Limerick County Council

An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

Board Reference: 13.HA0028 / 04.KA0016

Scheme: N21 Adare Bypass

Applicant: Limerick County Council

Inspector: Daniel O’Connor

______

0028 n Bord leanála age of 72 Limerick County Council

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction Page 03

2.0 Compulsory Purchase Order Page 04

3.0 Impacts Identified Page 05

4.0 Report on Oral Hearing Page 08

5.0 Assessment Page 115

6.0 Recommendation Road Development Page 120

7.0 Recommendation CPO Page 120

Appendices Appendix I List of objectors Page 121

Appendix II Items Submitted Page 122

Appendix III EIS Page 123

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 2 of 72 Limerick County Council

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCHEME DESCRIPTION

1.1 The proposal is for the construction of approximately 8.5 kilometres. of Type 2 Dual Carriageway Road constituting the Adare Bypass from a new roundabout at Garraunboy on the existing N21 to a new grade-separated junction with the proposed M20 Motorway at Fanningstown and crossing the River Maigue, the Dunaman, Greanagh and an unnamed tributary of the Maigue as well as the R519 Ballingarry Road.

1.2 Limerick County Council applied to An Bord Pleanála by letter of 3 rd March 2010 for approval for the proposed N21 Adare Bypass. The application is being dealt with under Section 51 of the Roads Act 1993 (as amended by Section 9(1) (e) of the Roads Act 2007)

1.3 Three c opies of the Environmental Impact Statement including CD copies were submitted with the application.

1.4 Supporting documentation including managers order RD/583/10, copies of notices to prescribed bodies and a certificate of compliance from Mr Gerry Sheeran, Senior Planner, Limerick County Council.

1.5 A copy of the Irish Examiner of 4 th March 2010 with the advertisement of both the EIS and the CPO was also included with the application.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age of 72 Limerick County Council

2.0 COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER

2.1 The Compulsory Purchase Order was made by Limerick County Council on the 26 th February, 2010 and is entitled “Limerick County Council (N21 Adare Bypass) Compulsory Purchase Order 2010”

2.2 The owners or reputed owners, lessees or reputed lessees and the occupiers of the land are set out in Schedule, Part I

2.3 The description of the public rights-of-way proposed to be extinguished is set out in Schedule Part II

2.4 Limerick County Council applied to An Bord Pleanála for confirmation of the Compulsory Purchase Order by letter dated 2010 and enclosed supporting documentation.

2.5 The (permanent) land take which is subject of the CPO is 68 hectares as indicated at the oral hearing (day 2, transcript, page 87)

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 4 of 72 Limerick County Council

3.0 IMPACTS IDENTIFIED

The Non-Technical Summary (NTS) of the EIS states that the requirement for a bypass of Adare was specifically described in the 1998 National Roads Needs Study. It states the main objective of the proposed road development is the removal of a bottleneck on the existing N21. As the proposal is for a four-lane road, an EIS was prepared in accordance with legislation. The NTS describes the road as being 8.5 kilometres in length and this is shown in Fig 1.1 of the Summary.

Describing the background to the scheme, the NTS states the existing road is of a low standard in terms of carriageway width and alignment and that it carries approximately 16,100 vehicles per day with a significant proportion being HGV’s. The high number of road junctions and private accesses give rise to concerns regarding road safety.

The NTS describes the scheme and notes it is a Type 2 dual carriageway with verges of 3 metres, hard strips of 0.5 metres, a central reserve of 1.5 metres and two 7.0 metres carriageways. It states the scheme starts from an improved section on the Croagh-Adare portion of the N21 and first crosses the R519 Ballingarry Road, then the river Maigue before connecting with the proposed M20 north of Croom at Fanningstown.

The NTS notes that four options were considered in a Route Corridor Selection Report of 2009. It states the proposed development was found to best satisfy the scheme objectives.

Section 5 of the NTS refers to impacts on Human Beings and Agronomy. It describes the impacts during construction but states once the proposed road opened, there would be less than half the traffic than currently using the N21 through Adare and that local positive impacts and associated enhanced long-term growth prospects would likely outweigh the initial fall in business to some operators, such as B&B’s and petrol stations. In relation to agronomy it states that some 25 agricultural holdings are impacted and would lose 52 hectares of a total of 886 hectares or 5.9% of the total area. It states that the benefits from the reduction in traffic congestion would outweigh the moderate adverse effects on agricultural holdings.

Section 6 refers to Ecology , both terrestrial and aquatic. It states that there are no designated conservations within 250 metres of the route. The Adare Woodlands pNHA is between 250 and 500 m to the north and the Curraghchase Woods cSAC is 4.5 kilometres to the north.

It states that there are several species of bat in the vicinity of the route with badger and otter activity also noted. A wide variety of bird species, typical of the habitats

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 5 of 72 Limerick County Council

were observed. It predicts minor to moderate impacts during construction with permanent loss of habitats which would impact on the ability of the mammals to move about the locality. It states that during the operational phase, the proposed road development would be expected to have a minor negative impact overall.

With regard to aquatic ecology it is noted that the route is in hydrometric area 24 (Shannon Estuary South Hydrometric Area). It notes that EPA water quality monitoring indicates the watercourses are moderately polluted. It states the watercourses support salmonids, trout and white-clawed crayfish. Potential contamination in the construction phase is from suspended solids which the EIS states would be subject to mitigation.

It states that impacts in the operational phase would be mainly concerned with water run-off from the road. It states that this would be controlled by the use of a sealed drainage system with surface water outfalls to retention and treatment systems before discharge to surface water bodies. It states that in the absence of significant pollution events such as accidents involving spillages, the impact on the river system as a whole would not be significant. (Noted that at the oral hearing the provision of a hydrocarbon interceptor was added to the outfall proposals)

Section 7 deals with Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology. It states that the road would be underlain by glacial till with localised outcrops of limestone and that no features of geological interest would be affected. It notes that physic-chemical assessments were carried out at eleven locations on the Maigue, Dunaman, Greanagh and a tributary of the Maigue. It states that there would be a potentially high risk to the river Maigue but that good practice design and construction guidelines should reduce the likelihood of impacts occurring. It notes that as the watercourses are currently classed as Moderate Ecological Status under the WFD, there is a very low risk that the proposed road development would cause deterioration in status of any watercourse.

Regarding Hydrogeology, it notes that a number of cuttings on the route would reduce soil cover in areas of limestone bedrock and that rock excavation could locally lower the water table with potential to impact a small number of individual water supplies.

It predicts that concentrations of pollutants will remain well within air quality standards and there would be an imperceptible impact on climate.

Section 8 covers Noise and Vibration. It states that the short term and long term impacts must be considered. It states that subject to good working practice, construction impacts would be kept to a minimum. In relation to the operational phase, it states that mitigation measures are sometimes required but in this instance, mitigation specifically for noise is not required.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 6 of 72 Limerick County Council

Section 9 refers to Landscape and Visual impacts and describes the route as passing through a rural lowland agricultural landscape. It states there would be no impacts on the landscape policies contained in the Adare Local Area Plan 2009. Adare Manor is located north of the route. Fanningstown Castle is stated to be significantly affected by the proposed works and new planting is proposed to help integrate the road. It states that 67 properties would experience negative visual effects with 14 properties having profound visual impacts. It states that over time the severity would lessen but 7 properties are predicted to possibly continue have significant negative effects.

Section 10 deals with Cultural Heritage. In relation to archaeological heritage it states that 35 of 44 identified sites could have potential impacts during construction with 5 sites potentially having impact during operation. Mitigation works would be completed in advance of construction. Regarding Architectural heritage it notes four sites were identified in the study corridor with six more outside the corridor also identified. It notes construction impacts would be predicted for eight of the ten architectural sites. Negative impacts are predicted for the setting of Granard House. It states the beneficial effects of the proposed road on the built heritage would be confined to Adare town.

Section 11 is titled Scheme Procurement and states that it is anticipated that it would either be a Design and Build project or a Public Private Partnership (PPP). It states that stringent contract requirements and close supervision would ensure that the design, including mitigation measures would be of the required quality and that through the construction process the design would be translated into the final product.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 7 of 72 Limerick County Council

4.0 REPORT ON ORAL HEARING

4.1 Introduction

The hearing commenced at 11:00 am on Wednesday, 7 th July 2010 in the Charleville Park Hotel, Charleville, County Cork. It ran for 10 days and concluded on Wednesday, 21 st July 2010.

The summary of both of the proposed schemes, as taken from the EIS for the M20 and N21 proposals, was noted by the Inspector as comprising the following main elements: -

(M20 – from Blarney, County Cork for a mainline length of 80 kilometres passing to the east of Mallow and Buttevant and to the west of Charleville. The proposal includes for link roads to Mallow and Charleville and a proposed motorway service area at Lissard, south of Mallow. There are nine grade-separated junctions proposed with three major river crossings including a crossing of the River Blackwater cSAC east of Mallow. The scheme ends by the joining to the existing M20 at a revised junction at Attyflin near Patrickswell, County Limerick. There is provision for a spur off the junction north of Croom at Fanningstown which would be the start point of the proposed N21 Adare Bypass.)

N21 Adare Bypass – 8.5 kilometres of dual carriageway from the proposed M20 Garranroe, north of Croom to a roundabout on the existing N21 Garraunboy, south- west of Adare and the road proposal includes a crossing of the River Maigue.

The Inspector informed the hearing that Dr. David Drew, Hydrogeological Consultant, was retained by the Board for expert input into the assessment of karst limestone related impacts which would include potential impacts on groundwater.

Appearances were taken and it was noted that there were (292 objections lodged to the proposed compulsory purchase of lands in relation to the M20 and) 29 objections in relation to compulsory purchase of lands in relation to the N21 proposal. It was explained to the hearing while attendances were taken, this did not preclude persons not present from making submissions or asking questions subsequently at the hearing.

The Inspector informed the hearing that he was aware that Mr. Peter Sweetman wished to make a submission before the hearing started.

Mr. Sweetman stated that the Supreme Court had referred a case to the European Court which fundamentally related to the meaning of the integrity of a site (as relating to the Habitats Directive). He said it was his submission that it was impossible for the Board to make a decision to grant permission for the road development before the hearing as the Board does not know what the term “integrity of the site” means. He said it would be absolutely impossible for the Council to give the evidence on that because they did not know what it meant and it was absolutely impossible for anyone else including himself to make definitive arguments on that point because he did not ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 8 of 72 Limerick County Council

know what it means. Mr. Sweetman said if the Board had decided that the hearing was to continue, he would like to have a reviewable decision of the Board on the matter so he could take it to the High Court. He said he was absolutely convinced that what the hearing was convened for was wrong.

The Inspector responded that he had given time to consider if the Supreme Court Case had direct implications for proceeding with the oral hearing, and he concluded that he did not. He said in coming to the conclusion he would note that the oral hearing is one stage of the Board’s overall consideration of the proposed development. The purpose of the oral hearing is to gather information for the Board to facilitate the decision-making process and an important issue for discussion at the hearing would be the approach taken by the applicants to the requirements of the Habitats Directive and in particular the provisions of Article 6 of that Directive. He said he also noted that the hearing forms an important part of the assessment process referred to in Article 6.3 of the EIA Directive and he said he could see no convincing reason why the Board should not hear submissions in relation to all aspects of the proposed development including those relating to the Habitats Directive.

At a later stage in consideration of the proposed development, following the oral hearing it would be a matter for the Board to decide if there are legal obstacles which should be resolved before it determines the application. He suggested to Mr. Sweetman that he might wish to detail such obstacles which he (Mr. Sweetman) considered existed from the Board coming to a decision on the proposed development. He noted that the Board was fully acquainted with the argument presented at the recent Supreme Case. Based on the above, he said he intended to proceed. Mr. Sweetman said he wish to add one item namely that Article 6.3 (of the Habitats Directive) states “having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and if appropriate, having obtained the opinion of the general public”, he said the general public in this case is not qualified to give an opinion and that was his point.

Mr. Joseph Noonan, who represented a number of objectors, stated that he would broadly support Mr. Sweetman’s submission for the record but he informed the hearing that he had a separate brief submission somewhat similar relating to a different point which was associated and which he wished to mentioned at that stage. He said that was to bring to the attention a recent development in the European Court of Justice that the Board should be informed. He said on the 24 th June, the European Court heard arguments in the case of the Commission vs. Ireland . He said this was an EIA case Record No. C50/09. He said to summarise one of the net points in the case which had a bearing on this procedure is who is responsible for doing the environmental impact assessment. Mr. Noonan said the reason he mentioned the case was that the outcome of the decision, may, if it opposed the commissions view undermine the validity of the environmental impact statement and the process that we are about to embark up. He said the matter is before the court and is likely to be resolved within a matter of months. Mr. Sweetman added a number of points in relation to Article 3 and made reference to the EPA and compliance with the Directive. Mr. James Nix, representing An Taisce said he wished to endorse the submission made by Mr. Sweetman.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 9 of 72 Limerick County Council

The Inspector informed the hearing also that the Board had requested Iarnród Éireann to attend the hearing with a view to exploring issues of rail travel between Cork and Limerick and other aspects and their approach to closed or disused railway lines which are mentioned in the EIS.

4.2 Local Authority Evidence: - (Transcript Day 2, Pages 17-19)

Mr. Flanagan listed the witnesses who would be giving specific evidence on the overall scheme and specific aspects of the schemes as follows: - 1. Ms. Alex Robertson, – overall scheme. 2. Ms. Gordon Allison – air quality issues. 3. Mr. Leyton Davies – noise and vibration. 4. Mr. Ciaran Farrell – geology, hydrogeology and water supply. 5. Ms. Wendy Bateman– ecology. 6. Mr. Jonathan Dempsey - cultural heritage (archaeology) 7. Mr. Robert Mc Naught --Architectural Heritage (read by Mr Dempsey) 8. Mr. Gerry Sheeran – Planning (Limerick County Council). 9. Ms. Stephanie O’Gorman—Community and Socio Economics. 10. Mr. Alistair Simpson – landscape and visual. 11. Mr. John Dore – agricultural aspects.

(The Inspector stated that after the M20 evidence was taken, the direct evidence in relation to the N21 would also be heard before questions were taken on the M20).

4.2.1 Mr. Alex Robertson gave direct evidence for the hearing as follows: - (transcript day 2 pages 57-97)

Mr. Robertson said he would cover all elements of the road development and other specialists would give more detailed evidence. He referred to Volume 3 of the EIS and Figure 1.2 on the drawings for the background of the scheme.

He said the heritage town of Adare was located 16 kilometres south-west of Limerick city on the N21 which ran from the townland of Attyflin, via Adare, Newcastle West, Templeglantine, Abbeyville, Castleisland to Tralee.

Mr. Robertson described the existing road network as a single carriageway of varying width and through Adare was prone to congestion and traffic jams peak periods. He referred to traffic statistics between Garraunboy and Attyflin as including three fatalities, eight serious accidents and 32 minor accidents for the period 1999 to 2008.

Mr. Robertson described the scheme objectives as including:-

• Removing a major bottleneck on the national primary road network. • Improving safety for all road users. • Diverting through traffic from the town centre. • Improving the local town environment. • Facilitating the expansion of the tourist/retail/industrial sectors in Adare.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 0 of 72 Limerick County Council

In relation to the need for the proposed scheme, Mr. Robertson said the existing N21 was carrying approximately 16,000 vehicles per day and was over capacity and was also subject to speed limits of 50kph and 60kph. He said there were eight existing junctions along the N21 between Garraunboy and Monearla with 57 private accesses and 22 field accesses outside of the 50kph speed limit zone. He said a high number of junctions and accesses could have a negative impact on road safety and were a constraint to development of any route options utilising the existing N21.

Mr. Robertson said there were limited public transport alternatives at present to connect Limerick/Shannon to Tralee/Killarney. He noted the Limerick-Foynes Railway was disused since the early 1960s for passengers the late 1990s/early 2000 for Freight. He said the bus journey times were impacted due to the sub-standard alignment and the traffic congestion along the existing N21.

Mr. Robertson said the need for the proposed road development which was a type 2 dual carriageway was justified on the following grounds:-

• Improve the safety as a dual carriageway would result in saving of an estimated five lives over the 30 years from year of opening in 2015.

• Removal of up to 800 HGVs of through traffic in Adare by 2030.

• Reduction in all traffic through the town by approximately two thirds by 2030.

• Time saving of up to 11 minutes along that section of the route by 2030.

• Provision for separation of local and strategic traffic.

• Facilitation of improved public transport.

• Improved links between the major tourist destinations of Limerick/Kerry regions.

• Improved driving conditions by way of improved vertical and horizontal route alignment.

Mr. Robertson outlined the history of the route corridor selection process and noted that a route corridor selection report was produced in March 2005 and that the recommended option based on the relevant information at that time was option 1 known as the black route. He said that option was taken forward as a preferred route and the preliminary design/environmental assessment was progressed in 2005 and 2006.

Mr. Robertson said within the original route corridor selection report of March 2005, a number of southern options had been reviewed and discounted on various environmental, engineering and economic grounds. He said in particular a corridor

______

0028 n Bord leanála age of 72 Limerick County Council

was identified that ran to the south of Adare and tied into the existing N20 at a point approximately 3 kilometres south of the existing Attyflin junction.

Mr. Robertson said in the intervening years, changes in relevant environmental factors and infrastructural policy had occurred. He said in terms of the environment, the changes included the inclusion of the River Maigue within the lower Shannon SAC in January 2007. The designation was extended to the existing N21 River Maigue Bridge in Adare adjacent to the weir. He said as a result the recommended route (Blackroute) directly impacted the SAC.

Mr. Robertson said the most significant update was with regard to the strategic and national road network. Following the publication of Transport 21, the western corridor linking the west coast with Waterford via the N24 was replaced by the Atlantic road corridor linking the west coast to Waterford via the N20 and N25. He said an integral part of this was the proposed M20 Cork to Limerick Motorway Scheme which was a priority scheme under Transport 21 and the NDP.

Mr. Robertson said the emerging preferred route for the proposed N20 was announced in October 2008 at three kilometres to the east of Adare. He said that corridor ran parallel to the existing N20 500 metres to the west on the approach to the existing N21 junction at Attyflin. He said that critically the proposed M20 motorway altered the existing arrangement at Attyflin so the proposed M20 motorway would have priority at the junction for Cork-Limerick traffic.

Mr. Robertson said the change in the environmental constraints and proximity of the proposed infrastructure route corridor in the vicinity of Adare therefore resulted in a review of the 2005 N21 Adare bypass route selection. He said that review identified that a revised southern bypass route could offer additional benefits not previously taken into account in the earlier studies. Mr. Robertson said that following the announcement of the emerging preferred route corridor a new route corridor selection process including a re-evaluation of data previously gathered was undertaken for the N21 Adare Bypass to ascertain the most appropriate and advantageous route corridor option.

Mr. Robertson said the choice of preferred route for EIA had regard to the NRA project management guidelines and this involved statutory and non-statutory bodies and local interest groups by way of consultation. He outlined the main stages from constraints study to the EIS.

Mr. Robertson referred to the consideration of alternatives and referred to Appendix A of his brief of evidence. It is thus indicated that the options were as follows:-

• Option 1 – of the black route. • Option 2 – the green route. • Option 3 – the red route. • Option 4 – the blue route.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 2 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Robertson said the route corridor selection process concluded that on environmental and engineering grounds, option 4 was preferred and the economic assessment showed this option to be the most economic in terms of construction costs while maintaining a positive economic performance in terms of the net present value and benefit to cost ratio.

Mr. Robertson said option 4 was chosen for the following key reasons:-

• Less ecological impact as it avoids the lower Shannon cSAC and the Adare Woodlands and has a considerably lower overall impact.

• Fewer engineering constraints and therefore a greater potential for mitigation by avoidance.

• Lowest capital cost and has a positive benefit to cost ratio.

• Horizontal and vertical alignment designed to minimise environmental impact by avoiding properties, ecological sites, agricultural holdings and cultural heritage constraints.

Mr. Robertson said the route corridor was also designed to minimise impact on water courses, minimising the need for water course diversions and crossings.

Mr. Robertson said most alternatives considered were entirely incorporated within the preferred route corridor. He said deviations were shown in Figure C of Appendix A of the brief and that these were located outside the corridor:-

Deviation A: - the change resulted from the identification and avoidance of environmental constraints and severance (between the Ballingarry Road R519 and the River Maigue).

Deviation B: - the change resulted from the relocation of the proposed M20 Macroom Junction to Fanningstown. This was included in the M20 public display of the design held on 22 nd to 25 th June 2009.

Mr. Robertson said that the planning evidence would be given that the Limerick County Development Plan of 2005 was varied for the sole purpose of stating that the bypass would be on a route south of Adare and connected with the proposed M20. He said that variation was put on public display and submissions were received and Limerick County Council adopted the variation by resolution at its meeting of the 28 th September 2009.

Mr. Robertson said with respect to the 2009 route selection process there have been several submissions objecting to the duration of the process. He said the overall route corridor selection process was initiated following the announcement of the emerging preferred route corridor for the M20 in November 2008 and concluded in May 2009 which a period of over 6 months as was the M20 motorway route selection process. He said the M20 Adare route corridor selection process and the subsequent EIS also

______

0028 n Bord leanála age of 72 Limerick County Council

benefited from and took full advantage of the previous N21 studies and information made available from the M20 motorway consultants.

Mr. Robertson outlined the methodology in relation to traffic including the construction of traffic models and the carrying out of roadside interviews. He referred to the local traffic model and the daily traffic levels indicated in Figure E of Appendix A of his brief of evidence. He said the model calibrated and validated well with the links and he said in his opinion it accurately represented the peak and inter peak periods within June 2009.

Mr. Robertson outlined the existing situation without the proposed road development and he stated that the AADT on the existing N21 was 12,500 on the western side of Adare. He said on the eastern side it was 16,000 vehicles. He said the average number of HGVs travelling across the existing N.21 was up to 1,000 per day. He said the journey times were based on a journey length of 12.2 kilometres from 2.2 kilometres east of Ballyflin to 1.7 kilometres west of the junction between the N21 and the L-6128. He said inter peak journey times were approximately 10 minutes and the average a.m. east bound peak was 11 minutes which equated to an average peak of 65kph with the average pm peak west bound at 15 minutes and equivalent average speed of approximately 48kph.

Mr. Robertson said that on 4 th June 2010 the daily traffic level was 20,272 vehicles recorded at the automatic traffic counter on the existing N21 between a lantern lodge roundabout and Attyflin Junction. He said that would be 30% higher than the average daily level across the year. He said the journey time on 4 th June showed that was in excess of 24 minutes. He referred to Appendix B of his brief of evidence. He said the mix of goods vehicles, daily commuters, local journeys and unfamiliar tourist drivers results in delay and journey time reliability issues. He said the situation would be expected to deteriorate in future years as traffic congestion would increase with higher traffic levels.

Mr. Robertson referred to the future situation without the proposed road development and this was on the assumption that the M20 would be in place by 2015. In that case he said that the AADT west of Adare would increase by 3,500 to a level of 16,000 per day. He said on the eastern side of Adare the figure would be 21,000. Mr. Robertson said average journey time would increase to 21 minutes and average speed would drop to 37kph.

Mr. Robertson outlined that the future situation with the proposed road development. He said AADT on the proposed development road would be 13,000 vehicles and removing up to two thirds of traffic from Adare. West of Adare the traffic levels were predicted to reduce to 4,900 vehicles with 9,900 vehicles east of Adare. Mr. Robertson said despite the growth in local traffic levels to and from Adare, the traffic volumes remaining in the town by the year 2030 would be lower than those recorded in the year 2002 with the proposed development in place. He said the number of HGVs in Adare would reduce by 800 to a level of 600 per day by the year 2030.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 4 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Robertson said that higher average vehicle speed on the proposed road would permit faster journey times per through traffic in all peak periods of the day. He said by 2030 journeys would be up to 11 minutes faster under peak conditions. He said the provision of a dual carriageway around Adare would be expected to minimise the impact of breakdowns or accidents. Mr. Robertson said the results presented in the EIS were for a high growth and these had been used to carry out the environmental appraisal of the scheme.

Mr. Robertson referred to economic performance and he said this was compared to the expected future operational performance without the development. He noted that the capital cost associated with the M20 junctions at Fanningstown at Attyflin were included within the assessment of the M20 motorway and were excluded from the N21 proposed road development assessment. He said in addition to the high and low growth scenarios, two sets of scheme costs had been prepared which were the scheme target cost and the total scheme budget. He said the results of the economic assessment include the present value of benefits (PVB), the present value of costs (PVC) and the difference between them. He said a positive NPV (net present value) indicates that the scheme would return benefits to the nation that is greater than the costs. He said the benefit to cost ratio (BCR) was provided as a measure of the scale of benefits from the scheme which could be used to gage the likely value for money that the scheme can provide. He said a BCR between 1 and 2 is an indication of good value for money.

Mr. Robertson said under the total of scheme budget, the NPV would be 24.4 million euro at a low growth and 39.2 million euro at high growth. He said the BCR is 1.6 at low growth and 2.0 at high growth. He said based on target cost, the NPV would be 26.5 million euro at low and 41.4 million euro at high growth. He said this gave a BCR of 1.7 at low growth and 2.1 at high growth.

Mr. Robertson said that in order to assess the potential impact of the recent economic downturn, a sensitivity test of the economic performance was carried out and this assumed there will be no growth from 2009 to 2014 and there would be a low growth from 2005-2015. He said the profile was intended to represent the prolonged recessionary period and a slow recovery beginning in 2015. He said the results of the low sensitivity test were that the NPV would be 12.7 million euro based on total scheme budget and 14.8 million euro based on target cost and the BCR would be 1.3 to 1.4.

Mr. Robertson referred to the safety aspects of the proposal. He said the accident benefits based on national patterns would indicate that there would be significant savings of approximately 200 personal injury accidents over a 30 year period. He said in terms of public transport there was no rail service through Adare but bus services operate on an hourly frequency through Adare. He said the proposed road development would alleviate the congestion in Adare and make the bus service to and from towns and villages along the existing N21 more reliable, which would improve opportunities for enhancing the quality of public transport available to those areas. He said thus the road development as well as benefiting private cars and commercial vehicles would also benefit the wider public by making bus journey times quicker and more reliable. ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 5 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Robertson said the type 2 dual carriageway was determined in accordance with the NRA, DMRB TD10 and outlined that the benefits in terms of accident savings. He said it was the appropriate cross-section to provide the required level of service in relation to the estimated traffic flows for both high and low traffic quote scenarios. He gave a summary in terms of traffic indicating the benefits of the scheme and stated that it had been demonstrated that good value for money would be achieved at both high and low growth levels.

Mr. Robertson described the proposed road development and listed the main elements:-

• 8.5 kilometres of type 2 dual carriageway. • Carriageway width 21.5 metres with no hard shoulders and wire rope safety barrier (see figure D in Appendix A of brief of evidence). • Length of a regional/a local road alignment 0.75 kilometres. • Length of access lanes to farms 2.7 kilometres. • Two bridges crossing roads. • One bridge crossing the River Maigue. • One accommodation over bridge. • Eight accommodation underpasses. • Four culverts greater than 2 metres at River End stream crossings. • 132 agricultural land plots in CPO. • No habitable dwellings taken in the CPO and no other buildings. • Area of farmland and CPO is 62 hectares and a total land-take of 68 hectares.

Mr. Robertson described the two junctions which is say roundabout at Garraunboy and the great separated junction at Fanningstown. He said sufficient land was included in the N1 compulsory purchase order to allow a tie-in to a stand-alone scheme.

Mr. Robertson described the different areas of the scheme as follows:-

1. Croagh – Adare to R519 Ballingarry Road – 3 kilometres.

• Alignment generally an embankment with maximum height 6 metres. • Crossing of the Greanagh River. • Bridge allowing the R519 Ballingarry Road to cross over the proposed development.

From the R519 Ballingarry Road to River Maigue – 3.1 kilometres: -

• 1.2 kilometres cutting through the townland of Greanard with a maximum depth 11 metres. • 750 metre long embankment in the townland of Derryvinnane to a maximum height of 6 metres and a significant structure crossing the River Maigue and an elevation of approximately 8 metres above ground level.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 6 of 72 Limerick County Council

River Maigue to proposed M20 Cork – Limerick Motorway Scheme – 2.5 kilometres:-

• 1.4 kilometres cutting through the townlands of Castleroberts and Fanningstown reaching a maximum depth of approximately 16 metres. • Bridge allowing the L-1420 Croom Road to cross over the proposed development.

Mr. Robertson said that road surfacing would be designed in accordance with the NRA DMRB and that accommodation tracks would be surfaced in accordance with NRA road construction detail or CD/700/6.

Mr. Robertson referred to road lighting and that this would be provided at the junctions at either end of the scheme. He described the structures as including the road over bridges, river bridge accommodation over bridge and underpasses. He said boundary fencing would comprise timber post and four rail fencing would be installed along the landtake and boundary. He said in relation to watercourses and drainage, the design would be such that water courses and land drains were maintained with the provision of new interceptor ditches or culverting and/or realignment. He said the proposals would be subject to consultation with the NPWS and the Regional Fisheries Board.

Mr. Robertson said the proposed river crossings were at Greanagh River at Chainage 0 + 600 and the River Maigue at Chainage 6 + 175. He said that to avoid impacts on the prevailing groundwater regime an appropriately designed sealed drainage system would discharge to well-defined surface water bodies. In relation to utility/services, he said the road development would cause some disruption to existing utilities. Those had been identified and consultation with the associated service providers had taken place in order to establish the requirements and deal with the identified conflicts.

Mr. Robertson said in relation to material assets involved that for agricultural property, bridges and/or accommodation roads provide a means of access to the opposite side of the proposed road development for agricultural purposes. He said there would be no residential properties acquired as part of the scheme and in relation to landtake, 68 hectares were included in a CPO for the construction, operation and maintenance of the road development and this would include the purchase of severed land where practical access could not be provided. Mr. Robertson said an additional area of land had been included in the CPO to facilitate the construction of the River Maigue Bridge and that additional landtake was required to allow the assembly and storage of the bridge sections and to accommodate a crane to lift the assembled bridge beams into place.

