Aughnacloy, including a flood plain and peat of the route. bogs and particularly the “Thistle” area which is The A5 Tullyvar Scheme formed part of a package a protected site, stretching from the environs of of Schemes and the contract was awarded Aughnacloy to the border at one point. Northern prior to Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Ireland Environmental Agency is opposed to Government deciding to take forward the A5 any intrusion on this feature which is listed in dualling project. Given the likely cost associated its Register of Parks, Gardens and Demesnes with renegotiating the Tullyvar Scheme as well as of Special Historic Interest. In addition, siting the fact that the A5 project was in the early stage the road to the west would involve relocating a of development and was dependent on successful sewage treatment works and a GAA football pitch. completion of statutory procedures and availability The close proximity to the border may also present of funding, it was decided to proceed with the technical design difficulties in ensuring that all Tullyvar Scheme. In doing so it was recognised land required would be within the jurisdiction of that the investment of the £5.5M construction Northern Ireland. cost would provide benefits to the road user for a minimum of 6 years.
207 Comment Recommendation We accept in principle that the Ballygawley to In order to allay public concern we recommend Aughnacloy link should be dualled as part of the that the Department should demonstrate overall Scheme. However, as it is as yet unclear transparency in how materials are sourced, where the proposed link to the N2 south of the tested and declared to be free from border is to be located, we had considered contamination. recommending that the Department should contemplate terminating the Scheme at the 6.13 Effect of Scheme at New proposed Junction 17 as an interim measure in Buildings order to avoid nugatory expenditure on the final stretch of single carriageway. However such a Departmental Response proposal would exit traffic on to the A28 Caledon A feasibility study had been carried out into Road which would serve little purpose in the a future A5 / A6 link which concluded that it overall Scheme. would be preferable to discontinue the A5 dual carriageway at the southern most option indicated We then examined whether, by way of in the study (Junction 2). This would obviate the postponement, the Scheme should terminate at need for the bypass of New Buildings to be a dual either Junction 15 or 16. In considering Junction carriageway. 15 rather than 16 as the terminal point, we note that further advantage could be taken of the If the single carriageway extension from Junction benefits of the recently completed major works 2 were not to be provided, New Buildings would carried out between Ballygawley and Aughnacloy. be the only settlement along the entire Scheme We accept that in both cases the A5 would not to be bypassed. Fast moving traffic would be continue through the town of Aughnacloy, which disgorged onto the already inadequate main street would be the only settlement not bypassed. through the village and would have implications However, we consider that this would be justified pertaining to safety and journey times. In until Scheme design or development is better economic terms the bypass would produce informed by clear evidence of the intentions of benefits calculated at £30M. the National Roads Authority in the Irish Republic The Department acknowledged that the bypass as to where the link would join the N2 south of to the west of New Buildings would have a the border at Aughnacloy. marked detrimental effect on the area of high scenic value, but it was necessary to balance that Recommendation against the increased levels of noise and pollution and increase in severance if the route were to We recommend that the Department should continue through New Buildings. Those with consider the postponement of the Ballygawley residences facing the river would suffer minimum to Aughnacloy segment until the location of the disadvantage as the road levels would enable link with the N2 at the border has been clearly then to look beyond the road, still maintaining identified. the attractive views of the Foyle and Donegal. Mitigation measures would be undertaken to 6.12 Cavanacaw Goldmine enhance the vista and to deal with noise and air quality. Departmental Response The Department assured the Inquiry that no A bypass to the east of New Buildings would contaminated material from Cavanacaw or involve considerable demolition, especially of elsewhere would be used on the project. business and residential properties, and would destroy the character of the village. Comment We accept the Department’s assurance.