In relation to rights-of-way , Mr. Robertson said there would be five rights of way extinguished by the road development but all five of the rights of way could be maintained largely in their current position and these locations are shown on Figure F ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 7 of 72 Limerick County Council

of Appendix A of his brief of evidence. He noted that the five rights of way were at the proposed roundabout on the exiting N21, the R519 Ballingarry Road, the L-1420 Croom Road and the existing N20 national road within the local road L-1478 in the townland of Fanningstown.

Mr. Robertston said that the expectation was that the proposed road development would be constructed as part of a contract to the M20 north Velvetstown to Attyflin. He said subject to confirmation of approval of the scheme and availability of Government funds, the earliest project start date for the works to commence would be following a contract 1 of the M20 south Blarney to Velvetstown. He said while the overall contract was expected to take three years subject to seasonal constraints, the Adare Bypass section would be expected to take approximately 18-24 months.

Mr. Robertston said construction effects are generally of short term duration and he stated that a liaison officer would be appointed by the Local Authority to liaise with landowners, householders and the public.

Mr. Robertston said an environmental operating plan (EOP) in accordance with NRA guidelines will be put in place before the start of construction. He said this EOP would have detailed method statements and controls to be employed, and would set out normal working hours and the arrangements for extending these.

He said the main areas of environmental concern would be the control of dust, minimisation of noise and vibration and protecting water courses, water bodies and groundwater. He said independent checks and audits would be undertaken by the Local Authority and other statutory bodies to ensure compliance with the EOP.

In relation to construction traffic management , Mr. Robertston said the route could be constructed with relatively little impact on existing roads other than crossovers, and he stated these would be at Finniterstown on the existing R519 Ballingarry Road, and at Castleroberts/Fanningstown with the existing L-1420 Croom Road, and he referred to figure G in Appendix A of his brief of evidence.

Mr. Robertston referred to figure G in Appendix A of his brief of evidence which showed the accesses to the site, which would be from the N21 at the proposed roundabout, the ER519, and the N20 at Fanningstown. He said in addition access for works to construct the realignment of local roads may be from the local road itself.

Mr. Robertston referred to site compounds and stated that the main potential compound would be located at Fanningstown. He said this was adjacent to the existing N20. In relation to the construction materials, he said that design iterations were successful in reducing the total number of road haulage trips. The estimate was:-

• 750 loads of concrete. • 7,000 loads of pavement. • 13,800 loads of earthwork surplus.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 8 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Robertston said the majority of the granular material would be processed from materials excavated on site.

In relation to earthworks quantities, he said these were:-

• 103,000m 3 of topsoil required to be excavated and re-used. • 640,000m 3 of fill material required for road embankments. • 750,000m 3 of material to be excavated on the site (660,000m 3) available for re- use to form road embankments. • 110,00m 3 of surface material to be generated by earthworks.

Mr. Robertston said that to minimise the impact of blasting, a public awareness campaign would be undertaken before works commence. He said significant volumes of rock extraction would likely be required over approximately 30% of the route at the locations identified in Appendix A (figure G) of his brief of evidence and these were at Granard between chainages 3 + 030 and 4 + 240 and in the townlands of Castleroberts in Fanningstown between Chainages 6 + 650 and 7 + 960. He said while strength and conditions of the bedrock indicated that hard digging ripping is likely to be required, due to the depth of bedrock present and the cuttings it was most likely that blasting would be carried out to remove the material more efficiently.

Mr. Robertston referred to waste and recycling and stated there would be a detailed construction and demolition Waste Management Plan prepared in conjunction with the environmental operating plan.

Mr. Robertston gave the scheme costs as €67.61 million including VAT.

Mr. Robertston by way of summary stated that without the Adare Bypass road development, delays experienced on the N21 would continue to have significant environmental, economic and social costs and he listed the benefits of the bypass:-

• Removal of a major bottleneck on the national primary road network. • Improved safety for all road users. • Diversion of through traffic away from the town centre. • Improvement of the local town environment for residents, commercial businesses and tourism. • Facilitation of the expansion of the tourist/retail/industrial sectors in Adare. • Economically robust scheme. • Provides appropriate linkage to the Cork-Limerick strategic corridor.

He said the lands included in the CPO were necessary, sufficient and suitable for the construction, operation and maintenance of the scheme.

Mr. Robertston said the environmental commitments schedule of mitigation measures proposed seek to safeguard local communities, the natural environment and users of the existing road from significant adverse impacts.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 9 of 72 Limerick County Council

By way of clarification, Mr. Flanagan referred to Appendix B of the brief of evidence which referred to journey time surveys on the 4 th June 2010 which were undertaken after the publication of the EIS.

4.2.2 Mr. Gordon Allison gave direct evidence in relation to air quality as follows:- (Transcript Day 2 pages 101-109)

Mr. Allison read from his brief of evidence which is tabbed LA02 . He said the assessment on air quality had regard to the procedures outlined in the “Guidelines for the Treatment of Air Quality during the Planning and Construction of National Road Schemes” produced by the NRA in 2006. He noted that that involved a review of information published by the EPA, relevant local authorities, and other available sources to assimilate additional baseline data.

Mr. Allison said the assessment built upon the work carried out at the route selection stage. This identified baseline monitoring requirement for N0 2. He said local measurements therefore of N0 2 (nitrogen dioxide) concentrations are made using passive diffusion tube sampling. He said once the background concentrations were established, dispersion modelling was carried out to quantify the impact on air quality brought about by the changes in vehicle movements predicted from the operation of the proposed road development. He referred to Section 8 of the EIS from Volume 2 of the main text. He said modelling methodology and assumptions were outlined in Appendix 8.2B of Volume 4 of the EIS.

Mr. Allison referred to the summary of assessment of results and said the main pollutants associated with traffic assessed under the study were nitrogen dioxide, PM 10 , carbon monoxide and benzene. He said the monitoring results indicated the 2 current baseline average concentration for N0 ranged between 2 and 61 micrograms per cubic metre. He said roadside measurements in Adare town were above 20 micrograms per cubic metre and in the expected range for the pollution level beside the busy road.

Mr. Allison said direct monitoring of benzene on PM10 was not carried out for the proposed road development. He said for benzene reference is made to the recent monitoring carried out along the existing N20. He said for PM 10 reference is made to the monitoring carried out during the route selection stage. He noted there were not exceedances measured during the monitoring. Mr. Allison said that overall the baseline air quality assessment indicated the existing air quality environment in the area was within the National EU ambient air quality standards.

Referring to the assessment of potential effects, Mr. Allison listed dust nuisance and stated that dwellings within 200 metres of the proposed road development would be potentially at risk of temporary nuisance unless mitigation was put in place.

During the operation phase he said that pollution concentrations would remain well within the National EU ambient air quality standards for all of the pollutants assessed.

Mr. Allison said the worst-cast impact of the proposed road development in terms of N02 is categorised as slight adverse. He noted that the impact significance set out in ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 20 of 72 Limerick County Council

the EIS showed that the derivation followed the UK method. He said the NRA method of deriving impact, uses the pollution change relative to the dominium situation. He said this resulted in a change in impact significance resulting from the review of the EIS. He noted this was shown in the graphic in the brief of evidence but it was actually on pages 7 and 8 of the brief of evidence in tabular form. He said on page 7 of the brief of evidence the two receptors (AR05 and AR08) had been categorised as experiencing a negligible impact and now were predicted to have a slight adverse impact. He referred to figure 8.1 of Volume 3 of the EIS which indicated the air quality receptors.

Mr. Allison said that there was a graphic which compared the nitrogen dioxide concentration at Adare School (AR11) and at a dwelling at Castleroberts (AR05). It states that the air pollution of the school would decrease and the air pollution would increase slightly at AR05 but it would still be less than the pollution of the school (it is noted that AR05 is immediately to the north of the proposed road development where the Castleroberts Road crosses it and AR08 is on the Castleroberts Road south of the proposed road development.

Mr. Allison referred to mitigation measures and the requirement for a dust minimisation plan as part of an environmental operating plan. He said the plan would be in accordance with the industry guidelines and referred to control of dust from construction demolition activities BRE 2003. He said in response to submissions received, it was proposed that dust deposition monitoring be undertaken at residential receptors within 200 metres of the proposed road development.

Referring to operational phase mitigation, Mr. Allison said the air dispersion and modelling indicated that air quality limit values for carbon monoxide, benzene, nitrogen dioxide and PM 10 would not be exceeded with the proposed road development in place. He said the climate change mitigation would be dealt with at national and international level and his conclusion was that the proposed road development would have a moderate beneficial effect on air quality at over 100 properties within 30 metres of the existing N21 in Adare, with a slight adverse air quality impact at two dwellings which would be close to the proposed road development. He said the nearest dwelling to the proposed road development would be lower than 80 metres from it.

Mr. Allison stated that the existing N21 through Adare town would have a reduced flow of traffic which would be smoother and at a steady maintained speed.

Mr. Flanagan clarified with Mr. Allison on that the actual data in terms of omissions was not different but as the UK method of deriving an impact was slightly different from the NRA method this was indicated. He stated that in summary the NRA method would tend to make an impact assessment more conservative and would be recorded as slightly worse in some cases but the corollary was on the other hand where there was an improvement and became a more positive assessment. Mr. Allison said the NRA method amplified to the effect either way.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 2 of 72 Limerick County Council

4.2.3 Mr. Leyton Davies gave direct evidence in relation to noise and vibration impacts as follows: - Transcript Day 2 (pages 109-119)

Mr. Davies brief of evidence is tabbed LA03. He said the assessment methodology used for a project is as set out in the guidelines for the treatment of noise and vibration in National Roads Schemes produced by the NRA in 2004.

Mr. Davies explained the use of the criterion of 60dB Lden free field residential façade. He explained the conditions under which mitigation measures are deemed necessary which are when:-

• Combined expected maximum traffic noise exceeds the design goal. • Relevant noise level is at least one dB more than the expected traffic noise level without the proposed road development in place. • Contribution to the increase in the relevant noise level from the proposed road development at least one dB.

Mr. Davies said the baseline noise survey was carried out between 12 th and 18 th May 2009 and he referred to Volume 3 of the EIS where a figure 9.1 indicates the noise monitoring locations. He referred to Volume 4 and Appendix 9.1 for the results of the noise survey.

Mr. Davies said a wide range of noise levels were obtained ranging from 47 dB L den near property west of the L-1420 Croom Road to 71 dB Lden at Adare Town Park. Mr. Davies referred to Appendix 9.4 in Volume 4 of the EIS for baseline noise contributors and this describes the situation at noise sensitive receptors 1-15 and also references F1-F3.

Mr. Davies described the assessment of potential effects of the proposed road development and noted that in the construction phase the work would be temporary in nature and refers specifically to rock breaking where test blasting and a blasting design would be undertaken to minimise the noise and vibration impact on nearby residences. In relation to operational phase impacts, the ______opening year of 2015 with a design year of 2030. He referred to Appendix 9.2 in Volume 2 of the EIS for the predicted noise levels and noted that a number of locations would experience perceptible increase in noise level. He said noise levels of Fanningstown Castle were predicted to be in the order of 50 dB by 2030 and with the proposed road development in place. He said this would be four decibels higher than the level predicted without the proposed road in place (see figure 9.2 of Volume 3 of the EIS for location).

He noted that receivers 111 and 122 to the south of Fanningstown Castle were affected by noise from L-1420 Croom Road. He said in 2015 the predicted levels for two properties would be slightly higher with the proposed development in place compared with that without but in 2030 the predicted levels were slightly lower with the road development compared to the situation without it in place.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 22 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Davies described the assessment of mitigation for the proposed road development and stated the objectives of the mitigation measures would be to undertake the construction phase of the development in such a manner as to minimise noise and vibration levels at receptors in the vicinity. He said during the operational phase there was no requirement for noise mitigation measures and he said this was unusual for a new road development. He said he had reviewed his assessments in light of submissions made and there was no change.

Mr. Davies said the majority of sensitive noise receptors in the vicinity of the road development were not predicted to exceed 60 dB Lden design goal. He said some properties did exceed the level but did not experience a one decibel increase in noise level.

Mr. Davies states in conclusion that over 100 properties in the vicinity of the existing N21 would experience perceptible decreases in noise levels as a consequence of the proposed road development. He said in the centre of Adare town noise levels would be perceptibly lower with the proposed road development in place compared with the situation without the road development in place.

It was noted that in the brief of evidence submissions had been referred to and these included reference to receptor 111. With reference to paragraph 7.4 of the brief of evidence, it was clarified that the drawing submitted at the end of the brief of evidence indicated the location of the receptor.

4.2.4 Mr. Ciaran Farrell gave evidence to the hearing in relation to geology, hydrology and hydrogeology as follows : - (Transcript Day 2, Pages 122-139)

Mr. Farrell read from his brief of evidence which is tabbed LA04 .

Mr. Farrell said the geology assessment was undertaken by means of a desk study, consultations and site walkover and extended approximately 250 metres either side of the proposed road development. He said the hydrology assessment included desk study, site walk over and physico-chemical assessment. He said inputs from the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board and the Shannon river basin district relating to the Water Framework Directive were also assessed in detail in drafting the particular chapter of the EIS.

Mr. Farrell said there were 43 private water supplies within 150 metres of the proposed road development and these were surveyed by means of groundwater quality sampling, photograph log and details of wells such as depth, depth to groundwater and source protection zone delineation.

Mr. Farrell referred to Section 7 of Volume 2 of the EIS for details on guidelines to which regard was given.

He referred to summary of assessment results and in relation to geology he said there were several areas of rock outcropping located within the study area. Mr. Farrell said the route was mostly under a lane by glacial tills and he said gravel deposits were generally of limited thickness within the range of 1-5 metres below ground level with ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 2 of 72 Limerick County Council

the exception being to the west of the Maigue River were depths to a rock head of over nine metres below ground level were recorded. He said alluvial or peat deposits areas of soft clays were encountered in the ground investigations of 2009.

Mr. Farrell said while waulsortian limestones were present beneath the entire length of the route. He said karstic features were not encountered within the study area during the investigation.

Mr. Farrell said no identified areas of geological heritage were recorded by the GSI in the route corridor and no historic waste landfills or mines or active mines or pits were identified within the route corridor.

In relation to hydrology, Mr. Farrell noted the area was drained by the rivers Maigue, Dunnaman and Greanagh. He said physico-chemical analysis results showed some exceedances in relation to the EC environmental objectives surface water regulations 2008. He said geomorphology or the physical features of a water body was examined in relation to fluvial vulnerability. He said that the conclusion was that the Maigue had high sensitivity as it was known to support migratory salmon and trout while the Dunnaman had low sensitivity while the Greanagh had medium to low sensitivity.

In relation to hydrogeology, Mr. Farrell said the groundwater discharge was to the River Maigue along its entire length. He said the main recharge area for groundwater was most likely the high ground to the south of the proposed road development near Ballingarry. He said from ground investigation it was found that groundwater levels were encountered generally at shallow depths along the route corridor at less than 5 metres below ground level. He said the range in June/July 2008 was 0.2 metres to 18 metres below existing ground level. An assessment of private water supplies within 150 metres of the proposed road development was undertaken and the results were in Volume 4, Appendix 7.3.1 of the EIS (this Appendix covers individual wells W1- W36 with some omissions and gives a microbiological and chemical analysis).

Mr. Farrell said the proposed road development was located on the waulsortian mudbank limestone which was classed as a regionally important aquifer. He noted the GSI indicated that seasonal variation in groundwater levels associated with waulsortian mudbank is in a range of 4-6 metres. He said groundwater movement was dominated by diffuse flow within the aquifer.

Mr. Farrell said that well yields in County Limerick are generally quite high over the entire waulsortian aquifer but within the study area the GSI recorded only one good and one moderate well and the remaining wells have poor to unknown yield. He said the ground investigation confirmed that the aquifer along the length of the route had been classified as generally having a high to extreme vulnerability categorisation. He said the importance of the groundwater along the proposed road development was assessed to be high, due to the importance both regionally and locally of the aquifer.

Mr. Farrell referred to the construction phase impacts and said that the main impacts and geology would be:-

• Removal or coverage of natural soils and bedrock. ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 24 of 72 Limerick County Council

• Construction traffic and damage to soft soils. • Accidental spillage. • Exposure of bedrock potentially accelerating karstification.

Mr. Farrell said the main impacts on hydrology would be

• Potential to increase suspended solids. • Vegetation clearance which would increase potential for erosion and sediment release. • Insulation of structures and bridges causing increased volume of sediment release and local disturbance of river bed and banks. • Construction materials pollution potential.

Mr. Farrell described the main impacts on hydrogeology as being:-

• Impacts from blasting with potential for contaminant migration to groundwater. • Formation of cuttings adjacent to existing water supplies has the potential to impact on the level of the watertable. • Temporary dewatering activities could have localised effects on groundwater level.

The magnitude of impact to the regional groundwater regime was stated to be negligible and a slight significance of impact was expected.

Mr. Farrell referred to operational phase impacts and said that in relation to geology this would involve increase exposure of bedrock, localised loss of soils and potential contamination from carriageway runoff. In relation to hydrology he referred to run off of stormwater, road embankment impacts, increased area of impermeable road surface impacts of culverts on mammal passage and impacts arising from water course diversions or realignments.

Mr. Farrell stated that in relation to hydrogeology the potential impacts that arise from road run-off, impacts on groundwater levels arising from cuttings.

In the next section of the brief of evidence, Mr. Farrell dealt with the assessment of mitigation and stated that in the case of geology the environmental operating plan would include all relevant mitigation measures including Demolition Waste Management Plan and the disposal of surplus material to a licensed waste management facility. He said that areas of bedrock exposed could be subject to accelerated karsification and he noted that there was a preference of the GSI that the exposed bedrock would not be vegetative.

Mr. Farrell stated that a monitoring programme would be detailed in the EOP in relation to hydrology and that construction works would be completed in line with the recommendations of the CIRIA and NRA best practice guidelines.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 25 of 72 Limerick County Council

He said there would be emergency response procedures and measures used to prevent or reduce the amount of suspended solids released into water courses. He said measures would also include implementation of a water monitoring programme. Mr. Farrell said that the potential impacts on ground water supplies would be assessed prior to, during and post construction through ground water level monitoring programme. He said the design provided would ensure that any disruption during construction to water supplies to landowners/occupiers to obtain water from wells would be minimised. He said where water supplies were affected significantly, equivalent water supplies would be provided. Those supplies would be provided through either deepening of the well, replacement of the well, or connecting the landowner/occupier to the mains water supply. He said wells in the direct line of the proposed road development would be decommissioned (referred to figure 7.11 and 7.12 of Volume 3 of the EIS).

Mr. Farrell referred to operational phase mitigation and said a sealed drainage system would be incorporated for the entire length of the proposed road development. He said this would help avoid impacts on the prevailing groundwater regime as it would discharge to well-defined surface water bodies and would be used to collect all main line carriageway surface run-off for the entirety of the route.

He said pre-earthwork stitches would provide at the top of cuttings or at the bottom of embankments and the water collected would discharge directly into existing land drains or water courses. He said the drainage was divided into eight networks with a distinct outfall point and attenuation ponds would store the run-off allowing settlement to occur and to control the discharge into the receiving environment. Mr. Farrell said the attenuation ponds can also provide a degree of protection against accidental spillage on the road from entering or receiving water course and each attenuation pond would incorporate an oil/petrol interceptor. He said the use of a sealed drainage system would protect areas of high to extreme aquifer vulnerability and also vulnerable private water supplies.

In conclusion, Mr. Farrell said the impact to soils affected by the route proposals would be imperceptible as would the impact to geology with the mitigation measures proposed as part of the development.

He said the assessment concluded that there would be no significant impact on either the River Maigue or the lower River Shannon cSAC. Mr. Farrell said as the water courses were currently classed as moderate ecological status under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) there was very low risk that the proposed road development would cause deterioration in the status of any watercourse. He said the assessment concluded a potential impact to a small number of individual water supplies with regard to a possible decrease in groundwater yield.

Mr. Farrell said that a monitoring programme in accordance with the environmental operational plan would be required to establish and record any changes in the quantity and quality of the surface waters and groundwater in the study area as part of the implication of the mitigation strategy.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 26 of 72 Limerick County Council

The brief of evidence listed responses submissions made and these were generally taken up during questioning but in relation to the River Maigue drinking water abstraction reference response 1 on page 13 of the brief of evidence it is noted that it is stated that discharges into the River Maigue would be controlled via the proposed permanent and temporary drainage systems. It concluded that there would be no impact to the receiving water quality of the River Maigue during construction or operation of the proposed road development and subsequently no impact to the River Maigue had drinking water abstraction point.

Mr. Flanagan noted that the question of supplies was something that there was an ongoing process. He said he wished to draw attention to the fact that the County Council Water Services Department were at that time conducting some bore-hole drilling at two locations one of which was the Murphy’s Cross Junction which is where the reservoir site was and secondly some drilling due to commence at Castleroberts at the water treatment plant. In response to a question from the Inspector Mr. Flanagan said that it was related to the proposal in the sense that the question of enhancement of the water supply generally for the area was being looked at and if anything arose from that he would be able to report because that drilling would finish during the course of the oral hearing.

4.2.5 Miss Wendy Bateman gave evidence in relation to ecological impacts as follows:- (Transcript Day 2, Pages 139-157)

Ms. Bateman read from her brief of evidence which included a number of appendices and is tabbed LA05. She said the assessment methodology followed that set out by the NRA guidelines and she referred to Volume 2 of the EIS Sections 6.1.1.2 and the 6.2.1.2 for details.

Ms. Bateman said field surveys were undertaken by ecologists reporting directly to herself and data collection involved the combination of paper map based recording and digital recording using hand held mobile mappers linked to GPS and preloaded with baseline mapping and the proposed road development design. She said this was used for bat roost surveys. She said in her opinion appropriate baseline information had been collected in order to inform the impact assessment.

Section 3 of Ms. Bateman’s brief of evidence covered baseline ecology with the summary of desk study and survey results. She noted that no statutorily protected sites were present within the study area and in relation to habitats and flora she referred to triangular club rush and meadow barley which were afforded protection under the flora protection order, 1999 were known to exist north of the study area. She said there were no historical records for either species in the study area and none were absorbed during the field surveys and therefore the species were not considered further during the ecological impact assessment reported in Volume 2, Chapter 6 of the EIS.

She referred to Table 6.4 of Volume 2 of the EIS for the extent of each habitat type. She said the majority of the habitat which covers 919 hectares was intensively managed improved agricultural land of low species diversity with management consisting of cattle grazing or cutting for silage. He said there were approximately 30 ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 27 of 72 Limerick County Council

hectares of tilled land and 24 hectares of wet grassland. She said this consisted mainly of rushes and/or yellow flag iris particularly with areas supporting stands of reed canary grass, celery leafed buttercup and fool’s watercress. Ms. Bateman said there were approximately 16 hectares of mixed broadleafed/conifer woodland and over 207,000 metres of good condition hedgerow with 22,200 metres of tree lines. She referred to Table 6.5 of Volume 2 of the EIS for details.

Ms. Bateman said the key aquatic habitat was the River Maigue and she said the River Greanagh was crossed by the western section of the proposed road development and there were six other minor water courses to be crossed.

Ms. Bateman said bats, badgers and otters were present in the study area and in relation to bats she said a total of 268 buildings would in a 1 kilometre wide corridor were visited and assigned bat potential rating. She said 32 building roosts were identified which were all approximately 100 metres or more from the proposed road development. She listed the common pipistrelle, brown long eared and Natters bat were having summer building roosts in the study area. Ms. Bateman said no additional maternity roosts were identified during the bat survey conducted in June 2010. (Appendix III contains the information in relation to the June 2010 survey).

Ms. Bateman said that during the 2009 winter survey, four confirmed hibernation bat roosts were identified and no trees showing direct evidence of use by bats as roosts were observed during the surveys of May and June 2009. She said a total of 92 individual or small groups of trees with potential for use as bat roosts were found throughout the survey area and are shown on figure 6.9 to 6.11 of Volume 3 of the EIS. She said no lesser horseshoe bat roosts were confirmed in the study area.

Ms. Bateman said that badgers had been identified to be foraging and crossing through the study area and one outlier badger sett was identified. She said the key otter habitat in the study area is the River Maigue.

Ms. Bateman referred to aquatic species and said salmon and trout were present in the Rivers Greanagh and Maigue. She said those river habitats might also support a number of species listed in Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive including white- clawed crayfish, brook lamprey, river lamprey and sea lamprey. She said none of the six minor watercourses were likely to support salmon, trout or any Annex 2 aquatic species.

Ms. Bateman described the assessment summary in Section 4 of her brief of evidence and noted one cSAC, one SAC and one pNHA were located within five kilometres of the proposed road development corridor and these were the lower River Shannon cSAC, Curraghchase Woods SAC and Adare woodlands pNHA.

Ms. Bateman said the River Shannon cSAC was approximately four kilometres north downstream of the proposed River Maigue crossing and the Fonse study was undertaken and was published as part of the EIS. She said there would be no significant effects, direct or indirect, on the lower River Shannon cSAC due to construction or operation on the proposed road development.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 28 of 72 Limerick County Council

Ms. Bateman said the Curraghchase Woods SAC was located approximately 4.5 kilometres north-west of the study area and this site was designated due to the presence of lesser horseshow bats. She said in her opinion there would be no direct or indirect effects of the SAC due to the proposed road development. She referred to the bat roosts surveys of 2009 and 2010 that confirmed that there are no lesser horseshoe bat roosts in the proposed road development study area. She said given the lack of connectivity and level of habitat fragmentation the lack of any lesser horseshoe bat records in a survey area was to be expected. She said in her opinion it was extremely unlikely that there would be any indirect impacts on the lesser horseshoe bats that occupy Curraghchase Woods due to the construction and operation of a proposed road development. She said the Fonse Report for Curraghchase Woodlands SAC was included as Appendix IV to the brief of evidence. (It was established that Appendix IV was information additional to that in the EIS).

Ms. Bateman said completion of the Fonse reports corresponds with the screening requirements of the recently published NPWS appropriate assessment of plans and projects in Ireland guidance for Planning Authorities of December 2009.

Ms. Bateman said the Adare Woodlands pNHA was located approximately 200 metres west of the proposed western end of the study area and was well separated by the route of the existing N21 and a local road and the River Greanagh. She said it was considered that there would be no indirect impact on the site due to the proposed road development.

Ms. Bateman said no protected flora species were identified in the study area and over 85% of the affected area was improved intensively managed agricultural land which is of low ecological value. She said the remaining terrestrial habitat area included tree lines, hedgerows and wet grassland which were assessed to be of local level importance. He said the Rivers Maigue and Greanagh are both evaluated to be of high value local importance in terms of their aquatic habitats.

Ms. Bateman said that the key impacts of the proposed road development on protected animal species (badgers, bats and otters) relate to potential construction phase noise and disturbance and operational phase severance of feeding and commuting corridors. She described the key ecological mitigation and said that in relation to bats as no statutory designated sites were directly affected, no buildings with potential for bat roosts are to be lost to the proposal and the nearest identified bat building roost is approximately 100 metres from the proposed road development. She said the mitigation for ecological features is described in Volume 2 of the EIS; Table 14.4 summarised the key mitigation proposals:-

• Habitats – to offset the loss of key local habitats, the planting design includes the native woodland planting and more open grassland planting.

• Protected animal species – provision of 11 accommodation structures or culverts at locations throughout the road development would allow protected mammals to pass under the proposed road development. Ms. Bateman noted the River Maigue crossing would be a clear span structure and the dimensions of accommodation

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 29 of 72 Limerick County Council

structures would give a high degree of confidence that mammals would use the structures and that the mitigation would be effective.

(Ms. Bateman referred to work in Wales where bats, badgers and otters used both existing and new built underpasses. She referred also to the UK DMRB Interim Advice Note for Bats 116/08).

• Closure under licence of an inactive outlier badger sett – a licence granted by NPWS.

• Provision of street lighting restricted to the western and eastern tie-in points.

• Restrictions on timing of works to avoid sensitive periods particularly at the River Maigue.

• Sediment control methods to minimise solids loading on all watercourses.

• Use of petrol interceptors during both the construction and operational phases.

Ms. Bateman, by way of summary stated that her conclusion of the ecological impact assessment was that there was generally a minor negative effect on the local ecological resource due to the proposed road development.

Mr. Flanagan drew attention to responses to submissions which were covered in Section 7 of the brief of evidence and he also drew attention to additional environmental commitments made post the publication of the EIS. These related to requirements of the NPWS and the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board.

Mr. Flanagan also drew attention to the appendices which included clarification and update to the EIS, the timing of surveys, the Spring 2010 bat survey results, and the Fonse report for Curraghchase Woodlands SAC. It is noted that figure 1.1 at the back of the brief of evidence indicates the location of Curraghchase Woodlands.

It was clarified to Mr. Smyth and to Mr. Sweetman that Appendix III and Appendix IV were both post EIS and therefore new.

4.2.6 Mr. Johnaton Dempsey gave evidence in relation to archaeological and cultural heritage as follows: - (Transcript Day 2, Pages 157-173)

Mr. Dempsey read from a brief of evidence which was jointly prepared on behalf of himself and Mr. McNaught. This is tabbed LA06.

Mr. Dempsey set out the methodology used in relation to the archaeological heritage impacts referred to in Volume 2, Section 11.1.8 of the EIS for details. He said the measures included:-

• Desk-based study of documentary cartographic and aerial photographic sources. • Walkover survey ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 0 of 72 Limerick County Council

• Consultation with landowners.

He said the cultural heritage baseline was established with reference to the National Folklore archive, historic mapping and transcripts of OS name books. He said it also included place name evidence and consultation with landowners.

Mr. Dempsey said cultural heritage information was used to inform the assessments of importance of sites identified in the archaeological and architectural heritage baselines. Twelve sites consisting of the Castleroberts field system (site 309) and 11 townland boundaries were included in that category.

Mr. Dempsey said the importance of each archaeological site was on a five point scale as was that of archaeological heritage sites.

Mr. Dempsey dealt with the assessment of potential effects and said that 40 archaeological and cultural heritage sites were identified within the study area and a further four sites were assessed due to the potential for impacts under setting. He said potential impacts were identified at 36 of the sites consisting of four recorded monuments, 18 non-designated archaeological heritage sites, two areas of archaeological potential and 12 cultural heritage sites. No impacts were protected at the remaining eight sites. He referred to Appendix 11.2 of Volume 4 of the EIS and also figures 11.1 – 11.3 of Volume 3 of the EIS.

Mr. Dempsey referred to the significance of impact during construction at site 338 which is Dunaman possible enclosure site and it is stated that it had been revised from what was in the EIS chapter and Appendix and it was now considered to be moderate (Appendix 11.2 indicated no predicted impact).

Mr. Dempsey said the proposed road development was assessed as having a moderate impact on three sites, slight on six, imperceptible on nine and unknown on four. In relation to the assessment of unknown Mr. Dempsey said his opinion was that these were likely to be of natural rather than archaeological in origin.

In relation to areas of archaeological potential, Mr. Dempsey mentioned River Maigue and Baurnalicka areas and referred to sites no. 13 and 316 and these were assessed as unknown.

Mr. Dempsey said the significance of impact on the Castleroberts field system (309) was assessed as moderate. He said there would be no impacts during operations.

Mr. Dempsey referred to mitigation and said this was in Volume 2, Chapter 11 of the EIS. He said mitigation measures had been agreed with the National Monuments Service and this was detailed in the letter of Appendix 2 to the brief of evidence. He said the mitigation works will take place in two phases with the first phase being pre- construction archaeological investigation involving geophysical, photographic and earthworks surveys, under water assessment, metal detector survey of river banks and test excavation of at least 10% of the land-take. He said the second phase would be archaeological resolution consisting of design solutions to preserve sites in situ where appropriate or preservation by record. ______

0028 n Bord leanála age of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Dempsey said a programme of target magnetometer surveys was proposed which would include the areas identified in Table 4.4 of the brief of evidence. He said the results of archaeological excavations would be published.

Mr. Dempsey referred to a recorded monument at Finniterstown ringfort (ringfort no. 2 to distinguish it from ringfort no. 1) which is site 60 in Table 4.4. He said to ensure the site was preserved in situ the land would not be made available to the construction contractor and the earthworks would be cordoned off to prevent accidental damage during construction.

Mr. Dempsey said Derryvinnane Ridge and Farrow and Derryvinnane enclosure were located in close proximity to the footprint of the road development and would also be cordoned off to ensure that preservation in situ of the earthworks was not compromised during construction.

Mr. Dempsey said that after mitigation no residual impacts were predicted resulting from construction of the proposed road development. He said after mitigation the significance of impacts during operation was predicted to be moderate at one site, slight at two sites and imperceptible at two sites.

The summary of the archaeological and cultural heritage assessment was that avoidance was an important consideration and Mr. Dempsey said as a result no profound or significant impacts on archaeological or cultural heritage sites were identified. He said all predicted impacts would be mitigated through the measures outlined which had been agreed with the National Monument Service of the DoEHLG.

Mr. Flanagan noted the responses to the third party submissions which were in Section 7 of the brief of evidence.

Mr. Dempsey went on to read the brief of evidence in relation to architectural heritage and this is tabbed LA07.

Mr. Dempsey said the legislative framework for the protection of architectural heritage was set out in Sections 11.1.4 to 11.1.7 of Volume 2 of the EIS. He said the assessment was carried out with reference to the guidelines for the assessment of architectural heritage impacts on National Roads Schemes by NRA 2005. He said a study corridor was defined extending 50 metres from the edge of the proposed road development and not the centre line as stated in the EIS. He said site inspections were carried out in June 2010 and the record of protected structures contained in the Draft Limerick CDP 2010-2016 was consulted during the preparation of the brief of evidence.

Mr. Dempsey addressed the assessment of potential effects and said the baseline survey identified 10 architectural heritage sites comprising four sites of national importance, two of regional importance and one of local importance with three sites of record only importance. He referred to Volume 4, Appendix 7.3 of the EIS and also Volume 3 figures 11.4-11.6. Mr. Dempsey said one additional site had been ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 2 of 72 Limerick County Council

identified since the publication of the EIS and the importance of one other had been reassessed.

Mr. Dempsey said the importance of Granard House Demesne, (site 113) had been reassessed to be of local importance due to the preservation of historic field boundaries and mature specimen trees around the house. He said this is assessed in the EIS as being of record only importance. He said through the design process, the impacts on the mature trees were avoided.

Mr. Dempsey said the additional site identified was the attendant grounds of Fanningstown Castle which were given a site reference no. of 341. Mr. Dempsey said in a planning report prepared by Mr. Tom Cassidy, conservation officer, Limerick County Council it is stated that while the grounds lie outside the curtilage of Fanningstown Castle, they should be considered in the attendant grounds category. He noted that report was attached as Appendix 2 of the brief of evidence and the additional information on the site was provided in Appendix 3 of the brief of evidence. He said the site had been assessed to be of local importance due to its poor state of preservation. Mr. Dempsey said that a pair of gate posts reference site 333 was now considered part of the site. He said the total number of sites considered in the architectural baseline was therefore still 10.

Mr. Dempsey said with reference to all the information and submissions made, Table 1 of the brief of evidence summarised the position. He noted that no profound or significant impacts were predicted during construction. He said of the eight impacts predicted during construction, before mitigation the significance of seven of those impacts were predicted to be moderate while the impact of one site was predicted to be slight. Mr. Dempsey said the significance of the impact on Granard House Demesne (113) had previously been assessed to be imperceptible and that was reassessed to be moderate. He noted the impact on the attendant grounds of Fanningstown Castle had been assessed to be moderate (site 341).

He said that of the eight impacts identified during construction, only two were direct impacts on Granard House Demesne and the attendant grounds of Fanningstown Castle. Mr. Dempsey said before mitigation the significance of the impacts had been assessed to be moderate. He said no profound or significant impacts were predicted during operation. He said of the eight impacts identified during operation, six were predicted to be moderate with two predicted to be slight. He noted that the EIS had previously assessed the impacts during operation on five sites to be moderate with one slight and one imperceptible. Mr. Dempsey said the impact on Granard House demesne had previously been assessed to be imperceptible and this had been reassessed to be slight due to the importance of the site being reviewed. He said the impact on the attendant grounds of Fanningstown House had been assessed to be moderate.

Mr. Dempsey said the operation of the proposed road would reduce traffic in Adare and that protected structures and recorded monuments within and around the town would benefit from an improvement in the character and appearance of the Architectural Conservation Area.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Dempsey said the primary mitigation strategy was avoidance and he referred to Volume 2, Chapter 11 of the EIS for specific details of mitigation which included:-

• Earthwork survey • Photographic and written record • Landscape planting

He said that in relation to Site 341, Fanningstown Castle, an earthworks and photographic survey would be undertaken in addition to the mitigation recommended in the EIS. He said subject to landowner agreement and the DoEHLG, the two pairs of stone gate posts within the attendant grounds of Fanningstown Castle would be re- sited in an appropriate location.

Mr. Dempsey referred to Table 1 of his brief of evidence which lists the residual significance of impact on the sites and noted that during operation the significance of impact on four sites was predicted to be moderate and on two sites predicted to be slight. He noted that the residual impact on Granard House had previously been assessed as imperceptible and this was now reassessed as slight while for Fanningstown Castle the impact had previously been assessed as slight and had been reassessed as moderate. He said the impact on the attendant grounds of Fanningstown Castle during construction and operation had been assessed to be moderate.

Mr. Dempsey outlined his conclusions and stated that the removal of traffic from Adare would improve the amenity of numerous designated and undesignated sites of architectural heritage within the town. He said that that particular positive impact was recognised in a letter from the DoEHLG of 16 th April 2010 and this letter was included as Appendix 4 of the brief of evidence.

With regard to responses to submissions, Mr. Dempsey said concern had been raised with regard to Finniterstown House and demesne, that that had not been included in the EIS. He said it was now included in the proposed additions to the Record of Protected Structures in the Draft County Development Plan with a reference of PPS138. He said the site was inspected on the ground and as no impact was identified it had not been included in the EIS.

Mr. Flanagan referred to the other responses in the brief of evidence and referred to Appendix 2 of the brief of evidence which was the Planning Report in relation to the definition of a curtilage, while Appendix 3 was the assessment of the attendant grounds, and Appendix 5 with some slides which could be discussed during questions.

4.2.7 Mr. Gerry Sheeran gave evidence in relation to planning as follows: - (Transcript Day 2, Pages 173-191)

Mr. Sheeran read from his brief of evidence which is tabbed LA 08 .

Mr. Sheeran commenced by referring to the National Spatial Strategy and said this would be able to sustain:-

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 4 of 72 Limerick County Council

• A better quality of life. • Strong competitive economic position. • An environment of the highest quality.

He said that implementation of the road investment programme was a key element in enhancing regional accessibility. He referred to the nine gateways and hubs which he said were important nodes on the transportation system and had significant levels of enterprise and services.

Mr. Sheeran referred to the Atlantic Gateways Initiative – Achieving Critical Mass (2006) which identified the N21 between Limerick and Tralee as a key National Primary Route and he referred to Figure 3 of that document.

Mr. Sheeran said the Adare bypass linked the twin hubs of Tralee / Killarney and the key town of Newcastle West into the Atlantic corridor and it reinforced the strategy of balanced regional development.

Mr. Sheeran referred to the National Development Plan of 2007-2013 and to the strategy for improvement of infrastructure. He said the investment in transport infrastructure over the Plan period was €33 billion of which €13.3 billion would be invested in upgrading and building new roads. He said in addition to joining the N21 to the M20 in a plan-led approach it would reduce congestion in Adare town.

Mr. Sheeran referred to smarter travel – a sustainable transport future. He said the 49 measures in that document would be grouped under four key headings:-

• Actions to reduce distance travelled by private car. • Actions aimed at ensuring that alternatives to the car are more widely available. • Actions aimed at improving the fuel efficiency of motorised transport. • Actions aimed at strengthening institutional arrangements to deliver the targets.

Mr. Sheeran said the proposed N21 Adare Bypass Scheme supported the actions in the Smarter Travel document by transferring traffic from Adare to the proposed road development. He said smarter travel supported the €18 billion investment in roads as part of Transport 21 as it would remove bottlenecks, ease congestion and pressure in towns and villages and provide the necessary infrastructural links to support the National Spatial Strategy.

Mr. Sheeran said the Minister for the Environment launched draft Consultation Guidelines on spatial planning and national roads on 29 th June 2010. He stated that over the next 8 years a multi-billion euro investment would be made by the Irish government in delivering a world-class and sustainable transportation system connecting communities and connecting Ireland to our main trading partners. It referred to progress under Transport 21 and the NDP. It stated that new public transport systems and new roads connect places. Cities, towns and rural areas are benefiting from on-going investment and also enabled well-thought out development ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 5 of 72 Limerick County Council

in support of the aims and objectives of the NSS, Regional Planning Guidelines and Local Plans. This was described as plan-led development.

The Guidelines are stated to encourage a collaborative approach between Planning Authorities and the NRA while encouraging a shift towards more sustainable travel and transport in accordance with the Government’s over-arching transport policy objectives set out in Smarter Travel.

Mr. Sheeran referred to the Atlantic Gateway Corridor Development Framework – Overview Report. He said that report was published in November 2009 and represented best practice and collaboration between local and regional authorities. It referred to joined-up approaches between regional and local authorities in developing and applying policies to the coordination of development around and between Atlantic gateways. He said the proposed M20 corridor was the basis for the review of the route of the Adare bypass and this was in line with the joined-up approach that was essential to the coordination of development around and between the Atlantic gateways which is advocated in the overview report.

Mr. Sheeran said Section 2 of that report discussed the gateway cities of Cork and Limerick/Shannon which are the second and third largest cities in the state respectively. He said the Adare bypass would ensure improved connectivity between the Cork-Limerick gateways and the twin hubs of Tralee/Killarney and supported the policy.

Referring to the Midwest Regional Strategy and Planning Guidelines 2004 , Mr. Sheeran noted that the NSS Strategy was to be delivered by eight regions. He said the Midwest RSPG was published in 2004 and he has provided for two central zones and seven zones peripheral to the gateway. Mr. Sheeran said Newcastle West was the key town for the West Limerick zone and each zone was stated to have easy access to the gateway/hub. He referred to the Draft Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022 which were published in November 2009 and these referred to the N21 road link from Tralee via Newcastle West to Limerick City which would facilitate access to the city from that zone of the region. It is stated that in addition to being improved and upgraded it was important the capacity and safety of the key national and regional network was protected by severely restricting developments that required direct access to those routes. Mr. Sheeran said the proposed Adare bypass supported that objective.

Mr. Sheeran referred to the Limerick County Development Plan 2005-2011 which he said came into operation on 28 th March 2005. He said with reference to transport and infrastructure it is sought to: -

• Ensure the county’s transportation and infrastructure resources would be developed. • Would promote an integrated transport system throughout the county that was safe, efficient, competitive, accessible and socially and environmentally friendly.

Mr. Sheeran said the County Development Plan was varied after a public display period of 4 weeks and a meeting of Limerick County Council on 28 th September 2009 ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 6 of 72 Limerick County Council

with the sole purpose of including the specific objective in relation to the N21 Adare bypass being to the south of Adare. He said this provided for: -

• “Design, reserve land for, and commence construction of a bypass of Adare on a route to the south of Adare to connect with the proposed M20 Cork-Limerick project at a location to the south of Adare as resources become available”.

Mr. Sheeran said the proposed Adare bypass gave effect to and facilitated the implementation of this objective of the County Development Plan.

Mr. Sheeran said the County Development Plan included an objective INF 13 which related to prohibition of access to new national roads and this mentioned the N21 Adare bypass.

Mr. Sheeran referred to the Draft Limerick County Development Plan 2010-2016. He noted Objective IN-017 regarding new national routes and development management which referred specifically to the M20 Limerick-Cork motorway and the N21 Adare bypass. He referred to Table 8.3 of the draft plan which set out the proposed national road improvements for a period 2010-2016. This included the policy to reserve land for and commence construction of a bypass of Adare on a route to the south of Adare to connect with the proposed M20 Cork-Limerick project at a location south of Adare as resources became available.

Mr. Sheeran said the implications of a do-nothing approach would directly contravene an objective of the County Development Plan and the draft County Development Plan and it would militate against the objective of the National Spatial Strategy of making the N21 a strategic linking corridor between the twin hubs of Killarney/Tralee and the Atlantic corridor. He said it would also run counter to the Midwest Regional Planning Guidelines which identified the N21 road link as one of the roads which were key to the creation of a truly integrated region, well connected to the rest of the country. Mr. Sheeran referred to the Adare Local Area Plan 2009 and said that Bord Fáilte had defined Adare as a heritage town and it had a high quality landscape setting and was of international importance in tourism terms. He said the population in 2006 was 982 people and the Local Area Plan estimated that the population could grow to 1,400 by 2014 and up to 2,500 by 2028.

Mr. Sheeran said the Local Area Plan was adopted in January 2009 with a vision for the creation of a clean and safe sustainable environment in communities where people want to live, work or visit and where residents have access to local job opportunities. He said the LAP envisaged the following objectives:-

• To provide for a more pedestrian friendly environment within the town. • To promote the concept of a walkable town centre. • To promote the provision of amenity walks within and through the town. • To ensure that the local road network provides ease of access to and between the various areas.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 7 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Sheeran said that the proposed Adare bypass was supportive of those objectives in the Local Area Plan.

Mr. Sheeran referred to Policy M2 of the LAP which refers to the policy of the County Council to reserve land and construct the Adare bypass and it states that the bypass of Adare would provide a significant opportunity to enhance the town centre environment by addressing the balance between vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

Mr. Sheeran referred to the variation of the Development Plan on 28 th September 2009 and stated that the County Development Plan is a superior plan in legal terms and the variation was to clarify in case of any doubt that the bypass route was to be to the south of Adare.

Mr. Sheeran referred to Policy M1 in relation to movement and accessibility - that development can avail of a safe and efficient movement and accessibility network that would cater for the needs of all users and encourage priority for town centre access, walking and cycling, public transport provision and accident reduction. He said it was also the policy of the Local Area Plan to promote the delivery, by way of the distributor road, of improved accessibility. He said the proposed Adare bypass, by removing traffic from Adare, facilitated the delivery of those objectives.

Mr. Flanagan stated that normally in a presentation a draft Development Plan would not be mentioned but he understood that the adoption of the Plan was imminent. Mr. Sheeran said that was so and the Plan had been on public display with the Manager’s Report having been sent to the Council with regard to submissions made. He said the Council would be meeting on 19 th July 2010.

4.2.8 Ms. Stefanie O’Gorman gave evidence in relation to community and socio- economics as follows: - (Transcript Day 2, Page 292-203)

Ms. O’Gorman read from her brief of evidence which is tabbed LA09 . She said the potential impacts on human beings considered in the assessment related to the direct physical impacts and the potential impacts on quality of life.

Ms. O’Gorman gave a summary of the assessment results and noted in relation to demographic and economic considerations that the residents in the area were largely employed in the services, clerical/administrative, professional and sales sectors, manufacturing and construction sectors and agriculture and transport. She said the area depended heavily on the City of Limerick for employment and education and hence this data indicated that the majority of residents did not work or study within Adare town in 2006. She said the Local Area Plan identified that the Adare area residents, - approximately 17% - commuted between 16 and 23 kilometres to work or study on a daily basis with the most likely destination being Limerick City and its environs.

Ms. O’Gorman said the town of Adare and surrounding area had a strong agricultural base service sector, including tourism, and was now a significant economic sector ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 8 of 72 Limerick County Council

within the region. She said the proximity of Limerick City and the large business parks in its environs have meant that larger industries have not located to Adare or its environs.

Ms. O’Gorman said the residential land use was largely confined to the town of Adare with a number of ribbon developments immediately adjacent to the N21 and surrounding local roads. She said 800,000 visitors were estimated to pass through Adare town annually and tourism was recognised as a major source of employment.

Ms. O’Gorman said that consultations with businesses were carried out in 2005/2006 and this resulted in a forecast by 43% of traders that there would be an increase in trade as a result of the proposed road development construction. She said a number of local businesses were again consulted in 2009. She said the majority of those consulted including the Adare Business Association were found to be in favour of the proposed road development.

Miss. O’Gorman outlined dis-benefits to be expected from a do-nothing scenario including traffic congestion and constraint of tourism development potential.

Miss. O’Gorman referred to the assessment of potential effects of the proposed road development. She said during construction the impacts would be temporary and would last for 18-24 months. In the operational stage, she said the impacts would be primarily positive in nature including relief of traffic and benefits in terms of noise and air pollution. She said the traffic reduction would facilitate the process of urban renewal and development objectives set out in the Adare Local Area Plan 2009. She said the negative aspect would be in relation to businesses which would suffer a reduction in passing trade.

Ms. O’Gorman said the design of the proposed road development had mitigated the impact of severance by means of: -

• Access by way of bridges or underpasses on accommodation roads. • Bridges for local roads with a kerbed footway to facilitate the safe movement of pedestrians. • Footways to tie into existing footways where existing footways are in place.

Ms. O’Gorman said there would be no community severance impacts to be expected as local access routes would be maintained.

Ms. O’Gorman listed the existing issues which would be addressed namely traffic reduction, safety and perception of safety and a reduction in the existing community severance present within the town of Adare. She said in summary the proposed road development would reduce through traffic from Adare and therefore result in a more personal safe environment along the existing N21 for pedestrians, cyclists and other non-vehicular road users in Adare town centre and for pedestrian routes throughout the town.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 9 of 72 Limerick County Council

Ms. O’Gorman referred to the impacts on the local economy, business, tourism and development. She said the majority of impacts would be positive in nature and she said that the proposed road development would act as a potential catalyst for the development of further tourist facilities within the town and surroundings areas. She said the impacts on the town of Adare would overall be positive in nature and there would be no impacts on community severance to be expected as local access routes would be maintained.

With reference to mitigation, Ms. O’Gorman said permitted access routes would be along national and regional roads.

By way of conclusion, Ms. O’Gorman said in summary the provision of the proposed road development would alleviate existing traffic related problems and make the town a safer, quieter, cleaner and more attractive place to live, work and visit. She said the main objections in relation to the socio-economic aspects included impacts on business/tourism, construction phase impacts and signage during operation.

4.2.9 Mr. Alister Simpson gave evidence in relation to landscape and visual aspects as follows: - (Transcript Day 2, Pages 207-226)

Mr. Simpson, landscape architect, read his brief of evidence and this is tabbed LA-10 .

Mr. Simpson said the proposed road development was located in the rural landscape which is predominantly high quality arable farmland and pasture;the Limerick County Development Plan 2005 described the landscape character of the area as agricultural lowlands. He said the prominent landscape features were:-

• Adare town which is one of Ireland’s most attractive small towns. • Adare Manor Estate next to Adare town which is a fine 19 th century manor house with luxury hotel, formal gardens, parkland and woods and an international championship standard golf course. • Ribbon residential development along many of the local roads. • The River Maigue and its western tributaries the Greanagh and Clonshire Rivers. • Small to medium size fields with significant number of mature hedgerows and tree lines. • Adare woodlands, a proposed NHA. • Rural structures including farms, castles and stones including Garraunboy Castle (ruin), Finniterstown House, Granard House, Dunnaman Castle (ruin), Dunnaman Church, Castleroberts (unoccupied house). • Fanningstown Castle.

Mr. Simpson said there were no areas of outstanding landscape indicated within the locality of the proposed road development with the nearest being Lough Gur which was 20 kilometres to the east.

Mr. Simpson referred to local landscape planning and noted that policies in the Development Plan included:- ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 40 of 72 Limerick County Council

• Trees and hedgerows – recognises the importance of trees, hedgerows and woodlands and of enhancing tree covering in County Limerick. • Landscape and visual amenity – the Plan recognises the importance of landscape, recreation and tourism. • Scenic views and prospects – Tory Hill situated about three kilometres from the nearest point of the proposed road development is the only listed view in the area. • Architectural Conservation Areas (ACA) and listed structures – there are two ACAs in Adare, covering the town centre and Adare Manor estate. Neither would be affected by the proposed road development.

Mr. Simpson said with respect to the nature conservation the Plan recognised the importance of protected flora and fauna species. He said in relation to the Adare Local Area Plan 2009, no designations or protected views would be affected by the proposed road development. He said with regard to the Croom Local Area Plan 2003, no designations were found that would be affected by the proposed road development.

Mr. Simpson referred to the assessment of potential effects of the proposed road development and said that consideration was given to avoidance of impacts wherever possible during the route selection stage and the design process. He said the development route was selected to minimise where possible the impact on residential property but with any development some degree of impact is inevitable and landscape measures have been developed to mitigate as much as possible the negative nature of those impacts.

Mr. Simpson said in general that negative visual impact would arise in regard to residential properties close to the construction boundary and would primarily be due to loss of trees and hedgerows and alteration of ground levels and also impacts from construction traffic.

Mr. Simpson referred to impacts on landscape character and referred to Volume 2, Section 10 of the EIS. He noted these had been described in three sections, from the start of the development to the R519, between the R519 and the River Maigue and between the River Maigue and the junction with the proposed M20. Mr. Simpson referred to Table 1 which referred to landscape character features and impacts in the three different sections of the route.

Mr. Simpson said that when landscape planting had become established after 7 to 15 years the impacts would be reduced to moderate/negative.

Mr. Simpson referred to impacts on landscape elements and stated these would include the River Maigue and its surroundings and rural structures namely Granard House which is unoccupied and Fanningstown Castle. He said at the River Maigue the bridge and road embankments would be framed and softened by planting but local views along the river would remain curtailed. He said this would be the existing view from near Castleroberts. Mr. Simpson said the road would pass in deep cutting close to mature trees near Granard House and at Fanningstown the traffic on the proposed

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 4 of 72 Limerick County Council

road development would be concealed in a cutting across narrow fields south of the Castle. (Mr. Simpson referred to photomontages which were part of his brief of evidence).

Mr. Simpson said in his opinion there were no significant conflicts with planning policy for landscape during pre or post establishment stages.

Mr. Simpson referred to visual impact to road and footpath users and said routes affected would include the existing N21, the R519 Ballingarry Road and the L-1420 Croom Road through Fanningstown. He said during post establishment the impacts will be reduced to slight negative for the N21 and moderate negative for Ballingarry Road. He said users of the Croom Road through Fanningstown would continue to experience a significant negative impact locally due to loss of sections of stone wall and changed views of the adjacent high quality landscape.

Mr. Simpson said no public footpaths would be affected but the impact on local views and the fishing path along the River Maigue would be profound reducing to significant negative when the landscape planting had matured.

Mr. Simpson referred to the visual impact on residential properties and stated that views from 67 properties had been identified as potentially impacted. He referred to Table 2 of his brief of evidence. He said at post establishment stage when all the landscape mitigation had grown there would be no properties with a profound impact, seven with significant impact, 18 with moderate impact, 19 with slight impact and 23 with imperceptible impact.

Mr. Simpson referred to Section 4.14 of his brief of evidence and stated with the reduction of traffic in Adare the proposed road development would have a significant positive impact on the streetscape. He showed a current photo of Adare Main Street with peak traffic congestion and he showed the same view with greatly reduced traffic.

Mr. Simpson said specific landscape proposals had been detailed for 23 separate locations. Mr. Simpson referred to Section 10 of the EIS in relation visual assessment and mitigation. He went through Figures 6-12 which are appended to the brief of evidence and described the planting to be carried out along the route from the western end to Fanningstown Castle. In addition there were a number of photomontages including View A which is from Castleroberts towards the proposed crossing of the River Maigue, View B which is from the Croom Road towards the south over the proposed roadway and View C which was looking eastwards from Fanningstown Castle.

Mr. Simpson covered the planting specification and stated the trees would include alder, ash, birch, mountain ash, oak, scots pine and willows. He said hedge planting would be primarily blackthorn, alder, hawthorn, hazel, holly, willow and other local species, interspersed with taller randomly planted trees such as common ash and oak.

By way of conclusions, Mr. Simpson said some individual residential properties would remain significantly impacted at local level. He said the proposed road ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 42 of 72 Limerick County Council

development when account was taken of the proposed landscaping integration measures would have an overall moderate negative residual landscape and visual impact. He said with the removal of through traffic in Adare, the proposed road development would have a significant positive impact on the visual streetscape/townscape of the town.

It was noted that the brief of evidence contained responses to individual objections and Mr. Flanagan noted that there had been an error in the description of Fanningstown Castle in the EIS in that the status of Fannings Castle in Limerick City was incorrectly ascribed to Fanningstown Castle. He said it was acknowledged that Fanningstown Castle was a Protected Structure.

4.2.10 Mr. John Dore gave evidence in relation to Agronomy as follows: - (Transcript, Day 2, Pages 226 – 232)

Mr. Dore said 27 agricultural holdings were affected by the proposed road development and 25 were included in the assessment. He said one holding was excluded as it was primarily affected by the N20 development. He said a second holding was excluded because the small area of land-take in the CPO was not occupied as part of the holding and the impact of the proposed road development was imperceptible. He said the majority of the assessments were carried out during June 2009 with further assessment in September 2009.

Mr. Dore said the factors assessed included area of holding and land-take, livestock numbers, type of farmland quality and general soil types, level of intensity of farming and predicted impacts including residual impacts.

Mr. Dore indicated what constituted the different levels of impact and gave a summary of the assessment results. He said the 25 affected holdings covered an area of approximately 886 hectares and of that 62 hectares would be used for the proposed road development. He said that represented 6.9% of the overall affected area and that the land used for the development would be less than 10% at 18 of the affected holdings. He said fragmentation would result in 10 of the holdings.

In relation to potential effects, Mr. Dore said there would be profound impact on one and significant impacts on 13 of the affected holdings before mitigation. He said mitigation measures during construction were well-established and these would reduce the impact of the proposed road development on the 25 impacted holdings. He said the profound impact on one holding for mitigation would be reduced to a significant impact and another four significant impacts would be reduced to moderate. He said overall the proposed road development would have a moderate impact on the agronomy of the affected area.

Mr. Dore outlined his conclusions which were that the existing road network would become safer to conduct all farming related operations and movement would become more efficient. He said the improved accessibility to and from the greater Adare area and the freeing up of the existing road network would be of great benefit to agri-trade. He said all markets would be more accessible outside Adare and opportunities would become viable in Adare itself. He said the farmers’ market was one example. ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 4 of 72 Limerick County Council

4.2.11 Mr. Robertson gave an overview of the evidence to the hearing as follows: - (Transcript, Day 3, Pages 4 – 8)

Mr. Robertson showed a number of slides which illustrated his presentation and this is tabbed LA11.

Mr. Robertson said that Adare was prone to congestion, traffic jams at peak periods and it was a well-known bottleneck on the N21 route. He said the existing road was significantly below the current design standards and accidents statistics between 1999 and 2008 showed three fatalities, eight serious injuries and 32 minor accidents.

Mr. Robertson said that the proposed development had less ecological impact and avoided the Lower Shannon cSAC and the Adare Woodlands. He said it had fewer engineering constraints and provided a greater potential for mitigation by avoidance.

Mr. Robertson said that the key constraints were the River Maigue, the Ballingarry and Croom Roads, landowner holdings, homeowners, environmental constraints and the overall topography of the area.

Mr. Robertson listed the main elements which were 8.6 kilometres of type 2 dual carriageway, 0.75 of regional and local road alignment and 2.7 kilometres of access tracks. He said there were two road bridge crossings, one river crossing of the River Maigue and nine accommodation over- or under- bridges.

Mr. Robertson said the scheme included an at-grade roundabout on the existing N21 and a grade-separated junction at Fanningstown to link with the proposed M20. He said the total land-take was 68 hectares and did not require the acquisition of any residential properties and that all rights of ways would be maintained via proposed structures or junctions.

Mr. Robertson said the type 2 dual carriageway was appropriate and had significant benefits, particularly in terms of accident savings.

Mr. Robertson said that in design year of 2030, the road development would take 13,000 vehicles/day which would remove about two-thirds of the traffic from Adare. He said this would leave the traffic west of Adare at 4,900 vehicles and east of Adare it would reduce to 9.900 vehicles per day. Mr. Robertson said the number of HGVs would reduce by 800 per day and this would be approximately 400 HGVs lower than average currently travelling through the town. He said that without the bypass, journey times in June 2010 were in excess of 24 minutes westwards and this would become commonplace without a bypass.