208 Comment Comment We accept the rationale for discontinuing the Determination of priorities within the Northern proposed A5 dual carriageway at Junction 2. Any Ireland budget is a matter for the Executive and further consideration of the possible A5 / A6 link is not within the remit of the Inquiry. is outside our remit. We consider that the Department’s arguments 6.16 Air Quality relating to alternatives to the Scheme at Departmental Response New Buildings are reasonable and that The air quality assessment demonstrated that the proposed route is justified. The limited many more receptors in the vicinity of the existing disadvantages to some residences facing the A5 and the proposed Scheme would be subject Foyle are well outweighed by the benefits set out to slight reductions in concentrations of traffic- by the Department. related pollutants (NO2 and PM10) than would be subject to slight increases in concentrations. In the 6.14 Cost / Benefit Assessment light of this balance and the low order of impact relative to the few that would be subject to slight Departmental Response increases, it was concluded that impacts relative An Economic Assessment was included in the to local air quality would not be significant. Where Preferred Options Report, published in July increases have been identified, the predicted 2009. This assessment, which demonstrated levels would not result in concentrations above that the project would provide a good return on European and national standards adopted as investment, used standard appraisal methods. indicators of risk to human health. Estimates of land acquisition and compensation costs were included within the overall project cost. In relation to carbon, it is considered that there is no conflict with statutory commitments and An updated economic assessment was included in obligations. It is recognised that, at a national the draft Scheme Assessment Report 3 (SAR 3). A level, some plans, strategies and development full business case and economic appraisal will be projects would add to total carbon emissions completed after the outcome of the Inquiry when whilst others would reduce emissions. The the Scheme parameters have been confirmed and objective would be to ensure that the overall before commencement of construction. balance would be in favour of those that reduce rather than add to the national total, not that Comment projects such as the Scheme (which would add to the national total) should not proceed. Otherwise We are satisfied that cost / benefit analyses have this would preclude many forms of development been carried out in accordance with standard upon which society depends. appraisal methods and note that a further appraisal would be carried out if the Scheme were to proceed. Comment We are satisfied on the basis of the evidence 6.15 Need for Alternative presented that any increase in traffic-related Transportation Strategy pollutants would not exceed European or national standards. Departmental Response We accept the Department’s rationale relating to The Scheme is an integral part of government carbon emissions. policy in relation to economic planning and development of infrastructure. The Northern Ireland Executive agreed a budget which outlined the proposed funding for the various Departments. The A5WTC project was included in the budget, reflecting its high priority within the Executive.
209 6.17 Serious Adverse Environmental The model used was a bespoke version of the Trip Impact End Modelling Program (TEMPRO) which was an extension of the GB model to include Northern Departmental Response Ireland. The initial model was further refined to take account of traffic flows in the A5 corridor. It was acknowledged that the Scheme would This was done for two reasons: impact on the environment and the countryside. It was however being promoted in the context of § The traffic model zone used is fairer than the broader policies addressing the future planning for TEMPRO Northern Ireland zone; the development of the economy and transport § The use of planning data showing location infrastructure. It was inevitable that certain of dwellings and commercial development proposals arising from such policies would impact produces a more realistic forecasting model. on the environment and in many instances result in some loss of existing natural resources. The above refinements were only applied to the four districts through which the Scheme runs as Potential environmental impacts of the Scheme they become less important for zones further away have been assessed and reported in the from the Scheme. The model also incorporated Environmental Statement which describes the predictions for growth in household numbers close design and mitigation measures which have been to the Scheme and the effects this would have on included as part of the Scheme in the light of traffic growth. Predicted increases in job numbers those impacts. The statement demonstrates that were further taken into account. whilst there are a number of locations along the proposed road corridor where impacts would be The above predictions were used to form the of a high order, most impacts would be effectively “case scenario” the A5 Forecast Model. mitigated. The Department also submitted the following It was not accepted that the Scheme could be documents to the Inquiry: described as one causing immense environmental § Forecasting Report; damage. § Data Collection Report; Comment § Local Model Validation Report; § Data Analysis Report. We accept that in overall terms, the Environmental Statement has addressed The above documents all formed part of the the environmental impact of the Scheme in appraisal process for the Scheme as required by considerable detail. Specific issues have been the Roads Service. The documents contained raised by a number of objectors and these have extensive data and analysis which were used to been dealt with in the body of the report. predict future traffic flows. The Forecasting Report results show that the 6.18 Traffic Levels Scheme would provide significant relief to the existing A5 and that it would also produce Departmental Response significant journey time savings. The Department presented evidence to the Inquiry The Data Collection Report provided a robust and supporting the contention that a dual carriageway comprehensive data set for proceeding with the was a justifiable solution for the Scheme. The development of the model. evidence presented included the document “Submission on Forecasting and Economics”. The Local Model Validation Report demonstrated That document included data on existing traffic that the base year traffic models provided a flows, journey times, predicted traffic flows and satisfactory representation of current traffic economic and other benefits. It also provided demands and conditions in the A5WTC study details on how the traffic modelling process used area and therefore a reliable basis from which to in the Scheme was developed. prepare the traffic forecasts for future growth and scheme development.