Mr. Robertson said that the proposed bypass development would remove a major bottleneck from the national primary road network and would provide appropriate linkage to the Cork – Limerick strategic corridor and improved safety for all road users. He said with regard to safety, it would save approximately 200 personal injuries, a reduction of 31 serious casualties and five fatalities. ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 44 of 72 Limerick County Council

4.3.1 (Continued) questions were put to Mr. Robertson in relation to water supply as follows: - (Transcript Day 8, Pages 77-79)

The Inspector asked about road drainage and Mr. Robertson confirmed that the area from chainage 6 + 200 to 8 + 600 drained into the Maigue via an attenuation pond. Mr. Robertson said it went into a ditch and into the river from the ditch.

It was established that there was a water abstraction 500 metres downstream from this point and the Inspector asked had it been considered bringing the discharge from the attenuation pond below the abstraction point. Following a further question, Mr. Robertson said he thought in consultation with the Water Department what was proposed was felt adequate for the position they were in. He said the proposed mitigation with the ponds was believed to be sufficient in the area and that it would not affect the abstraction point downstream.

4.3.1 (Continued) Mr. Smyth asked Mr. Robertson questions as follows: - (Transcript Day 8, Pages 177-220)

Mr. Smyth noted that the EIS deals with the situation of the N21 joining the proposed new M20. He asked were there also proposals linking to the N20. Mr. Robertson said there was an option for an interim solution subject to a construction sequence of the M20 and the N21.

Mr. Smyth asked how this was compatible with the point made in 2005 that the linking to the N20 was rejected on the basis of safety, constructability and realignment of the Attyflin junction. It was confirmed that a quote stating “this initial corridor was discounted inter alia on engineering grounds as it would have required the upgrading of the N20 between the tie-in at Fanningstown and Attyflin. In addition it would have necessitated the reconfiguration of the existing grade - separated junction at Attyflin”. This statement was from the 2005 Route Selection Report. Mr. Robertson said that he would reiterate what he said previously viz that the 2005 route selection report was not comparable to the 2009 situation.

Mr. Smyth asked about the interim solution if the M20 had not been built and Mr. Robertson said it was only to allow for construction sequencing.

Mr. Smyth asked a number of questions in relation to the possible tie-in and stated that his understanding was it would be 10,500 vehicles using the N21 Adare bypass and approximately 16,000 using the N20 and that would indicate a roundabout where two roads were going to meet with an AADT of 26,000. Mr. Robertson said it was an interim solution and he understood that on the M7 a temporary roundabout carried over 30,000 AADT in an interim situation.

Mr. Smyth asked what the budget for the temporary tie-in was and if there was any provision within the current budget of €67.6 million for that interim solution. Mr. Robertson said they had accounted for the roundabout within the land-take. The cost estimate was for the final solution and not the interim. Mr. Smyth he wished to submit that he did not believe there was any budget for it or there had been any safety review ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 45 of 72 Limerick County Council

of it. He said he would request that the Board, if approving the N21 bypass, would not allow an interim solution as proposed. Mr. Robertson noted that it would not work as a permanent solution and it would need the M20 in place. He said the N21 was dependent on the M20 solution.

Mr. Smyth asked about the longer term aspirational plans for the N69 and N21 and Mr. Robertson said the key to their commission was the Adare bypass but that the scheme as selected allowed for any future development of the N21 and did not inhibit any development to the west.

Mr. Smyth asked about the compliance with the Mid-Western Regional Guidelines, given that the N69 is a priority road and Mr. Robertson said they developed the whole scheme with the County Council and the NRA as part of an overall steering committee.

Mr. Smyth raised the route corridor selection report and said there was normally pre- planning and consultation. Mr. Flanagan responded by saying that any discussions with the public prior to the publication of an EIS, are non-statutory or informal to that extent and he thought it was important that that context be identified. He said that the statutory process starts with the publication of the EIS. Mr. Robertson said they carried out the original planning search in relation to planning applications having been made on routes and then updated it when they revisited the route selection. He said it was a combined constraints study and route selection report for the selected route.

Mr. Smyth asked had the two middle routes namely green and red been assessed before. Mr. Robertson said from memory the green route had been assessed and the red route was developed during the route selection stage and it was involved with discussions with certain members of the public and landowner suggestions. Mr. Smyth suggested that from previous work, issues would have indicated that the green and red routes were non-starters. Mr. Robertson said he might have thought they were non-starters in the past but since they had developed other schemes that have gone through SACs and pNHAs from experience you can have routes that go through those situations. He said normally if there was an alternative that could avoid it they would normally use it but if there is no alternative it would only be fair to assess those and it was raised by some people during consultation why they were not considering them. Mr. Smyth said to him it seemed as if they were really comparing blue and black.

Mr. Smyth said he was surprised that there seemed to have been some consultation on the ground in relation to the green and black routes. He asked why information was not available when the route was announced. Mr. Robertson said he thought it was not normally made available. He thought it was made available on the NRA website. Mr. Smyth said the point he wished to make was that when the route corridor selection was announced on 12 th May 2009, there was no report to support it. Mr. Robertson said there wouldn’t normally be a report given out. He explained that it was a document prepared in-house and it went to the NRA. Mr. Robertson said he thought it was important that there were some dates which Mr. Smyth identified as what he might describe as anomalies. He said it was in fact an internal document to the County Council and was not a statutory document. He said it was dated June 2009 but it went ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 46 of 72 Limerick County Council

for review by the NRA and came back and was ultimately made available to the public in December 2009.

Mr. Smyth said that he read the 2010 Project Management Guidelines published by the NRA and this referred to the formal signoff by the peer review group and then referred to a public display which should be held to inform members of the public and effected landowners of the preferred route corridor. He said it was quite clear that the report should be available and should be approved by the Inspector and therefore as the public wish to see it, at the announcement of the preferred route corridor, it should be available. The local authority clarified that he 2010 Guidelines did not apply to that situation and these were published in January 2010 and came into operation for all new schemes starting after 1 st February 2010. It was stated in this case the scheme was actually up and running. It was stated that the Guidelines applied were the original 2000 Guidelines. Mr. Smyth referred to the requirement for formal approval of the report. He also referred to the variation having to be put through the CDP and asked if it required strategic environmental assessment. Mr. Flanagan said it did not.

Mr. Smyth referred to the tolerances in the drawings and what scope there would be to change them. Mr. Robertson referred to Volume 2 of the EIS and Paragraph 112 which stated that any further development of design would be in a manner such that there is no material change in terms of significant adverse effects to the environment. He said in the practical sense it was the contractor that had to comply with the EIS and the requirements therein. Mr. Smyth asked if the area in Fanningstown was too much in cut and the builder did not wish to go down 5 metres, would that be material? Mr. Flanagan said that the situation regarding Annex 13 of the EIA Directive identifies that a further EIA is required in circumstances where any change to a project would give rise to a significant adverse effect on the environment.

Mr. Smyth said that what he was looking to get at was while there are some assurances that the scheme would be the least worse scenario. Mr. Flanagan said that the issue of tolerances which might come up in relation to particular locations could be examined by the Board. The Inspector invited submissions in that regard.

Mr. Smyth referred to Item 2.6 of the brief of evidence where the scheme objectives were listed. He asked Mr. Robertson which would be the most important one from his point of view. Mr. Robertson said it would have been to improve safety for all road users. Mr. Smyth said he would have presumed he would pick the diversion of traffic from the town centre from which the other objectives can be achieved.

Mr. Smyth asked Mr. Robertson about the AADT which is established to be of the order of 15,124. He asked about the route corridor selection process which concluded that Option 4 was preferred. He asked how it could be with so few engineering constraints that the budget had gone so far over where it was before. Mr. Smyth mentioned a figure of €27 million and Mr. Robertson referred to a figure of €10 million which was an increase from €57 to €67 million.

Mr. Smyth asked questions in relation to picking the date of the bank holiday weekend and Mr. Robertson said it was to give an example of an extreme situation. Mr. Smyth said the point he would make is, that going back to previous discussions, ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 47 of 72 Limerick County Council

abnormal situations and overflow would definitely be necessary if the high traffic volume was to be considered.

Mr. Smyth referred to Item 6.12 of the brief of evidence in relation to public transport. He asked Mr. Robertson what discussions were held with Bus Eireann to ensure that Adare remained on the route after the bypass was in place. Mr. Robertson said there was consultation with Bus Eireann but he did not have the information in front of him. He said they did have a letter from Bus Eireann saying they did not see the situation would be changing.

Mr. Smyth asked questions about dust minimisation and how it would be carried out and it was confirmed that Mr. Robertson indicated there would be 21,500 haulage loads plus all other traffic so there would be a lot of movement and therefore dust. Mr. Smyth wished to know what would happen if the level of dust was exceeded and would the properties be cleaned. Mr. Robertson said they had brought along some examples of other schemes of environmental operating plants with dust minimisation plants that they could let people see if they wanted to see them and were taken from specific schemes.

Mr. Smyth referred to a previous oral hearing where evidence was given in relation to things that were in the plan but did not happen in practice. (It is noted that in the Schedule of Environmental Commitments, reference is made to a dust minimisation plan.)

Mr. Smyth referred to the location of compounds and that one was located at the Croom junction. He said, given that there is a relatively small residential grouping on the route, would rock-breaking, termite plants, canteens, toilets etc. be inflicted on that group also. Mr. Robertson said it was up to the contractor where he sites the compound. He said they had identified one as just one between two schemes. He said if the contractor went outside of the land made available to put a compound in, tha thatt would be subject to reaching an agreement with affected landowners and subject to compliance with relative statutory authorities on that basis. Mr. Robertson said if rock blasting was being carried out and the rock was being processed, sometimes it can be better to have the crushing nearby the location of the blasting .

Mr. Cunningham said that on the M20 scheme there was a commitment to not having a stone crushing plant within 300 metres of residencies. Mr. Robertson said that that commitment would be something they could take on board as well for the N21.

Mr. Smyth asked questions about notification in relation to blasting and Mr. Robertson said he thought the contract documents normally had specific requirements. He said there would be a test blasting carried out with quite a lot of additional monitoring and then the main blasting would take place. Mr. Smyth said he was concerned because of the requirements from An Post that most post boxes were at front gates, a postcard could be dropped in and could be missed. Mr. Sweetman said for quarries there was a 3-day notice and a 24-hour notice and that was normally by postcard. Mr. Cunningham said that notification by text could be considered.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 48 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Smyth raised the question of blasting and fly-rock and Mr. Robertson said that speaking from experience they had finished quite a significant amount of blasting on the Tullamore bypass and there were no instances (of problems) there.

Mr. Smyth said he understood children find it harder to live with blasting than anybody else and he said he was also concerned about the possibility of flooding given that winter water levels had not been measured. He asked what level of pumping would be going on to keep the cut dry. Mr. Robertson said they would not go straight down instantly to the required depth but they tended to go down incrementally and the water level tends to drop as it goes. He said he would normally expect there to be pumping in the rock cut itself.

In relation to cross-sections, Mr. Smyth referred to Figure D of the brief of evidence which indicated the rope median barrier. He said he understood that governments in the Netherlands in Norway had banned its use. He said he understood that analysis in Sweden suggested that the barrier is less safe for motorcycles. Mr. Robertson said there are various reports from various motorcycle groups but he said they were providing a safety barrier for a dual-carriageway so overall it was a safer solution than a single carriageway. Mr. Smyth asked why not use the concrete barrier and Mr. Robertson explained that a concrete barrier would involve increasing the size of the cross-section and it would become a larger cross-section again.

Mr. Cunningham said in relation to barriers, the findings were non-committal on motorised two-wheelers and he said the evidence would indicate that it was the posts that are more damaging than the wire and if a steel barrier was used on a median this would have similar posts. He said he understood that Sweden was rolling out thousands of kilometres of wire rope safety barriers over the next few years. He said they initiated the introduction of the barrier and nowadays they were actually putting a barrier on single carriageways up the median or up the centreline of single carriageways. Mr. Cunningham said in relation to evidence given at a previous hearing by Mr. Sweetman in relation to the retrofitting of different barriers in Sweden than the wire rope, he said they had found out that that was in areas where there was no alternative in the event of an accident and therefore the whole road got closed down and they were taking the wire rope safety barrier away. He said they could present evidence, if it assisted the Board, that would show there is inconclusive evidence to show that a wire rope medium barrier was less safe for motorised 2- wheelers.

Mr. Smyth said as he understood it the conclusion of the literature was that it was less safe than other median methods.

Mr. Smyth referred to Appendix J, Stage F of the Road Safety Audit which was carried out in April 2009 which referred to 13,000 vehicles a day on the existing N21 route through Adare. Mr. Smyth asked about the apparent incorrectness of the figure of 13,000 vehicles a day. Mr. Robertson said the Road Safety Audit was carried out by an independent source within the office and the discrepancy between 13,000 and 15,000 would have no impact on the decisions that were made within the Road Safety Audit itself.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 49 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Smyth asked would it be clear that in relation to the route selection, that the black route was the safest route and Mr. Robertson said at that stage it was based on statistical information as well as on the length of the route, so the longer the route statistically the more likely there would be accidents on it. Mr. Smyth said the study indicated that only 2% or 180 vehicles a day would turn right at the Attyflin junction from the N21 so he asked why would a safety audit suggest discounting 4.09 kilometres of motorway on the basis that vehicles might be traveling southbound when clearly they are not. He said his point simply was that the report clearly stated that the longer the road the less safe it is. Mr. Smyth made a point that the safety audit stated that the aim of the scheme was to provide a dual-carriageway bypass between Garraunboy and the proposed M20 and he noted that the black route did not tie into the proposed M20. Mr. Robertson said that it would tie into the M20 because the reconfiguration of Attyflin comes into place it was the M20 at Attyflin.

Mr. Smyth asked questions about the assumption that 100% of the traffic would use the bypass and Mr. Robertson said that it had no junctions off it other than at either end and any other bypass he had worked on had intermediate junctions. Mr. Smyth asked questions about risk factors in relation to the project and Mr. Robertson said that the biggest risk factor would be if the M20 failed to progress. Mr. Smyth asked would the primary risk factor not be that 100% of the traffic does not use the bypass. He asked was the model done on a figure of anything less than 100% of traffic usage and Mr. Robertson said that it had not been.

Mr. Smyth asked questions about the cost per kilometre of the N21 which came out at €6.5 million and he noted that the M20 was coming in at €7.75 million per kilometre. He said given the simplicity of the N21 it appeared to be a similar price to the M20. Mr. Robertson said the other scheme was 82 kilometres long and there would be the economy of scale involved. Following further discussion it was noted that in fact 35% or 28 kilometres was online in the M20 and therefore it would be very difficult to compare the two schemes. Mr. Robertson said that the Castleisland bypass had come in at €6 million per kilometre for the same cross-section.

4.3.1 (Continued)

Mr. Nix asked Mr. Robertson questions in relation to the N69 and Mr. Robertson confirmed that there was no discussion in relation to access to Foynes and it was purely the Adare bypass they were looking at.

4.3.1 Mr. Robertson gave further clarifications in response to questions as follows: - (Transcript Day 9, Pages 229-235)

Mr. Robertson said he wished to clarify some issues in relation to the proposed development and also some of the changes that happened between the original route selection and the current proposal. He showed a slide which showed the existing Attyflin junction and that on the 2005 route (Black route) traffic would continue to pass through the Attyflin junction. He said the situation was that if the M20 had not been decided upon the 2005 route would still be the route that would be presented at that time. He said it would be the preferred route if nothing had changed in the

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 50 of 72 Limerick County Council

network. He said however things did change, the M20 came along and it was a critical factor and they were asked to revisit it.

Mr. Robertson explained that the impact of the M20 apart from the opportunity to join the road south of Adare would be that if the northern route had been continued, it would involve a reconfiguration of Attyflin and a further junction and the two grade separated junctions would end up very close together. He said the problem there was with weaving lanes and that normally grade separated junctions should be at least 2 kilometres apart. He said to construct the northern option would involve demolition of a bridge built in 2001 and there was also a link to Patrickswell to contend with. He said there were a lot of engineering issues involved with a potential northern option.

Mr. Robertson said that the current proposal involves a 120kph motorway to Fanningstown and then from one junction you’re on a 100kph bypass.

Mr. Robertson referred to questions raised by Mr. Nix in relation to falling traffic levels and zero growth. Mr. Robertson said when modelled it was assumed that the M20 motorway was in place. He said the impact of the M20 on its own would be that there would be additional time involved in going on the old N21 because of negotiating the junction which would be altered.

A further point he wished to make was in relation to un-met demand and he stated that more traffic would use it in the future if they didn’t do the bypass. He said in the future the bypass did attract some traffic. He said the figure was small but Mr. Nix had asked about that component.

Mr. Smyth pointed out that he had been raising the east-west issue and he knew the reconfiguration of Attyflin junction would involve a change on the existing N21 north of Adare.

Mr. Robertson referred to the 100% using the bypass and he said that referred to the traffic that would make the decision to use the bypass. He said there would still be some traffic passing through Adare but all traffic continuing on the M20 was taken into account in assuming the 100% using the bypass. He said sensitivity tests were carried out and he said that even at 85% they were still economically sound.

4.3.1 (Continued) questions were put in relation to safety barriers as follows:- (Transcript Day 10, Pages 31-33)

Mr. Sweetman quoted from the document EuroRap barriers to change and noted it stated that much of the debate surrounding crash barriers had stemmed from concern over wire rope barriers used extensively in Sweden and Australia for visibility at junctions. He noted that this had led to a moratorium on their use in a number of European countries and strong opposition in others while the risk was being investigated. He said the report stated that few crashes involving motorcyclists from wire rope barriers have been reported. Mr. Sweetman said that it was also stated that the experience in the Republic of Ireland is one death on a stretch of road in two years and no death in two years. He said Dr. O’Shea who has a phD wished to comment on the validity of the research. Mr. Sweetman asked Dr. O’Shea what he thought about ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 5 of 72 Limerick County Council

that as a research basis and Dr. O’Shea said the numbers involved signified absolutely nothing and statistically it was of no significance whatsoever. Mr. Cunningham said all they were quoting were the facts.

Mr. Sweetman read from the document that the panel concluded that despite the amount of high profile coverage that wire rope barriers attracted, limited research did not warrant the inference that they were more or less dangerous than the other types of barriers on the market. Mr. Sweetman suggested that is not what was said and he said there was no basis of evidence to support either argument.

Mr. Cunningham said that in his presentation he had highlighted Section 8 of the report for the Board’s attention and that was in fact what Mr. Sweetman had read into evidence.

4.3.2 Questions were put to Mr. Sheeran by Mr Sweetman in relation to planning issues as follows: - (Transcript, Day 2, Pages 233 – 270)

Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Sheeran questions in relation to Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and it was established that the Limerick County Development Plan of 2005 had not been subject to SEA. Mr. Sheeran said that the Council had complied with the government guidelines of the time and there was a discussion in relation to Circular Letter PD 2008 No. 6 from the Minister for the Environment in relation to the implementation of EU Law.

Mr. Sweetman asked questions in relation to the National Development Plan 2007- 2013 and it was established this was not subject to SEA. Mr. Sheeran said the National Development Plan was Government policy.

Mr. Sweetman referred to Smarter Travel – A Sustainable Transport Future and it was established this was not subjected to SEA.

Mr. Sweetman raised the question of draft consultation guidelines on spatial planning and national roads from the 29 th June 2010 and to Ministers’ Statement in that document. Mr. Sheeran said that this stated that the guidelines encouraged the collaborative approach between planning authorities and the NRA in ensuring that Ireland’s national road system was planned for and managed in an integrated manner enabling economic development for Ireland while encouraging a shift towards more sustainable transport in accordance with the Government’s over-arching transport policy set out in Smarter Travel.

Mr. Sweetman asked about the Mid-West Regional Planning Guidelines of 2004 and that these were not subject to SEA. It was established that the Adare LAP of 2009 was subject to SEA. Mr. Sweetman asked questions about the assessment done as to whether the road development was sustainable or not. Mr. Sheeran said that the proposed principle for the bypass of Adare had many advantages for Adare and he said that the line of the road was outside the area covered by the LAP.

Mr. Sweetman asked about the description of Adare being a ‘legible’ town and Mr. Sheeran said that one could visually read a town. Mr. Sweetman disagreed with the ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 52 of 72 Limerick County Council

accuracy of the expression and there were questions asked about the potential for increased speeds through Adare if the bypass was built. Mr. Sheeran said the traffic could be calmed when a bypass was provided. He said the concept of a walkable town centre is simply that people can feel comfortable walking. It was established that the 2002 EPA Advice Notes and Guidelines for EIS had been used for guidance.

Mr. Sweetman asked questions about national heritage and the setting of architectural heritage being protected. He asked Mr. Sheeran why he did not refer to the setting of Fanningstown Castle which would be directly impacted by the road. Mr. Sheeran said he had dealt with National and Regional policy and then with Development Plan Policy. Mr. Flanagan pointed out that there was a difference between a curtilage and a setting of attendant grounds. It was clarified that the map from the EIS which showed the marked attendant grounds relevant to Fanningstown Castle was not actually in the Development Plan.

Questions were asked in relation to the delineation of the attendant grounds and Mr. Sweetman raised the legal case of Begley and Clarke and said that what he was referring to with the question was the setting of a medieval castle. He said he was asking this of Mr. Sheeran because he had said everything was according to the Development Plan.

Mr. Dempsey clarified in relation to the field boundaries that there was a field boundary both to the north, the south-east and west and that was used to define the attendant grounds. He said he had inspected the site in June of 2010 and also of June of 2009. Mr. Dempsey also said he had the history of the castle and this was in Appendix 11 of the EIS. Mr. Sweetman said the attendant grounds went beyond what he was saying they did. Mr. Dempsey said the definition of attendant grounds was that they were intrinsic to the understanding and setting and appreciation of the monument.

In reply to further questions from Mr. Sweetman, Mr. Sheeran said that when dealing with applications in regard to protected structures and their curtilage or attendant grounds, consideration is given as to how the structure is being protected. He said the protection was in how structures could be accommodated within development and if one looked at the history of the protected structures, these had been added to and changed over time and in some cases many times. He said the process was to look at an application, for instance for an extension or a change within the grounds, how it was proposed to retain the main character of the structure or its curtilage, and then to progress in a way in which people can continue to use that structure or that building.

Mr. Sweetman asked questions about recent planning developments and raised a question of a garden centre for Mr. John Normoyle. Following a number of questions on the matter Mr. Normoyle said the reason for refusal of that particular planning application related to the setting of the castle and the imminent roadway.

Mr. Rea asked questions in relation to the Atlantic Corridor as to how one would travel from Limerick to Rosslare. He said one would need to use the N24 and he queried was the new Atlantic Corridor indicating that one would have to travel via Cork and Waterford. Mr. Sheeran said the Atlantic Corridor was an alternative to the ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 5 of 72 Limerick County Council

conglomeration of Dublin and particularly the Dublin – Belfast corridor and was seen as a balance to that. He said the intention of the route from Galway to Limerick and Limerick to Cork with Cork to Waterford and Limerick to Waterford indicated corridors diverging and it showed an alternative route to Waterford. Mr. Rea drew attention to the bad state of the road from Pallasgreen to Cahir on the N24 and he asked if there was going to be a requirement for fewer cars under the Smarter Travel Document. Mr. Sheeran said there would be and Mr. Rea queried the need for a new road from Mallow to Waterford and he also made reference to the Ennis – Athenry Railway Line.

Mr. Sheeran said the position was that there was a deficiency in infrastructure and it was important to develop the Atlantic Corridor to a level that would accommodate good connectivity in the immediate future. He said there was opportunity once the roads were in place to reduce the urban traffic in terms of the private car and the commuting traffic so that while intercity traffic might increase, the total equation is that you have fewer private trips and more public transport trips.

Mr. Rea asked questions about buffer zones and it was established that the buffer zone in Limerick County for national roads was 90 metres, but with adequate noise mitigation this could be as close as 30 metres and the distance is measured from the edge of the carriageway.

Mr. Sweetman asked questions in relation to the population of Adare and the current planning applications. It was established that in 2006 the population of Adare was 982 with the local area plan estimating population to grow to 1,400 by 2014 and up to 2,500 people by 2028. Mr. Sheeran said there were up to 250 – 300 houses for which permissions were granted but not built in the area. Mr. Sweetman concluded by saying that the figures were based on continuation of the Celtic Tiger and that this was now not relevant.

4.3.3 Questions were put to Mr. Gordon Allison as follows: - (Transcript, Day 3, Pages 30 – 32)

The Inspector asked for clarification in relation to receptors AR5 and AR8 which were both in the Castleroberts to Fanningstown area. Reference made to Table 8.5 on Page 192 of the EIS and Mr. Allison said that receptor AR5 had a figure of 7.11 micrograms per m 3 of nitrogen dioxide for the year 2015.

4.3.3 (Continued) Mrs Smyth asked Mr. Allison questions as follows: - (Transcript, Day 3, Pages 32 – 54)

Mrs Smyth said she wished to outline her personal situation which is recorded in the transcript.

She referred to rheumatoid arthritis and explained that it was an auto-immune disease which causes chronic inflation of joints. She explained aspects of the disease and explained that the family had moved to the Castleroberts area to access good clean fresh air.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 54 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mrs Smyth quoted from Science Daily of May 26, 2006, San Diego and outlined the results of research. She noted that previous studies had found that long-term exposure to air pollution was associated with increased risk of death; this had looked at the possibility if lower air pollutions could be achieved, and people would start living longer right away. She noted that studies had linked exposure to PM 10 as having harmful effects on breathing respiratory systems. Mrs Smyth said the results of the study found a strong positive correlation between levels of air pollution and mortality. For reference, Mrs Smyth said the study was published in the March 15 th , 2006 issue of the American Thoracic Society Journal, the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

Mrs Smyth outlined the sequence of events regarding the current route selection process. She said the route was shown at an exhibition in the Dunraven Arms on the 2nd April 2009. She said this coincided with when she had got possession of her house.

Mrs Smyth said in relation to the comparison of receptors (AR5) that it was insulting to compare the air quality at her location with that of a school. Mr. Allison said that the EIS did not draw attention to individual circumstances. He said they did not use house names for individual locations to give a general description. He said there was no intent to do other than show numerical differences between the locations within the town and outside of the town. Mr. Allison said the school benefitted from the bypass in relation to air quality.

Mrs Smyth noted that the receptor in her case had increased by 9% which she considered to be significant. Mr. Allison confirmed that the standard of 40 micrograms per m 3 was the standard used for nitrogen dioxide.

Mrs Smyth referred to Table 8.5 in Volume 2 of the EIS indicating increases for nitrogen dioxide of 7.4% in 2015 and 6.3% in 2030. She asked a question about the significance of the increases. Mr. Allison said that the assessment as per the NRA Guidelines for PM 10 would be categorised as negligible and for NO 2 would be slight adverse. Mr. Allison agreed with Mrs Smyth that in relation to the nitrogen dioxide the EIS impact was increased to slight adverse.

Mrs Smyth referred to the route corridor selection report and Sections 6.5.2/3 which referred to the pollutants and their adverse effects on human health. She referred to Section 8.1.4.6 of the EIS and stated that the average traffic speed in Adare Town was listed as 30kph while for the proposed bypass was 100kph. She said that as the most efficient traffic speed with regard to CO 2 emissions was 60 to 70 kph, the improvement in the town centre would be offset by increased vehicle speeds on the proposed road development.

Mrs Smyth referred to Table 8.1 on Page 177 of the EIS in relation to greenhouse gas 1 th emissions which said the increase with the proposed bypass would be /6 rising to ¼. She said this appeared significant but it was referred to as slightly increased in the EIS. She noted that the report on Ireland’s Smart Economy valued greenhouse gas emissions at around €40 per tonne of CO 2. She pointed out that the route was 50% longer than any of the three other possible bypass routes of Adare. ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 55 of 72 Limerick County Council

In response to a question about the model and the worst case concentrations with reference of Section 8.2.3.5 of the EIS, Mr. Allison said that Table 8.5 presented the results of adding the road contribution to the background air quality. He said this would be the worst case. Mrs Smyth said there was discrepancy in relation to the distance of the monitoring points and receptors within different parts of the EIS.

In response to a question from the Inspector, Mr. Allison said that the modelling did not take account of a road being in cut or an embankment and it was a relatively conservative screening model. He said it would not assume that the road was in cut, but he said that this would increase actual distance and would give an opportunity for diffusion to surfaces.

Mrs Smyth referred to residual impacts in Section 8.2.5.1 of the EIS and she stated that while the calculation indicated pollutant levels up by 10 and 12%, it appeared to be a common feature with roads that they were compared to limit values. She said that with rural good quality air, the chances were the limit was not going to be exceeded, but she said that was not what levels should be compared against.

Mrs Smyth raised a question of construction dust emissions and noted that there was no attempt to measure what might happen during construction. Mr. Allison said that it was screened out for the reason that fewer vehicles were involved in building the roads than would pass along it once it is built. He said that it was very uncertain how much dust would be generated by construction activities. Mrs Smyth asked about blasting in the area and said that her husband Brian had a video of a blasting in Ballinasloe. Mr. Robertson said in relation to blasting the contractor would normally develop a plan with the local Gardaí and inform the local residents when blasting would occur. Mr. Allison said that he had consulted with an engineer with practical experience of blasting and while he had in his mind a vision of a bomb going off and dust being thrown into the air, this person said it would be much more controlled than that and in fact the lorries travelling on the haul roads in dusty weather would raise more dust than a blast in his experience. He said he was referring to anecdotal experience of blasting in practice.

Mrs Smyth referred to dust minimisation plan in Volume 4 of the EIS and referred to a statement that vehicles delivering material with dust potential to an off-site location would be enclosed or covered with tarpaulin at all times to avoid an escape of dust. Mr. Allison said it was something that would tend to be seen in Ireland and it was a mistake and should not be in the EIS. Mrs Smyth commented that there were a number of things being put in the EIS to make it look better than it actually was and she thought that was wrong.

Mrs Smyth asked a number of questions in relation to cleaning of site access roads, monitoring and mitigation. Mr. Allison said if dust nuisance was reported to the public liaison officer, the normal control measures for dust being raised by vehicles would be damping down of the haul roads and the use of water bowsers.

Mrs Smyth said the project appraisal balance sheet would be the one used to choose the route and she noted that for Option 4 the cost of CO 2 emissions was negative at ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 56 of 72 Limerick County Council

2.33 million and this was three times more than Option 1, two times more than Option 2 and one and a half times Option 3.

Mrs Smyth referred to the climate change mitigation and said given the proposals for the M20, N22 and the N21 that they should be referred to if not at national but certainly at regional level.

Mrs Smyth quoted from the Mid-West Energy Balance and Climate Change Strategy of February 2008. This noted that CO 2 emissions showed that transport made up 35% in the years 2005, 2010 and 2020. It noted that a percentage share of emissions from transport had increased by 50% since 1990. She referred to the need for carbon credits which were estimated to cost approximately €27 per tonne in March 2006 and she did not see the need for building longer bypasses when there was a shorter option that had been effectively chosen twice before.

Mrs Smyth referred to the section of the National Development Plan relating to sustainable energy sub-programme and on page 146 of the NDP the estimated value or cost of allowances was €15 and this involved the commitment to purchase 18 million allowances to pay for carbon credits and which would cost €270 million. She said reading from the Building Ireland - Smart Economy, this cost was €40 per allowance and this would mean that the cost would be €721 million.

Mrs Smyth quoted the OECD Environmental Performance Review for Ireland in May 2010 which referred to the need for rapid and resolute action in relation to mitigation of greenhouse gas emission. She noted it stated that the decrease in NO X emissions was very slow and that it stated the growth of energy consumption in the transport and residential sectors that resulted in CO 2 emissions well above the OECD European average.

At this point, Mr Smyth showed a video which ran for 30 seconds in relation blasting on a job in Ballinasloe which indicated dramatic amounts of dust being emitted from the blasting.

Mr. Flanagan said that Mr. Hogan who was an expert in occupational health was present if questions were required to be put to him.

4.3.3 (Continued) Mr. Smyth asked Mr. Allison questions in relation to air quality as follows: - (Transcript, Day 3, Pages 117 – 122)

In response to questions from Mr. Smyth, Mr. Allison confirmed that the dwellings within 200 metres were potentially at risk of temporary nuisance and he referred to a construction period of 18 – 24 months. Mr. Robertson said that in relation to earthworks it would be expected nine months was the duration of the works. He said that when earthworks were complete, vehicles would be in the cutting which in the vicinity of Mr. Smyth’s house was 13 metres deep.

Mr. Smyth asked about the increase in pollutant concentrations and Mr. Allison agreed that the phrase should be “will increase” rather than “may increase”.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 57 of 72 Limerick County Council

Questions in relation to dust minimisation and dust monitoring were referred to Mr. Robertson for later consideration.

Mr. Smyth referred to Item 6.2 of Mr. Allison’s brief of evidence which had stated that the proposed road development would increase greenhouse gas emissions by a small amount. He asked relative to the do-nothing scenario, would the proposed increase be of the order of 23%. Mr. Allison said he thought he was correct in saying that. Mr. Smyth said it was unsatisfactory to have a policy where somebody else would try and sort out by balancing it somewhere else. He said the ESB recently in Aghada Power Station had decided to build a state of the art power station which would reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. He suggested the Council were undermining this.

Mr. Smyth asked questions about the extent to which Mr. Allison had seen or considered the objections and Mr. Allison said that he had extracts from the submissions. Mr. Robertson stated that all specialists had all submissions as part of their preparation for the hearing. He said he asked the different specialists to look at specific areas of each of the submissions.

4.3.4 Questions were put to Mr. Farrell on Hydrogeology and Water Supply as follows: - (Transcript, Day 3, Pages 166 – 189)

Mr. Smyth asked questions of Mr. Farrell in relation to wells and the well survey referred to in the EIS. He asked about the level of confidence that all the necessary wells had been found. Mr. Farrell said that information was based on GSI data and submissions made and they would be reasonably confident that all wells had been found. Mr. Smyth referred to Section 3.12 of the brief of evidence where it was mentioned that groundwater had frequently been encountered at shallow depths at less than five metres below ground level. He noted that the area in Castleroberts would be subject to a 13-metre deep cutting. He asked what the effect of a cutting would be. Mr. Leroy said that he would take the question and he said that it had been defined that the well in that location was at potential risk from de-watering from the cutting. He said the proposal was that there would be mitigation in the event that there was an impact on the well. That would either involve replacing the well, drilling a deeper well or connecting to the municipal supply.

Mr. Smyth said that contradicted Section 4.4 of the brief of evidence which stated that private water supplies in the vicinity of Granard, Castleroberts and Fanningstown earthwork cuttings were not expected to be affected by the earthwork cuttings. Mr. Leroy said that in answer to the question they were still acquiring data for the winter months and that in winter there would be elevated groundwater levels and based on the data from the geology of the Shannon Estuary, the change in water levels in the waulsortian limestone should be of the order of 4 – 6 metres.

Mr. Smyth asked was it not possible to get the information during the previous winter. Mr. Farrell said they had concluded the field surveys at that stage and that in a pre- construction phase it would be proposed that the information gaps would be filled. Mr. Smyth suggested that was not good enough. He referred to Section 4.3 in relation to spillages and discharges to the River Maigue. Mr. Farrell responded that potential ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 58 of 72 Limerick County Council

impacts were identified from the road building activity at a river crossing. He said they knew that that particular crossing point was upstream of an abstraction point by between 500 and 550 metres. It was confirmed that this was the abstraction for Adare Town.

The output of the water abstraction was stated to be 240,000 gallons a day and Mr. Farrell said that it was 50m3/hour plant to capacity. (This would equate to of the order of 1,200 m 3/day or 300,000 GPD).

It was also established that the plant dated from 1977.

There were questions about the level of consultation with the Water Division of Limerick County Council and Mr. Farrell said that the various departments were consulted in the recent past and also at route selection stage. He said that the data set would be growing all the time as the monitoring for hydrology would be carried right up to pre-construction and also during construction and post-construction.

Mr. Smyth said given the importance of public water supply, he queried the response that there would be no impact to the receiving water quality of the River Maigue during construction or operation and he asked how this would be done. Mr. Farrell said that the mitigation proposed would be carried out through the environmental operating plan which would be required to be undertaken by the contractor. Mr. Smyth asked could a guarantee be given that there would be no impact on the receiving water quality. Mr. Farrell said the guarantee that could be given was that mitigation was best practiced in maintaining the existing water quality. Mr. Flanagan said it was not the purpose of the hearing to give guarantees and he said that there was no inconsistency between the presentation of identified potential impacts and to look at how matters might be mitigated.

Mr. Smyth asked about the discussions with the Water Department and Mr. Flanagan said that it was accepted there would be on-going surveys in terms of potentialities and that was part of the commitments. Mr. Flanagan said the County Council was carrying out work at that time in relation to the general or community wide position in relation to the future supply of potable water. He said it was not just in relation to the road proposal, but it happened to be part of the overview.

Mr. Smyth said he was none the wiser following the answer and he asked what was the likely outcome, particularly during construction. Mr. Leroy said during construction they would be monitoring the water levels in the area and if there was any impact to supply they would have interim measures. Mr. Farrell said there would be a sliding scale of mitigation which would involve firstly deepening a well, the second option would be a new well and the third would be connection to a group scheme. Mr. Smyth asked if people lost their private water supply and were moved to a group scheme, given the Government proposal to introduce charges for water from group schemes, was there a proposal to compensate the people for that. Mr. Flanagan said they did not know at that particular point in time. Mr. Smyth said that he would request that any mitigation would come at no cost to the household.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 59 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Smyth asked about the reference to the GSI that exposed bedrock not be vegetated and he asked a question in the context of the noise characteristics of exposed rock as against that which is vegetated. Mr. Robertson said that rock cuttings did not tend to be top-soiled.

Mr. Smyth introduced Mr. Vincent O’Kelly of Caherass who referred to flooding which took place 30 years previously following six weeks of rain. He said in the catchment area in the Caherass to Castleroberts area there was an underground drain which was not mapped. Following a number of further questions, where Mr. O’Kelly said that he had informed the Council at the meeting in the Dunraven Arms about the drains, Mr. Robertson said one of his colleagues had walked with Mr. Brennan who was a landowner and Mr. Sheehy from the Council and there was a proposed culvert going in at the location. Mr. Holmes of Jacobs Engineering said they had walked the drain a few weeks previously and it was brought to attention by another affected landowner and Mr. Loughrey. He said the discharge went into an open drain and went underground. He said it was a manmade underground drain and Mr. O’Kelly said it was done with slabstones. Mr. Robertson said a culvert would be provided at that location under the proposed embankment to take account of the drain.

Mr. Smyth returned to questions about the Castleroberts abstraction point and the long-term plans to close this. Mr. Farrell said he had no information on that. Mr. Smyth said he wished to know what consultation was made within Limerick County Council and Mr. Robertson said there had been several times they had been consulted. Mr. Smyth said he did not believe that the Water Services Department was fully consulted. He referred to the Limerick Post of 12 th June 2010 when a presentation by Mr. Ger O’Connor stated there was no timeframe for completion of the Water Services Projects.

Mrs Smyth asked Mr. Farrell about the identification of an additional well referred to in Mr. Farrell’s brief of evidence. Mr. Farrell said that following a submission they did make contact with the property owner and this was identified as the Mackeys. Mrs Smyth said the house was 139 metres from the proposed road. Mrs Smyth referred to Section 2.3 of the brief of evidence in relation to surveys of groundwater quality sampling and referred to what happened in relation to her own well where the sample had indicated high levels of sodium, but it was taken from the wrong tap. Following further questions, it was established that the well (Reference W02) at Mrs Smyth’s house was a sealed well. Mr. Leroy said that if they did not have specific well details, they would have defaulted to a conservative position. Mr. Smyth pointed out that in respect of well W02 information in relation to total depth of well, depth to bedrock and yield class were all blank.

Following a break in proceedings, Mr. Flanagan said that he respected Mr and Mrs Smyth’s concerns and while the discussion had not reflected the totality of the information that was there, the important thing he said was it did not affect the mitigation strategy.

Mrs Smyth asked about page 157 of the EIS in relation to the vulnerability of the aquifer to groundwater pollution. She noted that it stated that testing would be done once a month until completion of construction. She asked was this sufficient and Mr ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 60 of 72 Limerick County Council

Farrell said that the frequency of sampling and analysis was typically monthly, but there was scope within the EOP to have the contractor increase the frequency around various operations, and if they did see trends in particular areas, they would increase as normal the frequency of such testing. Mrs Smyth asked would the residents be on their own once construction of the road was completed and Mr. Farrell said the monitoring would continue through the first stage of operation.

Mrs Smyth raised a question in relation to the Castleroberts abstraction plant. She said from the route corridor selection report it stated “Option 4 is compromised by the presence of the main abstraction plant for drinking water in Adare being located downstream. It is unlikely that approval would be given to discharge at this location without an engineered solution to either relocate the abstraction point or the discharge point”. It was confirmed that Option 4 is the blue route or the route which was being proposed. Mrs Smyth said she presumed that no decision had been taken as to whether to relocate the abstraction plant or the discharge point. Mr. Farrell said that was correct and that no decision had been made in that regard. Mr. Smyth pointed out that the attenuation pond which discharges to the Maigue at this point carried 2.4 kilometres length of the road surface.

4.3.4 (Continued) questions were put in relation to water quality as follows:- (Transcript Day 9, Pages 206-215)

Mr. Flanagan stated that in terms of water and mitigation in respect of it the Council would either put in an alternative well or connect to water supplies. He said in relation to the general concern about the water quality in the Maigue that Mr. Farrell had put together two points on a one page document. This document is tabbed LA15 . Mr. Flanagan suggested that this provided two additional mitigation measures in the form of oil interceptors with hydrocarbon detection and valves and penstocks with sensors and alarms which would be well above what would be the norm. He said in relation to the borehole testing that was recently carried out in relation to groundwater supplies, they wished to confirm that the test had been carried out both in terms of hydraulics and water quality and the borehole at Castleroberts could yield 20 cubic metres per hour of suitable water and was a viable source for additional requirement on the public scheme of a general nature.

Mr. Harvey Jones of John Crowley Consultants said that he would need to review his position in relation to property owners Mr. Ger Butler and Tom Butler. Mr. Jones said this appeared to be a new community benefit well going in which he had not seen in the EIS before.

Mr. Flanagan said it was not on CPO land and it was established that it was not a proposed scheme. Mr. Flanagan said there was an existing supply of water under the scheme and it was confirmation that work was on-going in terms of mitigation strategy and that Option 3 namely the connection to the water supply would be potentially there for landowners. He said the work carried out confirmed that insofar as a question mark might arise about any constraints on the existing water supply.

Following further questions it was established that the Council considered it a viable water supply in terms of the proposals for mitigation. He said it had been looked at ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 6 of 72 Limerick County Council

because of the potential for the water supply which he understood as more or less at capacity. He said the document produced by Mr. Farrell confirmed that the amount of water found was sufficient to enhance the viability and security of the existing water supply.

The Inspector questioned the approach of dealing with a water supply situation by questions and information at that stage of the hearing.

Mr. Flanagan said that his understanding was it was certainly potable water and Mr. Farrell added that from their point of view it went through the two real elements namely the water quality of the Maigue and the concerns over the abstraction point. He said the mitigation proposed was over and above what would normally be expected for an attenuation pond and the key one was that they were putting in a Class One Interceptor at the discharge point. He said he could confirm that initial test results indicate the water quality would be sufficient for drinking water. He said they had compared it with the Drinking Water Regulations and the initial indication is that the water quality is quite good.

Mr. Smyth said he presumed it would take a bit of testing to be 100% satisfied but from a resident’s prospective it was great to see that the oil interceptors had been added because they had the debate that nothing extra was needed a while previously. He noted it was not being described as a replacement to the Castleroberts abstraction and he queried was there approval from the Water Services Department of Limerick County Council. He also noted that Mr. Flanagan had not addressed the question of costs to people to connect to the public source, given the Government Plan to tax water.

Mr. Flanagan said that he was instructed by the County Council that the Water Services Department were satisfied that the additional mitigation measures satisfactorily addressed the impacts should any risk materialise. Mr. Jones said he wished to review what had just been presented and address it on Day 10 of the Hearing.

Mr. Flanagan said that Mr. Farrell was not going any further than saying the preliminary tests show that the water didn’t even need treatment. He said they were giving the information to affirm that the mitigation strategy could be implemented and that the figures were positive in the sense of offering a higher level of output and this would be a benefit for maintaining the security of the supply.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 62 of 72 Limerick County Council

4.3.4 (Continued) further questions were asked in relation to water supply as follows:- (Transcript Day 9, Pages 252-256)

Mr. Smyth asked with reference to the document tabbed LA15 produced by Mr. Farrell, if this referred to additional water and not a replacement in case the Castleroberts plant had to be closed. Mr. Flanagan said that was correct. Mr. Smyth asked about the connection to the supplies and the payment of charges if they come in. He noted that they had no commitment as regards any well that failed and if the replacement would be free.

Mr. Smyth referred to the route corridor selection report which had said that the approval of the Water Services Department would be sought in relation to continuing on with the Castleroberts abstraction plant as the main well and the only source of drinking water in the Adare area. It was established that there was not a proposal at that point in time and Mr. Flanagan said clearly in context of mitigation measures there was no point in putting in a mitigation measure that was not feasible. Mr. Flanagan said they could not address the issue of the impact of a new well on adjoining landowners.

Mr. Smyth said it seemed to be the first step in a chain of events which may lead to more water being available. He asked was the approval of the Water Services Department to continue operating the Castleroberts abstraction plant as is established. Mr. Robertson said that Castleroberts would continue as it was with the proposed development in place. He said the proposed mitigation of the attenuation ponds and the oil interceptors meant that that would remain unchanged.

4.3.4 (Continued) the issue regarding hydrology raised on Day 10, Page 246/7.

Mr. Flanagan said he had given a short page identifying the two mitigation measures that arose in relation to additional interceptors in the vicinity of the Maigue River where the abstraction point is and where the Castleroberts well was and also the additional well drilling. Mr. Flanagan said Mr. Smyth had raised an issue about the desirability for any further water that would be available that it would be drinking water and the quality of same. Mr. Flanagan said the water quality testing was there and Mr. Farrell had indicated that the sampling suggested that it met drinking water standards and would require little treatment and he said he would be happy to show the information to Mr. Smyth also. Mr. Flanagan said he thought a particular concern of Mr. Smyth’s was the quality but there were two issues in that this was an augmentation but the second issue was in relation to water quality.

4.3.5 Questions were put to Ms. O’Gorman in relation to the socio-economic impact of the scheme as follows: - (Transcript Day 4, Pages 218-231)

Replying to a question from Mr. Smyth, Ms. O’Gorman said she had a 2 day visit to Adare in 2009 and she travelled around the route options and through Adare and she confirmed that at that point there were 4 routes on the table but she only looked at one option which was the blue option in her detailed assessment. She said she had spoken to the Adare Business Association and to the management of the Dunraven Arms. She said she spoke to the new management at a petrol station also. Ms. O’Gorman ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 6 of 72 Limerick County Council

explained they had selected some businesses on the route and in the town that they felt were heavily involved.

Mr. Smyth suggested that the business survey in 2005 was a more detailed work and it related to the short black route that was going near Adare. He said the current route was 12.5 kilometres long and was a completely different project.

Ms. O’Gorman said the questionnaire to business did not actually refer to any particular route and Mr. Flanagan stated that the route corridor selection report in terms of community would make the point that any route gives certain benefits to Adare in the general sense of the word. He said that the removal of traffic was the key issue. Ms. O’Gorman added that the data collected on the survey was about the visitors and the customers who were coming to the area and that was irrespective of the route selected. Mr. Smyth said what he was saying was the evidence did not necessarily support the route chosen. He also said that the Dunraven Arms and the Woodlands House Hotel which were consulted would not be dependent on passing trade.

Mr. Smyth asked questions about the employment sources and Mr. Flanagan said the main point was that tourism was the significant employer. Mr. Smyth said Section 3.8 of the brief of evidence referred to 800,000 visitors passing through Adare annually and he said he knew from the heritage centre that they got 50,000 visitors approximately per annum. He asked what the heart of the tourism offering in Adare was. Ms. O'Gorman said she thought the whole town had a lot to offer and it was a heritage town which was the combination of everything the town has to offer in terms of facilities, historical and heritage aspects and in terms of amenity.

Mr. Smyth referred to the reference to the lack of sufficient infrastructure which would curtail development of the town of Adare and ultimately constrain its tourism development potential. He said he was unaware that any tour operator was avoiding Adare merely because of congestion. Mr. Robertson said the do-nothing scenario in 2030 would involve a notable drop off, as less traffic could actually get into Adare because of the congestion. Ms. O’Gorman said that the existing severance in the town was significant.

It was explained that the severance in this case refers to the level of traffic in a street which would tend to deter people from crossing the street.

Mr. Smyth referred to Point 5.3 in the brief of evidence which listed negative impacts and he said the EIS included also restaurants. Ms. O’Gorman said it was not her evidence that a bypass would result in the loss of the businesses referred to and that while there was occasionally the loss of some businesses, for instance Cashel had seen real benefits as a result of their bypass. Mr. Smyth said that at Point 5.9 of the brief of evidence there was a reference to the road being a potential catalyst and he asked about areas being zoned for that type of development. Mr. Flanagan said this would be a question for Mr. Sheeran.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 64 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Smyth asked questions about signage and Ms. O’Gorman said this would be heritage signage and it was established that some signs do refer specifically to a town being a heritage town.

Mr. Smyth referred to the issue of bypasses and the extent to which the reduction in the level of passing trade would threaten the viability of establishment and that this depended on a number of factors such as their ability to retain and expand local custom to the extent to which motorists requiring services would be diverted into the town from the proposed road development.

Mrs. Smyth said she would have questions on socio-economics but these might be possibly be answered by the Planners.

4.3.5 (Continued) Mr. Smyth asked Ms. O’Gorman a further question for clarification: - (Transcript Day 5, Pages 32-34)

Mr. Smyth said in the questioning on day 4 Ms. O’Gorman said there were a number of routes under consideration and her analysis focussed on one. Ms. O’Gorman clarified that at the time of the visit there were 4 routes on the table and her full analysis had presented for just one route option which was the selected one so she said the majority of her work was done on the preferred route subsequently. She said she did peer review the route selection report and the socio-economic section of that. Mr. Smyth asked was the review carried out on the preferred route after it became the preferred route and not before. Ms. O’Gorman said the detailed assessment in the chapter of the EIS was her assessment. Mr. Flanagan said he referred for the record that the route selection report of June 2009 did among other things look at community/socio-economic issues.

4.3.6 Questions were put to Mr. Sheeran in relation to planning as follows:- (Transcript Day 5, Pages 64-82)

Mr. Smyth asked Mr. Sheeran questions about his brief of evidence and the statement that the Adare bypass would link the twin hubs of Tralee/Killarney with the key town of Newcastle West into the Atlantic corridor which would reinforce the strategy of balanced regional development. Mr. Sheeran said that the Adare bypass would be part of a road network. Mr. Smyth asked a question about ‘Smarter Travel’ and how the Adare bypass as a commuter route would be affected by the smarter travel document. He asked would the volumes of commuting traffic fall as per government policy. Mr. Sheeran said it was government policy to attempt to reduce commuting traffic as well as other traffic.

Mr. Smyth said he understood that Smarter Travel said that by the year 2020 there would be no significant increase in the number of kilometres travelled. He suggested that there was significant commuter travel in Adare which was the reason for morning and evening peaks there. Mr. Sheeran said there was very significant commuter travel to the Limerick gateway and that was the significant commute for all of Limerick and beyond. Mr. Sheeran said the other modes referred to would be bus and train in terms of park and ride.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 65 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Smyth referred to the Adare local plan which included the reinstatement of the rail line. He said they knew from the traffic figures there is quite a lot of point-to- point traffic to and from Adare and it would seem logical that it would have been considered as part of the Limerick County Council policy to support those modes of travel. Mr. Sheeran said it was the policy of the Limerick County Plan to bypass Adare. He said also there was a policy in the County Plan to encourage sustainable transport. He said the policies were not mutually exclusive.

Mr. Smyth referred to the Midwest Regional Strategy and Planning Guidelines of 2004 and suggested they were focussing on a tiny section of the route to Newcastle West rather than looking at the route in its entirety. Mr. Sheeran said the County Development Plan identified Newcastle West as a key settlement. He said in regard to the bypass the evidence had been given in terms of issues regarding traffic congestion which was a reason for the bypass as well as strategic reasons and policies in the Development Plan.

Mr. Smyth suggested that the route did not consider the macro situation but jumped straight to the micro. Mr. Sheeran said he thought bypassing Adare was looking at the Newcastle West to Limerick City gateway and he said it was part of the overall network so that it was not inconsistent. He said it was part of a process in which Adare was being bypassed and there was a need to do that but there was a policy to upgrade a strategic link namely the road from Newcastle West and the twin hubs of Killarney and Tralee into the Limerick City gateway.

Mr. Robertson said he wanted to point out that the existing road was carrying 16,000 AADT which was over the capacity of the existing road no matter what is required so that a bypass of some form was required. He said the route chosen did not affect any other routes going to the west. Mr. Smyth said he would disagree with that contention.

It was established, following a question from the Inspector that the last passenger services on the Limerick/Foynes railway was in 1963 and the last freight movement was in 2000. Mr. Smyth said the line was supposed to be a care- and-maintenance line for CIE but he understood that the last care and maintenance train that used the route went along the line in 2002. Mr. Robertson said he understood that the former railway station to the west of the River Maigue was now a private residence.

Mr. Smyth asked Mr. Sheeran about Point 9.4 in the brief of evidence which related to a do-nothing approach in relation to a bypass of Adare. He asked what were the implications of contravening an objective in the County Plan. Mr. Sheeran said that it was an objective within the Plan and it was desirable that it be completed within the planned period. Mr. Smyth said an objective in private sector parlance would be supported by funding but in public sector parlance it appeared to be an aspiration. He asked about objectives which were laudable but asked if they did not have funding they wouldn’t go anywhere. Mr. Sheeran said that would be correct and stated what was in the draft Plan was that the objective was to design, reserve land, and commence construction of the bypass of Adare on a route to the south of Adare to connect to the proposed M20 Cork-Limerick project at a location to the south of Adare as resources become available. He said the qualification in relation to resources was noted. ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 66 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Smyth asked about the variation to the Development Plan and why the Development Plan was not varied to take account of the Black Route in 2005. Mr. Sheeran said that as the variation had been on public display and the route was selected it was considered that to be correct it was necessary to vary the Development Plan.

Mr. Flanagan referred to the relationship between the County Plan and the Local Area Plan and he said for the avoidance of doubt, the Local Area Plan must clarify by way of a variation to the County Plan. He said there was a legal element to that under Section 18 of the Planning Act. He said in 2005 there may well have been a general objective but by the time you got to 2009 there had been an Adare Local Area Plan so to that extent the September 2009 variation resolved potentially any clarification between the relationships. Mr. Flanagan stated that the variation which went through the statutory process was a form of variation of the County Plan. He said the elected members had adopted the variation.

Mr. Smyth said that he appreciated what Mr. Flanagan was saying about the variation in the Limerick County Plan but he would point out that there was no effort made to vary the Adare Local Area Plan and that as of that date, the LAP on public display on Limerick County Council’s website shows the bypass to the north.

Mr. Flanagan said that from a legal position the corridor although identified was outside the boundary of the LAP. Mr. Smyth said his concern was that if the superior document was changed, the inferior document should also change.

Mr. Smyth asked how the variation in the County Development Plan was put before the Councillors before the route corridor selection report was published. Mr. Sheeran said it was put before the Councillors on 28 th September 2009 and the Council at that meeting varied the Plan. He said there was a decision to select the route to the south that was made on foot of that the variation was put on public display. Mr. Smyth said the letter from Limerick County Council stated that the route corridor selection report was only published in December 2009.

Mr. Smyth said his submission would be that Mr. Sheeran had said that the variation was on public display in a period prior to being presented to the Councillors. He said the route corridor selection report was available to nobody publicly or otherwise although the decision had been made.

Mr. Smyth referred to the minutes of the meeting and quoted "members continue to question the benefit of selecting a southern route corridor for the N21 Adare bypass”. They expressed the concern that an inter-connecting link to serve Foynes Port and the route to Newcastle West and the Abbeyfeale bypass had not yet been established. The Director of Transport and Water Services stated that the reasons for selecting the southern route had already been set out at a September meeting of the Council and that it would allow the Adare bypass project to benefit in the short-term as part of the M20 Cork-Limerick motorway scheme. The other matters in relation to future connections to the N69 and the proposed Newcastle West and Abbeyfeale bypass

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 67 of 72 Limerick County Council

routes would be dealt with as separate projects and would be dependent on availability of funding from the National Roads Authority”.

Mr. Smyth highlighted the use of the word short-term and he said that the County Council members were clearly convinced that if they did not go with the Plan they would get nothing. He said it was a short-term opportunity to link to the M20 or nothing. He said there was no joined up thinking there.

Mr. Flanagan said the variation was adopted and as a matter of law it was adopted regardless of what the minutes say. Mr. Smyth said the minutes were the public record of what was said and he agreed that the members did approve it.

4.3.6 (Continued) Mr. Smyth asked questions of Mr. Sheeran as follows: - (Transcript Day 5, Page 117-139 and 141-142)

Mr. Smyth referred to the Local Area Plan for Adare which was deemed to be made on 22 nd January 2009. He said it was his understanding that the plan was made by Manager’s order because the Councillors could not agree on it. Mr. Sheeran disagreed and said that perhaps he was thinking of a High Court challenge by a Developer requesting additional zoned lands in Adare. Mr. Flanagan said he wished various points to be put in context and he said the point was that as a matter of law the LAP was adopted at a certain point in time. He referred to the Klohn judgement which stated that the EIA procedure commences with the publication of the EIS and is the point of departure.

Following further points made by Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Smyth, Mr. Smyth asked Mr. Sheeran when he was first consulted in relation to the constraints study. Mr. Sheeran said that this was February 2009 and would involve the Council’s Heritage Officer and the Conservation Officer. Mr. Smyth said that the point he was making was that Mr. Robertson had said that several submissions objected to the duration of the process and the selection of the preferred route corridor and said that this had taken place over a period of 6 months.

Mr. Smyth asked what input did the Planning Department have on the choosing of the constraint study. Mr. Sheeran said that the Heritage Officer and the Conservation Officer were involved.

For clarification the Inspector asked Mr. Sheeran would he be the initiator of the Road Scheme and Mr. Sheeran said he would not and that it would come primarily from the National Roads Authority Regional Design Office.

On a further question from the Inspector in relation to the difficulties with the black route in relation to an SAC, Mr. Robertson said that there was a change in the SAC at the River Maigue. He said the original black route was chosen and the SAC was extended further towards the Shannon and back up towards the weir in Adare. He said following the original route selection process the SAC was extended so the black route directly crossed the SAC. The Inspector asked what was the difference between the crossing of the Maigue and the crossing of the Blackwater and Mr. Cunningham

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 68 of 72 Limerick County Council

said in principle it was different because there were alternatives available for the crossing of the Maigue River.

Mr. Smyth referred to the NSS and the NDP which he said made several references to value for money being achieved in public procurement. Mr. Sheeran said in relation to a question on Smarter Travel that he had quoted the Minister for the Environment in his forward to the new Guidelines on Spatial Planning and National Roads which pointed out there was a multibillion Euro investment made by the government in sustainable transport. He said “these Guidelines encourage a collaborative approach between Planning Authorities and the NRA, in ensuring that Ireland’s national roads system is planned for and managed in an integrated manner, enabling economic development of Ireland while encouraging a step towards more sustainable travel and transport in accordance with the Government’s overarching transport policy objectives set out in Smarter Travel”.

Mr. Sheeran said this was saying that it was essential that the infrastructure was provided and then it would give the opportunity to deal with the change and concentrate on sustainable modes of transport.

Mr. Smyth asked questions about the Regional Planning Guidelines 2004 and a quote from Page 15 of that document which referred to the presence of good rail connections. He said the RPGs were drawing attention to Limerick being part of a gateway which involves having air, road and rail infrastructure. Mr. Sheeran said these would be complimentary parts.