210 The Data Analysis Report concluded that the Again, we accept the Department’s contention that data sets were sufficiently reliable, verifiable and the TEMPRO adjusted for Northern Ireland data consistent for subsequent development of the has provided robust traffic growth and forecasting base year traffic model. predictions.
Evidence presented at the Inquiry included We therefore consider the Scheme to be summaries of the following: appropriate in terms of design proposals.
§ Existing traffic conditions; 6.19 Sollus Hill / Mourne Valley § Details relating to accidents; § Development of the Base Year Model; Departmental Response § Traffic forecasting; The proposed engineering and landscape design § Traffic growth assumptions; measures recognise the importance of Sollus Hill as experienced within the expansive Foyle Valley § Economic evaluation. and the immediate relationship of the hill to the community of Bready. Comment The proposed grading and merging of the mid In spite of the comprehensive body of evidence slopes of the western hill slopes would be in presented by the Department several objectors keeping with the existing open pastoral form of expressed their concern that existing and the hill and would serve to maintain perception of predicted traffic flows did not justify an off-line the skyline profile at this important point along the dual carriageway solution. eastern valley side. The alignment of the road in cutting at the foot of the existing hill would serve to screen the road and its traffic from the residents The Department’s response was that the traffic of Bready as it passes between the village and the threshold level for a dual carriageway was hill. Alignment in cutting, in combination with the exceeded over most of the existing A5 route. The use of low noise surfacing, would contribute to Department also accepted that the volumes in the mitigation of traffic-related noise for residents at Ballygawley – Aughnacloy link would initially be Bready. below the threshold, but considered it best to have consistency in standards along the entire route. Where the route emerges from cuttings, We accept that this is a reasonable approach to embankment slopes would be heavily planted the design and development of the Scheme. to act as a foil and visual screen for nearby properties. Loss of existing woodland at the Concerns have also been raised in relation to southern limit of the cutting would be kept to a whether the Department correctly followed minimum with new woodland planting introduced national guidelines provided in the relevant to ensure that the relationship of the planting technical design manuals and specifications. We and the open upper slopes of the hill would be were not persuaded by the objectors’ evidence maintained. that the Department has been negligent in relation to statutory road design procedures. We therefore As indicated in the environmental statement consider the design proposals to be appropriate. the effects on landscape character through the Mourne Valley would be slight, taking into account Further concerns have been expressed in proposed planting and earthworks measures. relation to the Department’s approach to demand forecasting, particularly in relation to:
§ Modal split; § Trip distribution; § Locally confirm trip generation.
211 Comment Comment We note that the Environmental Statement We accept that the Scheme would not impose confirms that the Scheme would have a marked any physical impact on the Castle. We note from detrimental effect on the Area of High Scenic the Environmental Statement that the mitigation Value which defines the approach towards would be focused on: Londonderry along the river valley. We note also § Alignment of the road to the south of Harry that the proposed deep cutting to the western Avery’s Castle in deep cutting to avoid a facing slopes of Sollus Hill would have a marked change in the backdrop to the view of the influence on the form and appearance of this Castle when viewed from within the valley local part of the landscape. below Newtownstewart; We reluctantly accept that this is a price which § Planting on the cutting slopes to establish has to be paid in order to provide this important a foil of planting in the modified view of the road corridor. We accept that the Department, Castle from the western slopes of Bessy Bell through design and engineering measures, has and the Baronscourt Road; made every effort to minimize the impact in those areas and in the Mourne Valley. § Planting of hedgerows and individual groupings of trees. 6.20 Harry Avery’s Castle We appreciate the significance of this feature not only within the local landscape but as an Departmental Response important feature of Northern Ireland heritage. The Castle, built in the 14th century, is one of the We expect the Department to continue to few Gaelic-built stone castles in Ireland. Between consult with NIEA through detailed design and the Castle and the bed of the cutting the gradient construction stages in order to achieve the is shallower than 1:18. The Castle, however, would absolute minimal impact. not be undermined by the cutting slope which is more than 120 metres away. Because of the distance of the Castle from the proposed road and since the road would have low noise surfacing, vibration would not be considered a material concern.
However, it is accepted that the Scheme would have a large adverse impact on the setting of the Castle. Throughout the entire process of developing the Scheme the Department has had extensive discussions with the Northern Ireland Environmental Agency (NIEA) regarding the setting and location of the road.
212 213 214