Mr. Smyth referred again to the RPG and quoted that the future growth of the region would be dependent on how well the region can engage with national and international players, whether through e-trade, air transport, shipping or domestic transport. He said that the RPGs also recommended the N69 road link between Askeaton and Adare be upgraded to provide effective access to road freight traffic from Foynes on the N21. He asked Mr. Sheeran why Foynes was not considered in the route selection. Mr. Sheeran said that he had already referred to the meeting of 20 th September. He said the Director of Roads and Transportation and Infrastructure had said that the Adare bypass would not in any way inhibit any future connection with Foynes. He said it facilitated the policies of the Midwest Regional Strategy of 2004 which referred to the N21 road link from Tralee via Newcastle West to Limerick City which facilitated access from the City to that part of the region. He said improving that network would facilitate that access.

Mr. Smyth said that when the northern Adare bypass route was chosen, a spur road to Foynes should have been considered. He referred also to the Foynes Town Plan.

In response to a question from the Inspector, it was established that the railway line currently goes through the SAC on an existing bridge and was a single line.

Mr. Smyth referred to the draft CDP of 2010-2016 and referred to Policies no. ED7 which referred to integrated planning of the Shannon Estuary and ED8 which referred to infrastructure capacity. He noted there were also sections in relation to industrial development in Foynes and a section on tourism. He asked how those policies were ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 69 of 72 Limerick County Council

not considered in the round when the route was being examined. Mr. Sheeran said that what had been said was that the Adare bypass would not in any way inhibit the development of a future route to Foynes. He said there was no route being selected. He said the N69 was in place and that there was no other route selected for a connection to Foynes.

Mr. Smyth referred to policies on social inclusion and noted that a figure of 35% unemployment had been recorded for Croom. He said this would mean that there was a reliance on public transport in the area and the current junction arrangement on the N20 was satisfactory.

Following other questions from Mr. Smyth on the CDP, Mr. Sheeran said the proposed road bypass of Adare would open up the opportunities for Adare Town itself and would give the opportunity for alternative modes of transport. Mr. Smyth said this would do nothing for a modal shift in transport patterns in County Limerick. In relation to the rail line, Mr. Sheeran said the lines were protected in the Development Plan. Mr. Smyth referred to Policy INP11 which referred to the management of water resources and he asked would the Castleroberts Abstraction Plant be endangered by the road development. Mr. Sheeran said this would be a question for his colleagues who were dealing with the specific point.

Mr. Smyth referred to a meeting of Limerick County Council of 5 th July 2010 where a motion was passed that Limerick County Council and the NRA should suspend the process of route selection for the bypass of Adare from Newcastle West and Abbeyfeale until such time as a number of issues were discussed namely:-

• Proximity of the route to the said towns • The sterilisation of land • The upfront payment of compensation • The connectivity of Foynes.

Mr. Flanagan said that he considered it improper to produce the article and it had no status.

4.3.6 (Continued) Mrs. Smyth asked Mr. Sheeran questions as follows: - (Transcript Day 5, Pages 142-144)

Mrs. Smyth referred to Objective SE011 from the CDP in respect of Foynes Town Plan. She referred to Page 14 where it stated that Limerick Chamber supported the route which it believed was the most viable option to improve connectivity to the manufacturing base, businesses and residencies along the N69. She said this referred to the Adare bypass which was to the north of Adare and she noted that it was stated that the aim was to accelerate the construction of that bypass and provide a single carriageway spur road connecting the N69 between Foynes and the N21 dual carriageway south of Adare. She noted that the proposed link route ran parallel to the existing rail line and it had been stated that this would minimise the need for land purchase by the Roads Authority and also allow the most direct route to connect the two roads. Mr. Sheeran said that the Foynes Plan was prepared for the village of

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 70 of 72 Limerick County Council

Foynes and had been included as a zoned area in the draft Development Plan. He said in terms of the objectives, the one in relation to the railway line - he did not think it was an inherent part of the policy of the draft Development Plan.

4.3.7 Mr. Smyth asked Mr. Sloey questions in relation to traffic modelling for Adare as follows:- (Transcript Day 5, Pages 209-239)

Mr. Smyth asked was the estimated traffic for east-west in Adare to be 9,300 vehicles per day. Mr. Sloey agreed. Mr. Smyth asked how it would rise from 9,300 in 2010 to 10,500 in 2015. There was considerable discretion in relation to the timing of the additional analysis of the low-low growth scenario and it was established that this was carried out post the publication of the EIS. Mr. Sloey said they had been aware of a 2% downturn and he said at the time of doing the assessment, they had the data from 2008.

Mr. Smyth said he had received information under the freedom of information provisions and he was told that there was no information available on low or low-low growth because the report was not complete. Mr. Sloey said the COBA report of September 2009 was submitted to the NRA with the low growth scenario but at that stage it did not have the low-low scenario. Mr. Sloey said that with regard to the Project Appraisal Guidelines, the matter was discussed with the NRA and they were content to use the high growth scenario at route selection stage.

Mr. Smyth asked further questions in relation to the NRA forecast growth rates dating back to 2003 and the fact that the NRA forecast growths were never actually achieved on the N21. Mr. Sloey said in the 2009 model the AADP factor was 15,500 and he thought in 2010 it was about 15,000. (From the NRA counter data for the full year 2010, the figure recorded is 15,266 AADT with 6.4% HGVs and this compares with a 2006 figure of 15,633 AADT with 7.3% HGVs).

Mr. Sloey said they had applied a local growth factor between 2005 and 2008 and he said the historic trend previous to that point was that the local growth on the N21 was out-stripping the national high growth.

Following a question from the Inspector in relation to the impact of the DEL factory closure, Mr. Smyth said that the Midwest has the single highest unemployment rate in the country. Mr. Smyth said his conclusion was that 9,300 vehicles was the east-west estimate and the model indicated 10,500 to use the bypass. Mr. Sloey said that would be a 15% extra figure in the year 2015. Mr. Smyth said that the level of car ownership, economic growth and population growth would indicate a drop in traffic given that the ESRI were forecasting 120,000 people to emigrate in a year.

Following further questions, Mr. Sloey said in 2030 applying a 0 growth and then low growth the bypass level would be approximately 11,000 vehicles per day. Mr. Smyth said that unless all the cars use the bypass, he could not see where the figure of 10,500 came from given that the demand was estimated at 9,300 cars from east-west or west- east.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 7 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Smyth quoted from previous route selection reports and traffic analysis which had concluded that the transfer of traffic on longer routes would not be as effective as shorter routes. He said there was an absolute contradiction in the figures.

Mr. Robertson responded by saying the original route selection report from 2005 would be based on a different situation. He said the 2009 situation was with the M20 in place which would involve a reconfiguration of the Attyflin junction which would mean the mainline traffic from Limerick was going to Cork and there is now a new junction at Attyflin. He said the situation in 2005 and 2009 were not directly comparable. Mr. Robertson said also that in 2005 the proposal envisaged to wide single carriageway and there was now a change in cross-section. Mr. Smyth said he did not accept the 2005 and 2009 reports could not be directly compared.

Mr. Smyth asked questions in relation to the comparison of routes in relation to traffic and the sensitivity of traffic movement to the length of the proposed route.

Mr. Smyth referred to the question of travel time and it was established that the figure for the p.m. peak was 15 minutes and 6 seconds. Mr. Smyth said that was the actual journey times measured by the NRA people. There were further questions in relation to the length of routes and Mr. Smyth said that the measurement had been from a point about 1.5 kilometres beyond where the traffic would come out and half a kilometre beyond where it would end. He said in the 2005 reports they were giving average journey times of about 10 minutes. He submitted that journey times were not being accurately measured because they were being measured from the wrong place namely about 20% too long and they were also being measured during the month of July. Mr. Sloey disagreed and said the model in 2009 was compared against the same distance as the observed times, and that was to ensure that 2009 would replicate what was happening on the ground.

Mr. Smyth suggested that the modelled figure should be significantly less if the actual journey time starts from different points as opposed to where the route starts and ends. Mr. Sloey said when they checked against the model they compared like with like and he said that was what was in the modelling report on Page 26 of that document.

Mr. Smyth said his submission so far had been that as regards traffic there had been an assumption that 100% of it was using bypass. He said as regards time the actual travel timings were significantly overstated in the traffic readings. He said the daily traffic flow for Adare was extremely peaky. Mr. Sloey said in that regard they did not model the high peak but the average levels so that they were conservative with their estimates of journey time savings.

In response to a question from the Inspector to Mr. Smyth, he said there was one day of the week where Adare needs a bypass and he took the 2010 figures where he said there were 25 weeks of data available. He said with the exception of 2 days all high flows were on Fridays and Friday was the busiest day. He said Mr. Robertson had drawn attention to the June bank holiday, which was by far and away the biggest, but there was no day busier than in 2009. Mr. Smyth said by his estimation all of the traffic journey times were done on above-average busy days and were above average by about 11%. He said a bypass was needed at certain times of the day and ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 72 of 72 Limerick County Council

particularly at certain busy days. He said that he had driven from the start of the bypass in Clonshire through to Attyflin in about 6¼ minutes. He said off-peak there was absolutely no incentive for someone to drive 10 or 11 minutes around the bypass. He said in his view the amount of through traffic at 9,300 vehicles was extremely marginal and, discounting the fact that the people will not use it because it is longer, there are people who might want to stop in Adare on their way through or whatever else.

Mr. Sloey said that they had made it clear that observed data over a shorter length against future models could not be compared and he said their modelling report demonstrated that they match the observed times. He said they were probably underestimating the delay in the town marginally. He said in future years they were expecting 21,000 vehicles through Adare but on the day on which the traffic was above 20,000 vehicles the journey times exceeded 24 minutes. He said in the future the average situation was going to be on average equal to the worst scenario in 2010. He said it was the journey time and the reliability as well that made people wants to use the bypass.

4.3.7 (Continued) Questions were put to Mr. Sloey in relation to cost benefit analysis as follows: - (Transcript Day 6, Pages 212-252)

Mr. Smyth said all of the information that he was about to discuss had not been in the public domain so it hadn’t been in the EIS and it had not been discussed. He said he had to go to the effort of appealing a request which was turned down for the information.

In a reply to a question from Mr. Smyth, Mr. Robertson said that the scheme had the lowest capital cost from the route selection stage. It was clarified that the cost of the route was €67.61 million in 2010 prices.

Mr. Smyth asked questions about the drop in construction prices since 2007. He quoted the CIF in saying there was a 30% drop. He said he would expect the route to be coming in at around €40 million and he estimated that the extra now was €27 million. He asked what had happened. Mr. Sloey explained the involvement of the NRA in the COBA process and he said for cost benefit analysis, the cost estimate range would be the same for all routes and his opinion was that this would not change the choice. It was noted that the route corridor selection report gave the construction cost of €57 million. In relation to the breakdown for land costs, Mr. Smyth gave the figure of €12 million for land of the €57 million put forward at route corridor selection stage.

Mr. Robertson said that with regard to the scheme costs the construction cost was about €44 million, land costs €10 million, planning and design about €7 million and other works €2.4 million. He said he would have to confirm those figures.

Mr. Smyth said these were the only cost figures that had ever been offered. He said that from an accounting prospective he could argue there was a negative variance of about 68%.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 7 of 72 Limerick County Council

Following further questions on the cost, Mr. Robertson said reasons for the change in estimate would have been changes at Fanningstown where it had been envisaged to have a more at-grade tie-in and the embankment had increased costs. He said in the region of the R519 at Ballingarry Road, the main line changed which resulted in changes to the cost. He said the bridge at the River Maigue increased in size to about 100 metres in length which ended up with a three span-crossing with two large back spans which includes accommodation accesses which were decided upon. He said there were also eight accommodation underpasses which had been assessed at route selection and was probably less than that so he said there had been quite a lot of changes.

It was confirmed that there was never any piers proposed in the River Maigue crossing.

Mr. Smyth said he would suggest that the issue should have been considered more fully before the routes were chosen. He said at route selection stage there was already a 15% risk allowance of €5 million. Mr. Robertson said that more detail was received at each stage and he would say that it would not change any basis for the results of the cost benefit analysis. It would change the results per se but not the ranking within the COBA.

Mr. Smyth showed a slide at 2010 prices with reference to the route corridor selection report. He said a basis for bringing the route forward apart from the short-term opportunity to link to the M20 was that it was stated to be the lowest capital cost he said he did not believe did that.

Some questions were asked in relation to the relative lengths of the scheme and it was established that the current proposal uses the M20 route to Attyflin for a total of approximately four kilometres. There was a discussion on comparing like with like and Mr. Robertson said on the basis of the point being made he would say that they would probably have to consider adding the cost of the new Attyflin junction to the black route if you took the same approach.

Mr. Smyth referred to Council meeting minutes of 27th April 2009 in which the Director of Services stated that the process was so that the most appropriate route option was taken forward to the statutory process and that the return on public investment was optimised. Mr. Smyth said he would contend that the route was the most expensive at this point in time and not the cheapest. He referred to the use of high growth scenario only and derogation received from the NRA in that regard which made it different from the M20 proposal.

Mr. Smyth referred to the Department of Finance Value for Money Circular of 26 th January 2006 which he said the core paragraph noted: - “The principle of cost benefit analysis is that a project is only desirable if the benefits exceed the corresponding costs. However meeting this criterion is not the final word as to whether a project should proceed or not. This is because other projects compete for the same limited funds and may have a higher return for future streams of net benefit are taken into account. This therefore necessitates the fully inclusive approach”.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 74 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Smyth said he would refer to the Department of Finance Guidelines for the appraisal and management of capital expenditure proposals in the public sector published in February 2005. It is stated that the systematic appraisal and professional management of all capital projects help to ensure that the best choices are made and the best value for money is obtained.

Mr. Smyth quoted the Circular in relation to the appraisal of needs and objectives and the definition of an objective as the explicit intended results of a predicted programme. He said to reduce average journey times between two towns would be a precise objective. The Guidelines state for programmes of multiple objectives it is necessary that this should be reflected in resource allocated in the appraisal process. Mr. Smyth said he would make the case that the objective for the bypass does not mentioned reduced travel times which is a key objective in general terms.

Mr. Smyth referred to the Guidelines which state the importance of cost benefit analysis being objective and that the conclusions should not be pre-judged. It states that factors of questionable or limited relevance to a project should not be brought into analysis.

Mr. Smyth asked questions about the time of appointment of Jacobs Consultants. He said Mr. Robertson had said they had a six month timeline. It was established that the official appointment of the consultants was in March 2009 but the overall route corridor selection process was initiated following the announcement of the emerging route corridor for the proposed M20 in November 2008. Mr. Robertson said they were originally appointed in 2004 to look at the Adare bypass and while the appointment of March 2009 referred to the updated position, they had looked at the route in October/November 2008.

Mr. Smyth said he wished to refer to the COBA analysis and he said as an accountant he was used to looking at present values. He said net present value was used to try and establish the value now of future cash flows and that cash flow in the future was worth less than it would be worth in the present. He asked Mr. Sloey about the discount rate used in the COBA analysis. Mr. Sloey said it was 4% and was as given in the proposal Appraisal Guidelines. Following a number of questions about the type of project, Mr. Smyth said that if it was definitely a PPP, a far higher discount rate would have had to be used. He said the NDFA provided a project specific discount rate in line with the Department of Finance Guidelines and his estimate was that for a PPP it would be significantly higher.

Mr. Smyth asked what the appraisal period was and Mr. Sloey said this would be 30 years with a residual value assumed over a further 30 years. Mr. Smyth said generally one does not go beyond 30 years because of the uncertainty of the event of distant periods and the effect of discounting significantly reduces the values. Mr. Sloey said that discount rates can vary and that in the UK it is 3½% over 30 years and following that it is 3%. He said the 4% just does not apply to the cost but also brings benefits down to that level.

Mr. Smyth said that if you were to look for the project and its benefits were improving after 30 years would that not start alarm bells. Mr. Sloey said it depended ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 75 of 72 Limerick County Council

on what decision you were trying to make if you were looking at a number of schemes being done in the same way those issues will apply to the same route.

Mr. Smyth said that the benefits which were foreseen at route corridor selection stage had fallen by 32% in that period. He said if the residual value of the route was excluded the route would fall down. He said that because it was NRA Guidelines for methodologies being applied it did not make them right.

Mr. Smyth said he was not arguing with the principle of residual values per se. He said he was arguing that he has an extremely obtuse valuation to put on something beyond 2045. Mr. Smyth asked could it be explained why the perceived benefits for the route fell by a third between route selection and the revision of July 2010 Mr. Sloey said more data had become available when they built the model and assessed the results of it. They had also taken on board the growth downturn up to 2009.

Mr. Smyth said that what Mr. Sloey had indicated was that had he known in 2005 what he knew in 2010, his benefits would have been far lower.

Mr. Flanagan referred to the Klohn judgement and said that the law did not ask for an EIS to be carried out on all four options.

Mr. Smyth said the final point he wished to make related to the residual network value and what period that covered. Mr. Sloey said it was 30 years beyond that period and Mr. Smyth suggested that this meant that 56% of the benefits happened in the first 30 years and 43% of the benefits happened in the latter 30 years. Mr. Sloey said he would need to check the values but there is more accrued over the latter period. He said it appeared the residual value is higher than those accrued in the first 30 years. Mr. Smyth said the numbers you have to get to achieve a residual value of €35 million were absolutely astronomical in gross terms. Mr. Smyth also said that when one looked through the COBA analysis it was heavily dependent on the valuation of the residual network value.

Mr. Smyth asked why the low traffic road was used with high economic growth when running the low-low growth analysis. Mr. Sloey said they ran a high traffic road and a low traffic growth and under the low-low scenario it is zero and then low growth. Mr. Sloey said they had run the model at high and low growth as required and at both times it provided value for money.

Mr. Smyth said that low-low growth which assumes a high economic growth which he would dispute, the model gave benefit to cost ratio of 1.3 and without including the residual network all of those at high, low and the low-low growth meant the scheme was uneconomic. Mr. Sloey said there were many reasons why other schemes were taken forward and the benefit to cost ratio was there to demonstrate that it is value for money.

The Inspector said he understood what Mr. Smyth was saying was that if the benefit to cost ratio was less than 1.3, some routes were rejected on that basis. Mr. Sloey said low and high growth under the design phase was 1.6 at low growth and 1.95 and these were substantial BCRs. ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 76 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Nix asked Mr. Sloey about the proposed travel time and the difference in length. Mr. Sloey said the bypass was 3-3½ kilometres longer than the existing road. He said they had looked at peak and off-peak and the savings were low off-peak and at peak was higher.

Mr. Nix said the conflict of evidence would be that the EIS calculated a difference of around 1 minute faster going on the bypass. He asked when the journey was taken on the west entry point to the east entry point of Adare. He said he was trying to understand how a journey time through Adare currently off-peak was estimated at around 10 minutes. Mr. Sloey said there are two different things - to go between a section at Attyflin junction through the town, and comparing the design against a do- minimum that is an end-to-end time. He said the end-to-end points in the model are over a longer length than the observed shorter period. Mr. Nix suggested taking a further measurement of the time of the journey. He submitted that what was being proposed was not so much a bypass but an overflow. Mr. Sloey said in the future there will be more traffic and the future situation was there would be up to 20,000 AADT. He said at that level the model indicated that the time would be 21 minutes in a do- nothing situation and was in fact 24 minutes under a 20,000 vehicles per day situation.

Mr. Nix asked about studies done by a company called Eurorap which took the N69 route to be the most dangerous route with a high accident rate and what they envisaged would be streaming traffic off the N69 and off the N21 and bringing it onto a combined route.

Mr. Robertson said there had been a lot of talk about the northern option and he wished to point out that if the M20 scheme was taken the Attyflin junction was reconfigured so the main flow would be from Limerick to Cork and if there was a northern route it would require a second grade separated junction to allow you to enter Adare through the bypass of Adare. He said a northern route with a junction on it from an engineering point of view would be a non-runner without improving the junction further.

Mr. Nix said he understood the approximate off-peak travel time through the village of Adare was 6-7 minutes and he did not know why it was not legitimate to use that. Mr. Sloey said it was because the southern bypass wasn’t there at the moment either, and in the future when the bypass goes in at 2015 then you can compare a time through the town. Mr. Nix said there was a school of thought that said traffic growth would be static. Mr. Sloey said he was not aware of the school of thought that there would be completely zero growth in the future.

4.3.8 Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Simpson and Mr. Dempsey questions in relation to Cultural Heritage and landscape and visual impacts as follows:- (Transcript Day 6, Pages 91-115)

It was established that Mr. Simpson who was giving evidence in relation to landscape had not in fact prepared the landscape portion of the EIS but was speaking on behalf of Ms Johnson who had done it. It was also established that the first survey was carried out from May 2009. Mr. Simpson said there was no statutory landscape ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 77 of 72 Limerick County Council

affected by the scheme. Mr. Sweetman asked about the 1999 Act which created protected structures. Mr. Flanagan said the protected structure status within the meaning of Section 57 of the Act was effectively to do with the carrying out of development of a private nature as to whether it was de-exempted and a restriction on demolition of a protected structure which includes the curtilage. Mr. Flanagan said from a planning perspective they have been looking to see whether the County Plan had given an area a degree of designation or sensitivity.

Mr Sweetman asked about the planting around Fanningstown Castle and Mr. Simpson said that there was only one place where the castle can be seen from the Croom Road because vegetation screens it. He said it was not open. Mr Nix suggested looking at Figure 12 and Figure 13 to indicate the location.

Mr. Sweetman asked what could be seen from the top of the castle. Following a further question it was established that the road was in a 5 metre cutting to the east and at-grade further west. The trees referred to in the vicinity were 10-15 metres high and Mr. Dempsey, expert on cultural heritage, stated that the eastern part was two storeys high and the south-eastern tower was three storeys high. Mr. Simpson said it would be possible to see through gaps in the trees. Mr. Sweetman said it was three storeys plus a tower and he could see over the trees and he could therefore see the road from the top storey of the castle.

Mr. Sweetman asked questions in relation to the attendant grounds of the castle and said it was a protected structure because it was a medieval castle. Mr. Sweetman said there was absolutely no evidence as to what the attendant grounds were because what was being talked about was what was considered to be the attendant grounds in 1830 but the castle was built in the 16 th or 17 th century. Mr. Sweetman asked questions in relation to the status of the castle as a national monument and it was stated by Mr. Dempsey that it was both a protected structure and a recorded monument. He said it was not on the list of monuments in state care, ownership and guardianship published by the National Monuments Section neither in March 2009, nor on the major sites of archaeological importance in County Limerick, in state ownership or guardianship published in 2005 by Limerick County Council. Mr. Dempsey said it was not a national monument under Section 2 of the National Monuments Act 1930. He said the number L021047 given by Mr. Sweetman was an RMP number which made it a recorded monument.

Mr. Sweetman asked questions about references consulted in relation to castles in Ireland and Mr. Dempsey said that there was an extensive bibliography in the EIS and there were a number of sources referred to.

Mr. Sweetman said his submission would be that the road should not be in the location chosen. Mr. Dempsey said that the impact on the setting of Fanningstown Castle had been addressed in the EIS. He said the impact on the attendant grounds of Fanningstown Castle was addressed in his brief of evidence. Mr. Simpson said that Fanningstown Castle was listed as one of the landscape elements and they assessed the effect on Fanningstown Castle as a landscape element. He said during construction the impact is stated to be ‘profound’ during the operation it is stated to be ‘significant’. In relation to mitigation, Mr. Simpson quoted “it will not be possible to ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 78 of 72 Limerick County Council

mitigate against the loss of a field pattern, loss of stonewall, loss of mature hedgerows and, particularly, the loss of hedgerows supporting mature trees. Once the road is constructed these features will be lost. It will be possible to mitigate vegetation loss with new planting, but it will not be possible to replicate the field pattern, as a new route, essentially, cuts through the area. There will continue to be residual effects to this element”.

Mr. Dempsey said he wished to add that the impact during construction and operation on the setting of Fanningstown Castle was assessed as ‘moderate’ in the EIS and also the residual impact was assessed as moderate. Mr. Sweetman submitted that the Planner had no right to say that it complied with the Development Plan.

View C was shown on the screen and Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Simpson if he had read Dr. Good’s brief of evidence. It was clarified that this referred to impacts on the barn owl and Mr. Simpson said that if it was proven that there were barn owls they would have to alter their mitigation measures but it would only affect a very small amount of the scheme because 87% of the embankment length on the scheme was already planted so they would be talking about 13% of the length which would not be planted.

Mr. Sweetman asked what was meant by the term dense planting. Mr. Simpson said this would be 1½ metre centres intended to create a rapid screen. Following further discussion, Mr. Byrne said it was four times as many plants as normal forestry planting as the Guidelines on forestry planting were 2.25 metres to 3 metre centres.

Mr. Sweetman asked questions in relation to dense planting on embankments and the specific landscape measures. Mr. Simpson said this would be a mixture of trees and shrubs with shrubs towards the edges of the plantation. He said trees could include alder, ash, birch, mountain ash, oak, scots pine and willow. He said all those plants would not be on the embankment in that place as it had not been decided which plants would go where in terms of their species. He confirmed to Mr. Sweetman there was no planting plan at that stage.

Mr. Sweetman asked questions in relation to the reinstatement of stonewall and Mr. Simpson set out the areas where the walls would be relocated and rebuilt. He said there was a need to knock down some walls along the Croom Road in order to temporarily relocate the lane while constructing the bridge. Mr. Sweetman suggested it was poor design to knock a wall down for the sake of it and Mr. Robertson said the other option was to have closed the road altogether.

4.3.8 (Continued) Mr. Smyth asked Mr. Simpson questions as follows:- (Transcript Day 6, Pages 115-128)

Mr. Smyth said he had various responses in relation to walls which stated that walls could not be reinstated and would just be knocked down. Mr. Simpson said the walls to be reinstated are the ones which had been mentioned at the edge of the cutting as they went through Fanningstown and the lane at the Croom Road either side of the bridge. Mr. Simpson said they were talking about both the walls along the Croom Road except for the ridge and some walls along the cutting. He said the cutting would ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 79 of 72 Limerick County Council

obviously result in the destruction of some walls. He said they were proposing to rebuild the section of wall along the edge of the cutting to link in with the other parts of the wall that were not being damaged.

Mr. Rea clarified that they had reached agreement with the owners in respect of the reinstatement of that wall.

Mr. Smyth said the area was in extensive cut and asked if pre-construction planting was considered. Mr. Simpson said that planting would achieve very little because the cutting was 11-17 metres deep. Mr. Smyth said he was talking about the strip which is beyond the cutting and would still be beyond the cutting after construction and could that strip not be planted as soon as the CPO was affected. He confirmed he was not talking about planting outside of the CPO boundary. Mr. Simpson said he believed there was a cut-off drain required at the top and he would suspect that the strip would require to be used during construction.

Mr. Smyth asked from a landscape and visual perspective if it was technically possible would it be beneficial. Mr. Simpson said he thought the benefits would be doubtful because of the depth of the cutting. Mr. Flanagan said he noted that Mr. Smyth was not just including himself but mentioned the community and he understood him to be asking about the possibility for further measures.

After a break, Mr. Flanagan said one issue would be the effectiveness of some degree of preconstruction planting. He said there were some options in the form of screening or hedging or other matters. He said another issue was the amount of working space that would be needed to get the job done and whether or not the degree of planting would interfere with the timelines for that. Mr. Smyth said he did not expect that if pre-construction planting took place that it would have any effect on screening the construction. He said it was merely to get ahead of the game.

Mr. Robertson said if they were to look at carrying out any works in advance that could possibly be done by way of a hedge as part of the works when they were carrying out the fencing contract.

Mr. Smyth said from his point of view, two of the nicest views he had from his house were from bedrooms looking into the field and he asked if the visual impact from that height looking down onto the road had been assessed. Mr. Simpson said they had assessed the visual impact of the property but not specifically from the upstairs rooms. He said the impact was rated as ‘significant’ for post- establishment. Mr. Simpson said that the depth of the road was between 11 and 17 metres deep. Mr. Smyth said he understood that under a bridge it would be about 5 metres deep. He said if it was that depth in his opinion HGVs would be obvious from his upper window. Mr. Simpson said towards the bridge there could be an angle of view.

Mr. Robertson clarified that a change of 7 + 400 a difference between the Croom Road and the proposed road was 7.2 metres and moving to the west it changed to 11.9 metres at 100 metres and to 15.9 metres at 200 metres to the west. Towards the east he said at 100 metres it would be 5.1 metres and at 200 metres 5.6 metres while at 300 metres it was 6.9 metres depth. Mr. Simpson added that the scheme included dense ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 80 of 72 Limerick County Council

planting along the lip of the cutting for about a width of 5 metres and that planting would establish quite quickly.

Mr. Smyth asked a question about Mr. Maloney’s field and he referred to Photomontage B from the brief of evidence. He asked a question about the mature trees at that point and Mr. Simpson said they were not affecting the tree.

4.3.8 (Continued) Mr. Rea asked Mr. Simpson questions as follows: - (Transcript Day 6, Pages 128-137)

Mr. Rea referred to the photomontage and asked about meetings with the owner of the castle. He said he was aware of a consultation by the local authority but that it was different to the experts who designed the Landscaping Impact Assessment. Mr. Flanagan said he would have to check in relation to consultations.

Mr. Rea asked why there had been different treatments in how the castle had been dealt with. After a number of additional questions, it was established that there was an additional land-take of Mr. Lowry’s land and this was for screening. Mr. Simpson said the increased planting was where the road emerged from a cutting and was at grade at a fairly close point to the castle.

Mr. Rea said that he was not accepting that the road was impacting the castle but he would say the road was probably a benefit to the castle because people can see it. He said part of the castle was rented for the tourist trade. He said if people could see the castle it was probably a positive contribution and the Council were now trying to block out the view of the castle at that location and acquiring additional land from his client to do so. He said at the same time there was a clear view of the castle from another location. Mr. Simpson said as the road climbed an embankment, the bigger the embankment became the more planting they could put on it. He said for that reason they felt that the screening was adequate beyond that point.

Mr. Rea asked a number of questions about the trees to be used and Mr. Simpson said he thought the trees that were being planted would last for 100 years if left to grow. He said in response to a question on the age of some trees in the area, he thought they were ash trees and not very old and they would have 50 years growth in them.

Mr. Rea said he was talking about a certain amount of discrimination in how the road was being landscaped. His question was why there was no requirement for the extra land-take at one location. Mr. Simpson said he thought there was a value in screening the road from the castle.

Mr. Rea said the castle was already screened and there was a hedge around part of the castle. Mr. Rea said he would be making a submission later in the hearing that there was no reason for the extra land-take. He pointed out the front part of the castle was owned by Mr. David Normoyle for whom he did not act and the back of the castle was owned by Mr. Gerry Lowry whose land was being acquired to provide screening which he considered was not justified.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 8 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Flanagan said that some of the screening was part of the community wide issue. Mr. Rea said they had no problem with the normal level of screening but they had an objection to taking additional land to provide screening which was not required.

Mr. Rea raised a question about tolerances in finished levels and stated that he wished clarification that whoever constructed the road would be obliged to build it as per the drawings submitted and not some variation of it.

Mr. Rea asked about the dense planting and Mr. Simpson said towards the Fanningstown Castle end it was a mixture of trees and shrubs but further eastwards near Croom Lane it was shrubs. Mr. Rea said in previous schemes it was agreed there would be consultation at detailed design stage and no such consultation occurred. He asked who would be responsible for the final design and the landscaping and Mr. Flanagan said it may not be Mr. Simpson.

The Inspector suggested to Mr. Rea that he could make a submission in relation to tolerances or requirements for specific locations.

4.3.9 The Inspector asked Miss. Bateman questions in relation to ecology as follows :- (Transcript Day 8, Pages 38-40)

It was clarified that Table 6A1 on Page 17 of the brief of evidence referred to the White Clawed Crayfish on the River Maigue at approximately 4 kilometres from the crossing point and that this would be upstream. Miss. Bateman also clarified that the buildings (surveyed for bats) and the bat roosts were in the appendices.

4.3.9 (Continued) Mr. Sweetman asked Miss Bateman questions as follows: - (Transcript Day 8, Pages 40-58)

Mr. Sweetman asked questions in relation to bats in the vicinity of Fanningstown Castle. It was established that a number of bat surveys were carried out in 2009 and the names of the persons who carried out the surveys were given. It was established that the castle is one part and there were sheds, yards and an adjacent farmyard behind. It was established also there were three owners. Mr. Sweetman asked what type of survey was done relevant to the bats in Fanningstown and it was established that the reference in Appendix Volume 4 of the EIS was E121 for the castle building. It was noted that the roosts were referred to by other numbers but E121 was not referred to.

Miss Bateman said there was no survey carried out of Fanningstown Castle because it was assigned as being of low potential as a roost site. It was established that they did not go into the building and didn’t carry out any assessment inside the building. It was also stated that the surveys were on sites that had been classed as high potential in the summer visits. Miss Bateman said there were 56 buildings mentioned. Mr. Sweetman said he considered it absolutely negligent in not looking in Fanningstown Castle for bats because everybody knew in the area it was riddled with them. Miss Bateman said they had consulted extensively and liaised with Mr. Kelleher who was representing the Cork Bat Group as a consultee.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 82 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Sweetman said that bats were hibernating in the cottages and in Mr. Normoyle’s farmyard and he said one look at the place, looking inside the gates it is the most perfect bat site of all time with 16 th and 17 th century buildings it would be perfect bat country.

Mr. Flanagan said the team used Mr. Kelleher among other data sources and it was interesting that no bat roosts within 5 kilometres were located in that table. Mr. Sweetman repeated that one look through the gates of Fanningstown Castle would tell you that it is of extremely high potential. Miss Bateman said all of the buildings that had potential for bat roosts were 80-100 metres away from the road. It was clarified that Fanningstown Castle was about 200 metres from the road.

Mr. Sweetman asked a number of questions about the wetlands below the castle where the main line went through Mr. John Normoyle’s land. Miss Bateman said that the provision of underpasses throughout the scheme was the mitigation for bats and other mammals. It was clarified by Mr. Robertson that the underpass of this location was at chainage 8 + 270 approximately and this was just at the commencement of the embankment.

Miss Bateman said that what was evident from the survey results was that the bats were feeding and commuting along that type of habitat with the key watercourses and hedge lines and treelines that are intersected by the scheme. She said there was no particular area that is more important for bat commuting and the key commuting corridors are equally important. She said she was aware of the walled garden but she hadn’t been there in the evenings.

Mr. Sweetman said that when the bats come out of the castle they fly down to the feeding area and he said there were crowds of bats to be seen. Miss Bateman said there would be no direct impact on any roosts located in Fanningstown Castle and Mr. Sweetman said there would be in effect as they were having their feeding area removed.

Mr. Sweetman said that he was looking at Fanningstown Castle and the wetlands around Fanningstown Castle and he asked Mr. Normoyle to describe the area. Mr. Normoyle said that the Castleroberts area drains to the south side of the road to Croom after the right-angled bend. He said there was a double ditch beside the underpass which went back into his land and there were badger setts all along to be seen. The area to which Mr. Normoyle referred was clarified as being the area to the east of Fanningstown Caste or in or around where the road was proposed and that this collected water from south of that particular location and it went north.

Mr. Sweetman said that one look of the place you could see the hollow and all the fields flooded including the fields across the road from Mr. Brian Smyth’s house.

Mr. Sweetman said his submission would be that the ecologists had not done the job they were asked, they did not know what the environment is in the area and did not know where the wetland was and evidence was heard from the person who owns the land that it floods every year and they had not addressed it. He said the bats live in Fanningstown Castle and they hadn’t been addressed either and he would say that the ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 8 of 72 Limerick County Council

Board would have to say that the species under Article 6.2 of the Habitats Directive was not being affected by the proposal and it could not do that.

Mr. Flanagan said there was a mixture of things being mentioned but there is an issue about flooding and design and whether or not there is an impact on any description on bats or their roosts. Mr. Robertson said they had aerial photography taken during the flooding of 2009. Miss Bateman said in terms of the wetland the survey did not record any wetland in the area.

4.3.9 (Continued) Miss Uí Bhroin asked Miss Bateman questions as follows:- (Transcript Day 8, Pages 58-77)

Miss Uí Bhroin referred to Volume 2 of the EIS and Section 6.1.2.80 which details bat roosts data obtained from Mr. Conor Kelleher of the County Cork Bat Group. Miss Bateman said the timing of that would have been summer 2009 and the work done in April 2009 which was partially informed by some previous work done for the 2005 route corridor work. Miss Uí Bhroin asked why Bat Watch Ireland wasn’t listed among the Consultees or the County Cork Bat Group and Miss Bateman said they had obtained information from Mr. Kelleher. Reference was made to the table at 6.8 which had the reference “no bat roosts within 5 kilometres of the proposed road development”.

Miss Uí Bhroin asked about the comment regarding standard limitation to breeding bird surveys. Reference was made to Section 6.1.2.24 which referred to line transect methodology. Miss Bateman said the line transect methodology used for birds was the standard they used for assessing road schemes and she said the time constraints were seasonal constraints where there was a survey window for breeding birds normally made in September so you are within that time constraint.

Miss Uí Bhroin referenced Note 6.1.2.5 which referred to limitation to breeding bird surveys in that certain species and groups of birds were not effectively surveyed by that method. Miss Uí Bhroin asked about the lack of consultation with Bird Watch Ireland and Miss Bateman said that in Section 6.1.2.1 there was reference to information received from Mr. John Leslie of Bird Watch Ireland.

Miss Uí Bhroin raised the issue of terrestrial environment survey limitation which was referred to in Section 6.1.2.51 and they noted that the area had undergone prolonged periods of persistent rain which resulted in water-logged habitats throughout the survey corridor. Miss Bateman said they had mapped the habitats and corridors with the results and in relation to the issue of limitation, she said she could infer what types of habitats they were if the remainder of the field or areas was visible while another section was water-logged. She agreed with Miss Uí Bhroin that it might have impacted their ability to traverse an area or to inspect the herb flora. Miss Bateman said she thought it was fairly minor areas that were involved and not large areas of the survey corridor.

Miss Uí Bhroin asked about the otter survey in Section 6.1.2.19 and the basis for restricting the survey to 10 metres from a watercourse. Miss Bateman said otters were known to cross terrestrial areas and she had once come across one that went to a fish ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 84 of 72 Limerick County Council

factory across a terrestrial area but she only focussed the initial work on the specific riparian corridor. In reply to further questions from Miss Uí Bhroin, Miss Bateman said the otter and its breeding area and whole tense area was protected and in relation to couches, she said they would probably take a precautionary approach and treat it as a protected site.

Mr. Nix asked Miss Bateman about the impact on ecology of prolonged snow and ice and the treatment with salt. Miss Bateman said there was a sealed drainage system proposed for the scheme.

Miss Uí Bhroin referred to Section 6.1.2.4 which stated that the walkover survey did not comprise a comprehensive listing of plant species but described the character of the vegetation and evaluated the ecological significance of the habitats and flora. She asked Miss Bateman what legal basis was there for the NRA Guidelines. Mr. Flanagan said the requirement to compile an EIS was set out in Section 50, subsections 2 and 3 of the Roads Act so guidelines which were there were to inform the way in which the information is gathered and presented in the EIS. He said they were a ‘regard’ document. He said also that one of the points is that in the Habitats Regulations for instance Article 30 states that Environmental Impact Assessment shall be an Appropriate Assessment for the purposes of the Habitats Regulations. Mr. Sweetman said the European Court had decided it was a higher threshold.

In reply to further questions from Miss Uí Bhroin, Miss Bateman said she would not know the estimate of population of otters in the vicinity of the Maigue or of population of birds of conservation concern.

Miss Uí Bhroin asked about the impact of lime in relation to aquatic species and it was established this was related to lime stabilisation of soils. Mr. Farrell said it was a reasonable comment to suggest that there would be ecological effects by the pH range in the area. He said that was a comment only.

Mr. Smyth asked Miss Bateman about the brief of evidence Point 7.18 and 7.19 and the question of otter fencing and the apparently different approach to the M20 proposal. Miss McCarthy said in relation to the M20 that the mammal fencing was provided over the entire length of mainline but the otter fencing was only provided with a 45° overhang for the 100 metres either side of the culverts and water crossings. Miss Bateman said that in the commitments they would provide otter fencing up to 250 metres either side of the culverts and at the River Maigue.

Mr. Smyth asked about Appendix 2 of the brief of evidence and what was the purpose of the ecological work in April, May and June of 2009. He said that it appeared that work done on route selection was two man weeks covering a 44 square kilometre area. Mr. Robertson said that some detailed surveys were carried out in 2005 and 2006 when the original route was identified. Mr. Smyth said the constraints study area increased from 33 square kilometres to 44 square kilometres and he submitted that the preferred route that was chosen was brand-new and it and all the rest of the area cost (only) two weeks attention. Mr. Smyth said that they had met members of the ecological team who were working the route on the day the notice went to the

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 85 of 72 Limerick County Council

newspaper in the area of Fanningstown Castle and they were not pleased to hear the decision was already made as they were marching around the road.

The Inspector referred to Figure 6.7 (Volume 3, drawings of the EIS, Sheet 2 of 3). In the questions following it was established that the otter holts indicated including a potential couch were on the millrace parallel to the Maigue River. Miss Bateman said that signs of an otter holt would include fish remains. Miss Bateman said that the otters would expand their area to new territories. She said it would be quite exceptional to go into a built up area such as Adare but they can travel through terrestrial areas if they have to.

The Inspector asked about W137 on Figure 6.9 in relation to bats (Volume 3 of the EIS) and Miss Bateman said that if there was a known roost then the transect linking that would probably pick up any bats coming onto that roost and foraging along the area where the transect was. Reference is made to Figure 6.12 and 6.9-6.11 which showed bat roost potential for trees in the area. Miss Bateman said the transect bat activity were shown in Figures 6.12-6.14 which was the actual visual and bat detector result of the survey. She said that lists the species that were recorded there.

4.3.10 Mr. Sweetman asked Mr. Dempsey questions in relation to cultural heritage as follows:- (Transcript Day 8, Pages 128-136)

Mr. Sweetman asked about the mitigation relevant to the setting of Fanningstown Castle and Mr. Dempsey said they were recommending earthworks survey, photographic survey and landscape planting to ensure a better landscape fit. Mr. Sweetman said that castles were left in the open land rather than in enclosed land so by planting trees one would be actually doing more damage to the existing setting of the castle than by not planting. Mr. Dempsey said that it was not quite correct to try and define setting in a historic term and it had to be understood in terms of what was there at the minute. He said trees do form part of the landscape and formed part of the setting of the castle along with modern development.

Mr. Sweetman referred to the historical interest of the castle and Mr. Dempsey said there may have been a castle there from 1285. He said it was of special interest for its architectural and archaeological reasons rather than for any cultural associations it may have had. He said he would argue that the architectural and archaeological interests were being preserved and not impacted on by the road but they were impacting on the setting which made very little contribution to the special interest.

Mr. Sweetman said he wanted to look back at the history and said that heritage was backwards and not forwards. Mr. Dempsey said it was not only in the past but it is how people think and feel about their surroundings and their landscape and the archaeological sites within that. He referred to questionnaires with landowners to try and identify the cultural heritage sites. In reply to questions from the Inspector about the 19 th century portion of the castle, Mr. Dempsey said that the south-western tower was probably medieval of 15 th or 16 th century. He said in his opinion the buildings had been incorporated into the 19 th century structure designed by Mr. Nagle, Architect. In relation to the authenticity of restoration, Mr. Dempsey said the nature of the 19 th century development had details that had strong reference to the medieval ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 86 of 72 Limerick County Council

building but he said when trying to restore a structure; you should try and make it slightly different. He said the restoration was noticeable and in architectural terms he would not like it to be a pastiche of what was there previously so you are not creating false history. He said creating false history would be inappropriate development.

Mr. Sweetman referred to the non-physical aspect and said it was a Norman castle. He referred to the two relevant gateposts and Mr. Dempsey said these were identified as Site 333 in the EIS. It was stated that these would be likely track-ways to the eastern and southern gate lodges. Mr. Dempsey said that the recording works proposed would include the gate posts. He said it was preservation by record. Mr. Sweetman said this was referred to as destroying by photographs.

4.3.10 (Continued) Miss Uí Bhroin asked questions of Mr. Dempsey as follows: - (Transcript Day 8, Pages 149-153)

Miss Uí Bhroin asked was there any evaluation to uncover the different historic landscape designs associated with the different periods of Fanningstown Castle. Mr. Dempsey said the principal sources were the OS maps and a site inspection and work over survey. He said it was merely used as a secondary residence for the landowners and as a hunting lodge and that may have precluded the development of design landscape around the site.

Miss Uí Bhroin asked could the development of the design landscape be absolutely precluded as she would be conscious that the Hellfire Club was a hunting lodge and the references between it and Castletown House are quite significant. Mr. Dempsey said there was very little if any evidence for design landscape around the site and it seemed to be a very utilitarian landscape, primarily focussed on farming.

Miss Uí Bhroin thought perhaps the utilisation of vistas across the river and the lands beyond were an important aspect of the views of the castle. Mr. Dempsey said the eastern aspect had a lot of openings but there was no evidence of design views or vistas. He said there was severance now with the existing N20 and previous severance with the Croom Road and then with the railway as well.

Miss Uí Bhroin said recent decisions of An Bord Pleanala with reference to Castletown and Palmerstown indicated extensive efforts were made to understand various different stages of design landscape and the importance thereof. She said a lot of the work associated with uncovering the design landscape associated with Castletown was extremely recent, and unless specific work had been undertaken in a specialised capacity and in a very focussed way, one could not eliminate the notion of design views. Mr. Dempsey said the sources consulted are within the EIS. He said they did state quite clearly there is no evidence for design views or landscape around the site.

Miss Uí Bhroin asked about Granard House and demesne and the reassessment carried out. Mr. Dempsey said Granard House domain was site 113, Paragraph 3.3 of his brief of evidence. He said it was reassessed to be of local importance; he said residual significance had been assessed as moderate during construction and during operation it had been assessed as being slight. ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 87 of 72 Limerick County Council

Miss Uí Bhroin asked about the statement that through the design process, impacts on the mature trees were avoided. She asked about the nature of the impact in terms of the historic field boundaries. Mr. Dempsey said that they had assessed the impact on the demesne, the severance on the historic boundaries which are visible from the first addition of the Granard House demesne.

4.3.10 (Continued) Mr. Smyth asked Mr. Dempsey questions about cultural heritage as follows:- (Transcript Day 8, Pages 154-159)

It was clarified that the reference to sites not enjoying any statutory designation referred to the designation of Granard House demesne and the attendant grounds.

Mr. Smyth referred to the section for 482 determination in relation to Fanningstown Castle that it was effectively open for business and to be visited.

Mr. Smyth asked Mr. Dempsey about Section 6.2 of his brief of evidence in the letter of the DoEHLG. He said the quotation given referred to the removal of through traffic from Adare allowing structures of architectural heritage measures in the town to enjoy an improved situation. Mr. Dempsey said it was one element of the letter which was attached to an appendix in the brief of evidence.

Mr. Smyth said that the beginning of the quotation said “conversely”. Following a number of questions, Mr. Smyth quoted the first sentence of the letter which refers to instances in the road proposal where structures or sites of architectural heritage merit would be subject to adverse impact. In particular it would appear that some demesne lands would be adversely affected.

Mr. Smyth asked questions about a windshield survey and the date on which this was carried out. Mr. Dempsey said a windshield survey would normally be something done at route selection stage. It was established that the route selection decision was indicated to have taken place on 2 nd May 2009 but the date of the windshield survey was given as 21 st May 2009. Mr. Smyth asked was this not one of the first things to do and Mr. Dempsey stated that he had said that it was one of the things as being an option to undertake a windshield survey during a route selection study. Mr. Robertson added that they had already made use of previous information in the previous constraints study in developing the route selection. Mr. Smyth said he would make the point that a quarter of the constraints study area was not in the previous review and therefore could not be reused.

4.3.11 Mr. Nix asked Mr. Dore questions as follows:- (Transcript Day 8, Pages 169-170)

Mr. Nix asked Mr. Dore what was the income producing capacity of one hectare of land along the road corridor in an average year. Mr. Flanagan said average losses, depending on enterprises and whatever, there could well be figures. He said for example, Mr. Dore states there may well be figures as to whether a dairy operation or a beef operation would operate depending on what the income is per hectare. He said he was not sure what the implications were.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 88 of 72 Limerick County Council

4.3.11 (Continued) Mr. Rea asked questions of Mr. Dore and Mr. Robertson as follows:- (Transcript Day 10, Pages 171-186)

Mr. Rea said he would refer to land ownership map at chainage 7 + 000 and he said it related to the lands belonging to Mr. Liam Brennan which was holding no. 20 (Figure 5.5 – land boundary plans – Volume 3 of the EIS).

Mr. Rea said there was an access passage on the Castleroberts Road and a portion of land being acquired from a neighbour.

(The reference for Mr. Brennan’s land in the CPO is 29a and 29b and its address is given as Castleroberts, Adare, County Limerick).

Mr. Rea said part of the arrangement with property owner no. 18 (from Figure 5.5 of the EIS, Volume 3) was that it was going to be a right-of-way right through the plot. Mr. Rea said he considered that there was no requirement for that particular property owner to have any right-of-way in view of the fact that there was an underpass at the river.

Mr. Rea said some people would argue that it was a compensation matter but his clients did not want anybody other than themselves and the Council having access through Adare. He said both of the people would be in the equestrian business and was not desirable to having other third parties having access along the shared passageway. It was established that the other road used by Mr. Brennan came from opposite the thatched public house on the Castleroberts Road.

Mr. Robertson said the access track was required to provide the County Council with permanent access into the wetland pond. He said the access for a landowner would be used for access and the access under the bridge at times in winter when it was wet would become very waterlogged. Mr. Rea suggested that a way to solve the problem was for a raised road underneath the bridge and Mr. Dore said the problem wasn’t actually the bridge. Mr. Dore said looking at the separated lands there was a drain down the middle of it along which there was a depression with the land elevated where the access track comes in and goes into a dip and it was actually in that area that there would be a problem with crossing. Mr. Rea suggested that the underpass could be further back where the road was an embankment. Mr. Dore said there were economics involved and it was part of the bridge structure.

Mr. Rea said his clients did not see why their nice private access should be interfered with. Mr. Robertson said it would no longer be private access - it would be County Council property with the CPO as confirmed. In relation to access from the road where there were laybys, Mr. Robertson said that the used laybys for access points to the pond were they were safe. He said in this case it was the inside of a curve and he would not take access at that point.

Mr. Rea said the road was 6 metres higher than it should be and it should be possible to engineer it in such a way that there would be absolutely no need for that road. He said his clients had no problem with the Council having an access but they did have a problem with Plot no. 18 having a right-of-way and the only concession he could ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 89 of 72 Limerick County Council

offer was that the right-of-way could be offered during the lifetime of the owner but not for whoever came after him. Mr. Sweetman added that the underpass on the bridge would get very mucky in the winter and it was obviously an unsuitable ecological site for the underpass. He suggested it was going to cause silt and such like to discharge into the river.

Mr. Rea asked about Garda observation platforms and Mr. Robertson said there were no proposed Garda observation platforms on the N21 but there were four laybys being provided. Mr. Rea submitted that no Garda checking point should be located within 1.5 kilometres of any residence or residential area. Mr. Rea asked questions about compounds and it was established that that would be at the Fanningstown junction area.

Mr. Rea asked questions about liability in the case of accidents to animals and Mr. Flanagan said this was a legal matter and the question of causation was involved and it could well be the contractor or the County Council who would be liable for some situations. Mr. Rea said that he wished to get the same indemnity clause in his accommodation schedule which he had not got on that predicted scheme. He said he expected the same clause as for clients on other schemes.

4.3.11 Mr. Rea asked Mr. Dore questions as follows: - (Transcript Day 9, Pages 186- 203)

Mr. Rea asked Mr. Dore about the assessment of property 25 (ref Fig. 5.6, vol 3, EIS) which was Mr. Lowry’s property. (CPO ref 36) Mr. Dore said in his experience a dairy farmer should not be allowed to be without water for more than half a day. Mr. Rea asked a question about removal of gates and gave examples of delays in replacing gates on other schemes. The opinion of the local authority was that it would be a matter for the Gardaí if gates were stolen and that if gates were taken by a third party it is not clear that there would be an obligation on the contractor.

In relation to the restoration of services, Mr. Dore said that it was stated in the EIS that all services would be restored. Mr. Rea drew attention to the sensitivity of drainage on Mr. Lowry’s land and it was agreed that the impact arising from the scheme was ‘profound’ before mitigation and also that the division of land was 14 acres and 22 acres. Mr. Dore said that when access was provided to the severed land the impact would be ‘significant’ and not ‘profound’. Mr. Dore also stated that in this situation where access was a problem, the local authority liaison officer went about stopping works if the contractor denied access to land. Mr. Robertson said if the landowner’s access was stopped the site staff would intervene.

Mr. Rea asked could a legally binding undertaken be given and Mr. Flanagan said that it was not possible to give guarantees of that nature.

Mr. Rea said that he considered the impact during construction on Mr. Lowry’s farm was ‘profound’. He said Mr. Lowry did not have the option of relocating his cows someplace else for milking. Mr. Rea said there was a very real possibility that Mr. Lowry would have to give up milk production because of the difficulties of construction and difficulty in access and he included the impact of dust in that impact. ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 90 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Dore said it was very much a matter of compensation whether or not he was going to be put out of business. Mr. Rea said that he wished to convey the point that he considered the impact was greater than that set out in the agronomy report. The contract was between the authority and the contractor and Mr. Rea pointed out that the landowner could not sue in relation to a breach of contract between the two other parties. Mr. Sweetman said a condition could be put in because Mr. Lowry was not a party to the contract between the Council and the contractor. Mr. Sweetman said that mitigation had been produced to the hearing which was totally and utterly irrelevant.

Mr. Rea raised the question of Mr. McSweeney’s land and this was Plot Ref. no. 1 at Garraunboy. He asked Mr. Dore why it was only a ‘moderate’ impact and Mr. Dore said it had to do with the percentage of land being severed and the existence of an underpass already under the N21.

Mr. Rea pointed out that there was a roundabout in the vicinity and he asked questions about the provision of low noise surfacing. The impact of low noise surfacing in the context of traffic starting and stopping was discussed and Mr. Robertson pointed out that there could be special skid resistant surfacing leading to the roundabout and this would be a different type of surfacing than the low noise surfacing. Mr. Sweetman suggested that the glass surface on the skid resistant surface makes less noise. The difference between 40dB’s and 60dB’s was discussed and the scale of the difference was noted as being of the order of fourfold. Mr. Robertson said the mitigation proposed for the N21 did not require it to have low noise surfacing put on it.

4.3.12 Questions were put to Dr. Martin Hogan in relation to occupational health as follows: - (Transcript Day 4, Pages 198-204)

Mr. Flanagan stated that Dr. Hogan was present in response to the submission of Mrs. Smyth on Day 3 of the hearing. Mrs. Smyth said that the questions she had had been answered for her by her rheumatoid consultant and she did not require to ask Dr. Hogan questions.

Mr. Nix asked Dr. Hogan about nitrous oxide emissions and the EU objectives to reduce those. Dr. Hogan said nitrous oxide along with other emissions were potentially harmful to health. Mr. Nix referred to a 30% increase arising from the road schemes (M20/N21) and if there was an asthma link. Dr. Hogan said in generic terms a number of symptoms were sometimes viewed together as culpable products of combustion including sulphur dioxide and PM 10 . He said there was evidence that significantly higher levels of those pollutants in the air can cause health problems. He said there was not much evidence that they can cause asthma but they can certainly exacerbate people suffering from respiratory conditions, including asthma, obstructive pulmonary disease and others. He knew there was some evidence that particulate matter could cause cardiovascular decease. He said air quality standards were set at levels which were not perfect he would admit, but they were there to protect vulnerable individuals from effects of those pollutants.

Mr. Nix asked about the relationship between speed and emissions and Dr. Hogan said that this would need to be referred to somebody dealing with air quality.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 9 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Smyth asked a question about what would happen if dust was found and said he did not want somebody coming out and telling him it was dusty but what they were going to do about it.

4.4.1 Mr. Brian Smyth made an initial submission to the hearing as follows: - (Transcript, Day 3, Pages 111 – 116)

Mr. Smyth said he was appearing on behalf of approximately 40 residents along the length of the proposed N21 Adare Bypass. He said he wished to state at the outset that the group recognised the need for a bypass at certain peak periods of time. He outlined his qualifications which included being a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Chartered Accountants, a Member of the Institute of Internal Auditors, Membership of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport and a Member of the Chartered Institute of Securities and Investments in the UK. He said he would like to point out that all his qualifications were by examination.

Mr. Smyth said the Adare Local Area Plan was adopted in 22 nd January 2009 by Manager’s Order and he said Section 7.1 of the LAP noted that it could be used as a basis for guiding investment decisions for both the public and private sector. He said at the same time as that, according to evidence at the oral hearing, the constraints study was already underway. He said for information, the website still showed the unchanged Adare Local Area Plan which shows the Adare Bypass north of Adare.

Mr. Smyth said that as late as the 1 st April 2009 they were in discussions with the Planning Department of Limerick County Council and the following day the proposed routes were announced in the Dunraven Arms Hotel. He said he failed to see in that case how the Planning Department of Limerick County Council could have been anyway involved in the choosing of the constraints study area or the routes, given that they were granting planning permission the day before.

Mr. Smyth submitted that there were no real alternatives between the blue and black routes and he said there was no notice to all of the individuals who had made submissions on the route. He referred to 60 questions he had put and the initial lack of information. He said while information was granted subsequently almost in full, a delay of 10 weeks was created in the process. He referred to the imbalance between the resources of the Council and those objectors who had to give up their own time and money. He said there was a lack of public consultation and the consultation that was given had not been considered. He said they had found out at the hearing that the cost for the route had exploded at a time when construction costs were falling nationwide.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 92 of 72 Limerick County Council

4.4.1 (Continued) Closing submission of Mr. Brian Smyth:- (Transcript Day 10, Pages 5-25)

Mr. Smyth said that he is giving the closing submission on behalf of the Adare Blue Route Action Group which represented 40 residents along the length of the route. He said they wish to emphasise they recognise the need for a bypass but just not the one proposed as it would not be used, given its length and southern direction, which runs counter to the N21’s natural east-west traffic flow. Mr. Smyth referred to high level issues as follows:-

• NSS 2002-2020 aimed to reduce commuter travel distances and promote the use of more sustainable travel. • NDP 2007-2013 stresses the need to achieve value for money. • Smarter Travel states that total kilometres travelled by the car fleet would not increase by 2020. • Regional Planning Guidelines 2004 identifies Foynes and Limerick ports as key infrastructure facilities and also suggests the rail link be preserved. • Regional Planning Guidelines Draft 2010-2022 notes the N69 is a tourism route. • Limerick CDP 2010-2016 supports the development of Foynes and its connectivity via policies ED7/ED8/ED04/IN06/IN021. Foynes noted as the second largest port in the country and a key economic driver for the entire Midwest. Major employers in the area are Aughinish, Wyeth and Aerobord with significant development potential.

Mr. Smyth said that in essence they believed that the route had not taken into account the requirements of national and regional planning.

Mr. Smyth said that new key evidence had been given at the oral hearing and this was as follows:-

• Air quality – greenhouse gases would rise by 23% as a result of the scheme and 3.3 times higher than with the black route. He said evidence was given of the negative effects of pollutants on the health of persons with rheumatoid arthritis and he referred also to a video he showed on blasting.

• Geology, hydrogeology and hydrology – Mr. Smyth noted that the evidence had stated that water level was 5 metres below ground level and he said they were concerned about the intention to have deep cuts up to 13 metres with the attendant noise from pumping should de-watering be necessary during construction. Mr. Smyth submitted that no monitoring had been done on winter groundwater levels and new wells may not be an option with the on- going costs of connection to public water not having been addressed. He said if the mitigation was a connection to mains water or similar, it should be on the same basis as current wells which would mean that would be free of charge. He submitted that otherwise the mitigation is in fact a burden.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 9 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Smyth referred to Page 13 of the brief of evidence that no impact on the receiving water quality of the River Maigue during construction or operation would occur and he drew attention to the fact that 2.4 kilometres of the road discharges to the Maigue and there would be serious public concern regarding the water abstraction point and plant which currently supplied approximately 2,000 people. He noted a late clarification at the hearing (20 th July) was additional oil interceptors. He noted they had also been assured that Limerick County Council Water Services Department had signed off on those measures as being adequate to protect the human drinking water.

• Noise – Mr. Smyth submitted that base noise was not measured near the proposed route and the CRTN shortened methodology was shown to be an inappropriate technology in a rural area where necessary traffic counts were not achieved. He submitted that the EIS did not assess the change in noise environment but just gave the forecasted level. As regards construction noise he noted the Guidelines and he submitted that given the extremely quiet rural environment, the Board should consider more stringent limits as provided for in the Guidelines.

• Socio-economics – Mr. Smyth submitted that tourism could be affected by a lack of through traffic as would vulnerable businesses. He submitted that limited consultation was carried out with businesses in 2009.

• Planning – Mr. Smyth submitted that the Adare LAP published on 22 nd January 2009 contained a quote that people were entitled to rely on it for investment. He noted this LAP clearly showed the black bypass route on the map. He said the first involvement of the Planning Department was the Conservation Officer’s report dated 18 th March 2009. Mr. Smyth submitted that the variation of the CDP was put in front of Limerick County Council some three months before the route corridor selection report was published.

• Cultural heritage – Mr. Smyth submitted that Fanningstown Castle was inadequately considered at route corridor selection report stage and the EIS. He submitted the lands of the castle had been inadequately defined.

• Landscape and visual – Mr. Smyth said that during evidence it was agreed that landscape and visual effects had not been assessed for his house from upper windows overlooking the proposed scheme. As impact had been assessed for the current route design only, he submitted that any approval should be in relation to the route as is.

• Ecology – Mr. Smyth submitted that 30% of the area was reviewed in a mere 2-man weeks. He noted the 12-man weeks were spent on site subsequent to route selection in May and June 2009 and were included in the ecology RCSR appendix.

• Traffic – Traffic modelling and COBA information dated July 2010 was distributed on 8 th July following requests via an environmental information

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 94 of 72 Limerick County Council

request. He noted that the COBA report stated that in March 2009 Limerick County Council, in conjunction with the NRA commissioned Jacobs to develop and re-examine route corridor options for a bypass of the town of Adare. He noted the decision on the route was made a maximum of 2 months later which he described as being an inadequate time to develop a 30% longer constraints study area. Mr. Smyth submitted that the AADT continued to fall in 2010 and was approximately 15,000 per annum and down 8% since 2007.

(From the NRA counter data, when the entire year of 2010 was included, the recorded traffic level for the year 2010 was 15,266 AADT).

Mr. Smyth said that the Jacob’s figure was 9,300 vehicles as being the maximum potential bypass traffic. He said they estimate that 100% of that traffic would use the bypass but he said questions had revealed that no other scheme was known where there was 100% usage of the bypass. Mr. Smyth submitted that significant volumes of traffic would continue to use the direct route via Adare, particularly from the west Limerick side as the direct route is shorter and quicker. He said any sensitivity analysis on the effects of less than 100% using the bypass would reveal that all of the risk is downside.

Mr. Smyth said that in July 2009 at RCSR stage stated there was a potential that a portion of drivers may choose to remain on the existing route through Adare during the off-peak. He noted that comment no longer appeared in the traffic modelling report of July 2010. He said the 2009 report was more credible.

Mr. Smyth said the average journey times were measured during the summer months and as a result the times were significantly over-stated. He said off-peak travel times via Adare were as short as 6 minutes but on average approximately 7-8 minutes and significantly less than via the bypass which would be expected as it is more than 4 kilometres shorter. Mr. Smyth submitted that as a result given its length, there was no incentive to use the bypass off-peak. He said at low-low growth the maximum vehicle uses by 2030 would be approximately 11,000 even assuming 100% usage of the bypass.

• Costs and COBA – Mr. Smyth submitted the benefit of the M20 to the Adare bypass could be equivalent to a value of as much as €45 million. He said the scheme budget had gone from €57.4 million at 2007 prices to €67.6 million at 2010 prices at a time when a 30% decrease was quoted in a press release by the CIF. He submitted that was a price variance of €27.4 million or 68%.

Mr. Smyth submitted that the conclusion would be that the route specification and RCSR was completely inadequate to correctly calculate the route price and the scheme was no longer the cheapest route which was the primary justification for ignoring its worst ranking in terms of NPV/cost benefit ratio. Mr. Smyth submitted that evidence had been given that one should not generally go beyond the scheme lifetime due to the uncertainty of events in distant periods and despite that 43% of the route’s benefits had been assigned to the period post 2045. Mr. Smyth submitted that there was a serious likelihood that the costs would exceed the benefits of the scheme

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 95 of 72 Limerick County Council

due to the inherent uncertainty of forecasting benefits arising from the period of 2045 to 2075.

Following the previous discussion in relation to the interim solution of linking the N21 to the M20 he would submit to An Bord Pleanála not to permit any such interim solution on safety grounds as 26,000 vehicles would meet at a new at-grade roundabout on the N20. He said there was agreement that the blue route was the least safe as it was by far the longest.

• Mitigation – Mr. Smyth submitted that should the Board approve the scheme and he believed it should be rejected, they would request that mitigation measures or understandings would be:-

1. Road design should be approved as is so that it could not be altered by profit-driven construction companies. This should include the issue of compound locations. 2. Stone-crushing, tarmac mixing and other activities should be located in excess of 300 metres from residential properties. 3. Notice of blasting such as by text or phone call should be done. 4. Comprehensive and enforceable dust minimisation plan with effective corrective actions included. 5. A comprehensive water supply plan to be designed and the costs of all solutions including future water charges to be borne by Limerick County Council. 6. Weekly water analysis tests for houses within 200 metres of the CPO line during periods of blasting/construction. 7. Noise and vibration monitoring for houses within 200 metres of the CPO line during and post construction. 8. Pre and post construction house surveys for houses within 200 metres of the CPO boundary. 9. Enhanced noise mitigation, possible under NRA Guidelines should include soil over rock cuttings, bunds, planting of mature and semi- mature trees. 10. Low noise road surfacing to be used throughout. 11. Any grant of permission should be conditional on the revised planting indicated in the document submitted to the hearing (LA14). 12. Pre-construction planting to be provided to speed up pre-establishment stage. 13. Necessary to record there would be no removal of the large tree in the corner of Mr. Maloney’s field adjacent to Mr. Smyth’s property.

• Government policy – Mr. Smyth submitted that numerous government policies supported his case. These were the Department of Finance Value for Money Circular (2006), the Department of Finance Guidelines for the Appraisal and Management of Capital Expenditure (2005) and Department of Transport Guidance.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 96 of 72 Limerick County Council

• Summary – Mr. Smyth said that the need for review of the N21 Adare bypass route was set out in the Limerick County Council minutes of 27 th April 2009 and this referred to the most appropriate route option and the need for optimisation of the return of public investment. He submitted that neither had been achieved by the selected route.

Mr. Smyth referred to the Council minutes of 28 th September 2009 for the variation of the CDP to “allow the Adare bypass project to benefit in the short-term as part of the M20 scheme”. He submitted the variation was passed before the RCSR was published and publically available.

Mr. Smyth said they believed the entire scheme had been steeple-chased to take short- term advantage of the M20 scheme. He said it was not unreasonable to assume that work concluded after the route was announced would be influenced subconsciously by the need for the reports to accord with the route chosen.

He submitted that the red and green routes were not credible route options and that the route before the Board failed the community of Adare as it failed to ensure the traffic diversion is maximised. He said it would also fail the community of Croom.

Mr. Smyth submitted that the black route, option 1, was still the best economic option as it was 50% shorter, safer, better for tourism and better for connectivity while also creating 70% less greenhouse gases.

Mr. Smyth submitted that the location of the route so far south would not achieve anything like the 100% diversion of through traffic that the promoter suggested. He said they had demonstrated that traffic into Adare was heaviest on certain days and the 23 of the 25 busiest days in 2010 were Fridays and that effectively the proposed bypass would be to some extent an overflow. Mr. Smyth referred to the Jacob’s RCSR traffic modelling report which stated that in terms of transportation assessment, the northern route would be preferred to the southern route. It is also stated that within the off-peak the southern route might not have the same impact as the northern route in terms of reducing traffic levels in the town.

Mr. Smyth concluded that they believed that to approve the route would be to put the wrong route in the wrong place at the wrong time at the wrong price. He submitted that the Board should reject the route.

4.4.2 Mr. Diarmuid Keaney gave evidence to the hearing in relation to noise issues as follows: - (Transcript, Day 3, Pages 103 – 119)

Mr. Keaney said he was a noise and vibration consultant with ICAN Acoustics. He outlined his qualifications and membership of professional bodies. His evidence is tabbed OBJ 02 and his 19 pages in length with a number of tables and maps.

Mr. Keaney said the first part of his evidence suggested the CRTN or calculation of road traffic noise was an inappropriate baseline study methodology for rural locations. He said the shortened method of the CRTN should only be applied to sites where traffic noise is the dominant noise at the site and the traffic conditions were in excess ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 97 of 72 Limerick County Council

of 50 vehicles per hour. He looked at receptors 8, 9 and 10 from the EIS and noted that for location 8, hourly traffic figures were between 70 and 90 and was therefore suitable for the use of the CRTN. He said locations 9 and 10 had very low traffic figures and one was a cúl-de-sac. He referred to Figure 3 of his brief of evidence which showed the derivation of the L 10 , 18-hour value and from that the L den figure. Mr. Keaney noted that the location was described as having intermittent passing vehicle movements also noise sources such as livestock. He said the CRTN specifically deals with traffic environments and not situations with extraneous noise sources. He notes on Page 7 of his brief of evidence the derivation of the L den from the L 10 figures. Mr. Keaney said in his professional opinion, the shortened CRTN method had been incorrectly applied and used to derive the L den figure.

Part 2 of Mr. Keaney’s brief of evidence referred to the DMRB assessment method which he said was more appropriate and widely used in the UK for assessment of noise impact. He referred to Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 which was amended in 2008 and was not considered in the Adare EIS or in the 2004 NRA Guidelines on noise. He said it would also appear that the NRA Design Goal of 60L den was the single factor used to assess the impact of future traffic noise. He said that it should be noted that the DMRB had a clearly specified method of quantifying traffic noise nuisance as far back as 1994, but it was his opinion that it appeared to have been neglected.

Mr. Keaney referred to page 9 of his report which showed graphs which allowed estimation of traffic noise nuisance arising from the change of noise level as a result of the proposed road. He said the second graph on the page was of particular importance because it was used to assess the annoyance created by the change in the noise climate. He said on that graph a 4 dB increase in the LA 10, 18 hour would give rise to an increase of 35% of people bothered very much by noise. He quoted the DMRB of 2007 “a change of 1 dB in the short-term is the smallest that is considered perceptible. In the long term a 3 dBA change is considered perceptible and such an increase should be mitigated if possible”. He said in a rural locality the change of noise level would likely to be in the decades of decibels rather than in single digits. Mr. Keaney said the conclusion of Part 2 of his evidence was that the DMRB provided a very appropriate method of assessing nuisance from traffic noise.

Mr. Keaney referred to the third point of his evidence which he said was best explained by a graphical chart and he gave an example of a typical L den value in a rural noise location which indicated a figure of 40dB and even if the noise impact is significant, if it does not exceed 60 dB, it is still under the NRA design goal.

Mr. Keaney said in the semi-urban location like the centre of Adare, the background noise level may be quite high and the increase would be fairly insignificant. He said the design goal appeared to be applied to the same situations. He said if there was a huge impact in a rural location, it was treated in the same way as if there was a lesser impact. He said the conclusion of this part of the evidence was that it was not correct to assess noise impact without consideration of the prevailing noise climate. He said the use of the design goal of 60L den was not a measure of impact.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 98 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Keaney referred to Part 4 of his report and he submitted that the NRA Guidance Document prescribed an adapted Irish Roads version of the TRL conversion methodology for LA 10 for which it was never intended. He said his opinion was that the one-fits-all equation was derived using data from 70 sites, 25 of which were not influenced by motorway traffic. He said that any inaccuracies in the relationship between the derived L 10 , 18 hour and L den could have serious implications to the baseline measurements which used to derived L 10 under predicted noise levels which are predicted from the L 10 , 18 hours. He noted the NRA single equation was that L den = 0.86 x the LA 10 , 18 hour + 9.86dB. He said he would recommend that the LA 10 should be used for the assessment of traffic noise and not the calculated L den index.

In Part 5 of Mr. Keaney’s report he referred to the EIS and the location of the noise sensitive receptors. He referred to receptor 113 and noted there was an increase of 6.2dB and this indicated a significant increase. He said his conclusion would be that the Adare bypass EIS suggests that no mitigation is required and he referred to Section 9.1.5.4 of the EIS. He said if the assessment of noise impact was based on the guidance provided in the DMRB, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 from 1994 and 2008, the requirement for noise mitigation would be quite different to the conclusion in the EIS. He drew attention to the table in Page 17 of his report/brief of evidence and noted that the change in the LA 10 would be 6.2dB, and while the NRA design goal concludes that no mitigation was required, there would be a 39% increase in the number of people bothered very much or quite a lot by traffic noise. He notes that under DMRB 2008, the 3dBA change was considered perceptible and such an increase should be mitigated if possible.

Mr. Keaney stated in summary that his overall conclusion would be:-

• Consideration should have been given to the use of the shortened CRTN method. • DMRB, 2008 should be used to assess all noise sensitive locations using measured LA 10 ,18 hour at key rural locations. • It is inappropriate to use the NRA design goal of 60dBL 10 as the sole determinate of noise impact. • The NRA design goal should be reconsidered in light of the fact that it does not give adequate consideration to the noise impact created by proposed road schemes at rural locations. • Mr. Keaney submitted that the LA 10 , 18 hour should be used for the assessment of traffic noise and not the L 10 index.

4.4.3 (Continued) Questions were put to Mr. Keaney in relation to his evidence and Mr. Keaney put questions to Mr. Davies as follows:- (Transcript Day 4, Page 120-144)

It was established that receptor no. 102 was the closest to the Smyths’ property. Mr. Smyth said in their situation the area was extremely quiet and they were now within spitting distance of 60dBL den based on predictions. Mr. Davies said that the LA 10 was 51.8 which were predicted at receptor 102. Mr. Smyth said the values in relation to

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 99 of 72 Limerick County Council

their house went from 40.6 to 54.5. It was ascertained that measurements were taken on a Friday and Mr. Smyth said this was pensions day.

Mr. Davies said in relation to a question that their predictions did not include any baseline noise measurements. Mr. Keaney suggested they were deriving the L 10 , 18 hour value based on the shortened CRTN method and Mr. Davies said that they were using a CRTN to predict noise levels like traffic flows, gradients, screening etc. and not talking about the shortened measurement procedure. He confirmed he was talking about the impact at Mr. and Mrs. Smyth’s house. He said this was not derived from the shortened CRTN. Mr. Davies said the measurements were taken to give an indication of noise levels along the proposed road corridor. He said the noise model cadna was used to produce the numbers. He said they had predictions for do- minimum and do-something for the year of opening and the design year.

Mr. Keaney asked why one would do a baseline study if it is not used to determine the impact. Mr. Davies said when you use the DMRB; it uses the year of opening and the do-minimum to derive impact. He said his opinion was that the NRA Guidelines were a well thought out document, that they were robust and appropriate to the Irish situation. He said the DMRB which came out in 2009 was in his opinion far too academic.

Mr. Keaney said he did not believe the NRA Guidelines were appropriate for a rural environment. Mr. Smyth referred to receptor NSR 10 with a derived level of 59 decibels and at receptor 127, the predicted do-minimum is 46.5 in the same place. They queried the relevance of the receptors which were in a cul-de-sac and in a hollow. Mr. Davies said the NRA Guidelines said if a property did not exceed 60dBL den there was no mitigation and he outlined the conditions in which mitigation was applicable under the Guidelines.

Mr. Smyth said the Guidelines did say on Page 12, that following confirmation of the EIS, the issue of noise mitigation for new receptors was a matter for the Planning Authority within the planning legislation. He noted that the report was commissioned by seven of their neighbours and not just by themselves. Mr. Smyth said he understood the two simplest measures to reduced noise were low noise surface and bunding. He noted this was being used on the N22 and proposed on the M20. He said he thought that to go from a very quiet rural community to 60dB was an intolerable imposition on their community and with a bit of will that something could be done about it. Mr. Davies said that low noise surfacing would give benefit of the order of 3½ decibels. He noted that Mr. Smyth’s property had a cutting in front of it up to 8½ metres deep. Mr. Davies said that to put a bund on the top of a cut would not make a perceptible difference in his opinion at the properties.

Mr. Smyth asked about the GSI request that rock not be topsoiled. Mr. Davies said that he did not think there would a perceptible difference with or without the hard surface and the soft surface. Mr. Robertson said that soil by its nature is difficult to keep on top of rock and it might not stay there.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 00 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Keaney referred to the low noise road surface and that was porous in nature and he said that the pores become clogged and he said you could be sure 6 months from now the porous elements would be clogged up.

Further questions were asked in relation to the application of the Guidelines and Mr. Smyth noted that the NRA Circular of 2004 which stated that the authority acknowledged that it may be appropriate to adopt different design goals to those recommended taking account of the circumstances involved. Mr. Flanagan said that he noted Mr. Smyth made a suggestion there could be some form of enhancement in terms of landscape and visual and while there might be purely noise arguments, he suggested that one would be entitled to take into account any submissions made about issues which may be related not specifically or exclusively to noise.

Mr. Smyth asked about the relevance of receptors NR10, NR9 and NR8 and Mr. Davies said they were chosen to give an indication of noise levels at a variety of different positions.

Mr. Smyth asked about the benefit from noise reduction which was described as notable noise decreases as being typically between 3-5 decibel reductions. He said that for those who were getting upwards of 15-20 decibel noise increase the quote was that although noise levels were predicted to increase at the sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed scheme, the 60dBL den design goal was not predicted to be exceeded in any of the sensitive receptors. He suggested it was not equally fair to describe a notable decrease of 3-5 decibels while the increase was over 15dB.

Mr. Davies and Mr. Keaney disagreed in relation to the NRA Guidelines as to whether they were more-or-less onerous and Mr. Davies said they were more onerous than what existed in Ireland prior to the introduction of the Guidelines. Mr. Smyth said that he did think comparing an absolute noise decrease in one area to a design goal in another area is not fair.

Mrs. Smyth referred to Page 13 of the NRA Guidelines and noted the requirement where appropriate for local authorities to control construction activities by imposing limits and the hours of operation limits at their discretion. Mr. Davies said he thought the Guidelines were appropriate for construction and he said practicalities of constructing a road needed to be taken into account.

Mr. Nix commented that the point he would make would be the EIA process provides that the impact should be assessed if it was adverse and he did not think it fair to assess that against a ceiling.

Mr. Rea asked questions about the timing of the NRA document. He asked what level represented a doubling of noise and Mr. Flanagan said this would be 10 decibels. He said by going from 40 to 60 decibels it would quadruple the perceived levels.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 0 of 72 Limerick County Council

4.4.4 Mrs. Mary Normoyle made a submission on behalf of David and Mary Normoyle, Fanningstown Castle as follows:- (Transcript Day 8, Pages 136-149)

Mrs. Normoyle stated that Fanningstown Castle was awarded a Section 482 determination in 1998 determining that the building was of significant historical and architectural interest to be maintained for future generations. She said there were only nine buildings in Limerick with that status including Glyn Castle. She said they had a further recent inspection from the DoEHLG which found that the determination was valid for the future. She said that while it may not be a national monument it was still a protected structure.

Mrs. Normoyle stated that having heard the evidence on the previous days of the hearing, this concluded that Fanningstown Castle was the only heritage building being occupied which was being affected by the proposed M20 and N21 routes. She referred to the EIS, Volume 2 which stated that Fanningstown Castle would be significantly affected. She noted the change in impact rating from ‘slight’ to ‘moderate’. She said she would question that rating given the nature of the business operating from Fanningstown Castle.

Mrs. Normoyle stated that the castle had been a huge on-going expense to facilitate the cost of the conservation work undertaken over the years and it was let out mostly to North American visitors on a weekly basis. She referred to the website for the castle and said they conducted civil wedding ceremonies also and she had to question how the castle would now appeal to somebody sitting at their computer in America, when they would have to be notified of possible construction site status for the next few years. Mrs. Normoyle said they also offered four 1-bedroom apartments in the courtyard since 2004 which are homes to 8 people on a long-term basis. She said the new motorway would be passing 150 metres from the front door of the castle and the junction of the M20 and N21 would be within 600 metres.

Mrs. Normoyle referred to the Minister for the Environment who she said was in the process of introducing new built protected Irish landscapes to ensure that the sort of problems encountered at Tara during the construction of the M3 would not reoccur. She said in the draft County Development Plan 2010-2016 Objective EH030 referred to the promotion of conservation protected structures. She quoted that it was the objective of the Council to promote the benefits of protecting structures and the positive effects of conserving the architectural heritage has in areas of economic activity such as tourism.

She asked why this was stated as it gave individuals such as their enterprise, the impression that heritage and tourism are important. She asked how Limerick County Council could sanction the motorway in such a location.

Mrs. Normoyle acknowledged that the blue route had been chosen essentially for economic reasons.

Mrs. Normoyle said that they still felt the black route would have been the best route for Adare’s continued success. She said tourists passing from Dublin to Kerry would

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 02 of 72 Limerick County Council

not go miles out of their way to visit Adare. She said the tourism enterprise at Fanningstown Castle was not considered and totally omitted from the considerations.

Mrs. Normoyle said they were terrified of the impact which blasting would have on the castle because it was a very old building. She said they were totally opposed to the motorway proceeding as it is at the moment. She said if granted the permission should be conditioned and she suggested a number of conditions to mitigate the impact:-

• A complete condition survey will be done on Fanningstown Castle both prior to commencement and on the road opening. • Indemnity from the NRA for any damage caused by the works. • A regulated 25 kilometre speed limit to be imposed on all trucks passing within 500 metres of the property. • No blasting to be done while guests were staying at the castle. • Potential damage to stone drains in the vicinity to be addressed with appropriate consultation.

Mrs. Normoyle said the conditions suggested were notwithstanding the overall objection to the scheme. She asked also that the impact on Fanningstown Castle during construction be revised to profound and that the residual impact post construction be revised to significant. Mrs. Normoyle also raised the issue of light and noise pollution and asked that all compounds be kept away from the N21 side of the M20. She said by ensuring the mitigation measures were implemented it would help lessen the visual impact on the site of the castle though in no measure come close to choosing an alternative route.

Mrs. Normoyle said they had requested 3 metre high trees and not shrubs and a few mature trees would be appreciated.

By way of clarification, Mr. Robertson said that for blasting, properties within 100 metres were surveyed and also the nearest property. He said also there would be notification to all properties within 500 metres of any blasting as to when it was going to occur. He said if the liaison officer from the Council had the information they could speak to contractor and it was something that could be looked at.

The original submission was made by Ms. Ní Cheallachain on behalf of David and Mary Normoyle. The letter from Limerick County Council of 1998 and the extract from the website are tabbed OBJ03 .

4.4.5 Mr. O’Grady made a submission on behalf of the Adare Bypass Landowners Group as follows: - (Transcript, Day 3, Pages 54 – 66)

Mr. O'Grady referred to the original objection which was lodged by James Canty & Associates and he wished to reiterate that objection and to register their displeasure to failure to provide a separate hearing for the Adare Bypass. The submission is tabbed OBJ01. Mr. O'Grady submitted that adjournment should be given until the N21 Improvement Scheme linking Adare and Abbeyfeale could be included and he submitted that one could not make a fair and informed decision on the Adare bypass

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 0 of 72 Limerick County Council

unless the M20, the N21 Adare Bypass and the Adare to Abbeyfeale section were taken together. Mr. O'Grady said he wished to point out they were not objecting to the need for an Adare Bypass, but solely to the particular proposal which was presented for consideration.

Mr. O'Grady said on the actual bypass itself the first objection was on the bypass route selected. He said the blue route was seen as the least logical route as well as the least economically beneficial which he said was acknowledged in the Route Corridor Selection Report (RCSR).

He said the route had the worst benefit to cost ratio of all the routes and he said there was a very vague explanation as to why the black route, previously selected in 2005 had doubled in cost at a time when construction costs had actually fallen considerably. He referred to the increase in €10 million of an estimate since 2009 from €57 to €67 million. He said this would further reduce any short-term gains achieved by selecting the blue route.

Mr. O'Grady said the route not would alleviate the traffic congestion as successfully as the original northern black route would. He said all the southern routes were discounted by Jacobs, the same consultants who were now claiming that they would work.

Mr. O’Grady said predicted traffic volumes were at best spurious or more likely completely wrong regarding the usage of various roads in and out and around Adare.

Mr. O'Grady said the entire blue route traverses a virgin farmland including two large organic enterprises, yet it seemed none of that warranted protection as of environmental benefit.

Mr. O'Grady said the location of the water abstraction facility serving the Adare area was directly downstream of the blue route. He said the Maigue crossing was foolhardy since obviously during construction of that crossing suspended solids would affect the water quality. He said any of the other three routes would avoid that problem. Mr. O'Grady said assurance given by the experts at the hearing seemed to think that you can bridge a river without any disturbance to that river.

Mr. O'Grady said the argument presented by the Council regarding the minimisation of impact on the Maigue estuarine SAC had to be contrasted with the M20 scheme which would impact on an SAC.

Mr. O'Grady said the location of the Fanningstown Junction served no one well. He said a junction such as currently existed at Croom on the existing N20 would better serve the areas of Bruff, Croom, Ballingarry and Broadford. He said the removal of the Fanningstown Junction would reinforce the case for the logical route selection on the N21 back to the northern black route as there would be a junction at Attyflin in any event.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 04 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. O'Grady noted that the Adare blue group and Mr. Brian Smyth had lodged objections which dealt in depth with economic and traffic volumes. He said they fully supported those objections on those and many other issues that they had raised.

Mr. O'Grady said that it had to be pointed out that the River Greanagh was misplaced in the EIS. He noted this was considered of high value and locally important, but it was not correctly marked on any of the EIS drawings.

Mr. O'Grady said the Council claimed that the River Maigue downstream of the proposed crossing was tidal, but he believed the tidal section actually ended where the current N21 route crosses it in Adare.

Mr. O'Grady said that the Council had failed to take note of peregrine nesting site 300 metres approximately off the road and they had done no in-depth study of the otter population in the area. He said the figures arrived at in relation to noise, while not breaking NRA Guidelines did break WHO Guidelines. He said given the current noise levels in the peaceful rural area, the predicted noise levels would have increased in some areas by over 50%, yet the EIS claims minimal impact which he said was unbelievable.

Mr. O'Grady said they were all extremely concerned regarding watertable levels and he referred to Section 7.3.3.3 of the EIS which stated that the road may potentially result in an increase in the vulnerability of the underlying aquifer.

Mr. O'Grady said in conclusion he would say the entire project was ill-conceived and poorly executed in a very hasty manner, as a knee-jerk response to the M20 scheme. He said all of that completely disregarded previous policy decisions, NRA Guidelines, local objections and opinion and above all plain logic.

Mr. O'Grady said the errors in the EIS alone give credence to the opinion and it was the view of the landowners group, that the entire project involving the Adare bypass should be thrown out and that Limerick County Council should be sent back to the drawing board to come up with a scheme that is cost-effective, environmentally sound and serves the people of the region and the nation far better than the project which was before the hearing.

It was clarified that the peregrine nesting site was in the townland of Finniterstown and he referred to a ruined castle in the vicinity. Mr O’Grady said the River Greanagh was in the townland of Finniterstown.

4.4.6 Submission by Mr. Gerard Kearney of Ballingarry as follows: - (Transcript Day 4, Pages 212-215)

Mr. Kearney said the route would not affect him except to think of the stupidity of it and the fact that he would have to pay for it even though he would not use it. He said in 2005 a bypass route referred to as the black route was selected from a total of 9 potential routes. He said the estimate was that €2 million was spent on the black route to date. He said in April 2009 the NRA in a surprise move announced the revised study and 6 weeks later after the quickest possible selection in the history of the NRA ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 05 of 72 Limerick County Council

the new route or the blue route was chosen for the Adare bypass and it was this selection that appalled him.

Mr. Kearney said the blue route had a value for money benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.9 against the highest which was 2.82. He said it did not include all the costs associated with the project as a major junction estimated the cost of the €5 million on 4 kilometres of road had been included in the proposed M20. He said the blue route was (originally) assessed as being the poorest in road safety and the blue route was the longest route. He said while it was fine to run with the black route in 2005-2007, when the M20 came on the scene all this changed and the Adare bypass was now attached to the M20 proposal.

Mr. Kearney said he was working for a company 7 kilometres on the Rathkeale side of Foynes and at that time there were five 8-wheel lorries going into Limerick through Adare and these would continue to do so and would not use the new bypass because it was longer and would take more time, cost more money in terms of repairs and fuel. Mr. Kearney said the proposal was depriving Croom of an entry/exit off the M20 and at this stage people would say it is too much trouble to get onto the motorway and they would use the old road to Limerick and so would he. He said the route would take people to Croom when they just want to bypass Adare and instead of 65% of traffic using it there would be just 35% using it.

Mr. Kearney said that the rail transport would have to be used more and the black route would facilitate that as the bridges could be upgraded at the same time to run trains to Foynes as well as Kerry.

4.4.7 Submission of Mr. Lowry: - (Transcript Day 10, Pages 26-31)

Mr. Rea introduced Mr. Lowry and said what was being asked was to remove the three land-takes namely 3D, 3E and 3F from the CPO. And he introduced Mr. Lowry who wished to make a submission.

Mr. Lowry said what he wanted to ask was that access in his case and in the case of all dairy farmers be provided during construction and that access to both sides of the farm were vital. He said this was required four times a day and he said he did not want a repeat of the construction works carried out on the Croom bypass.

Mr. Rea suggested that traffic lights be provided at those location and Mr. Cunningham from the M20 scheme said he did not think it needed to be traffic lights but could be a stop/go system. It was stated that the best way to ensure that the matter was directly addressed would be by way of the contract documents. Mr. Rea said that there needed to be a specific requirement put in and he had always been told that they did not want to tie the hands of the contractor. He said the State or the County Council have to realise the only way they are getting through would be with the cooperation of his clients.

Mr. Robertson said that in the case of advanced archaeological contracts, there was a requirement that fences across the site have gates included so that the farmers could

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 06 of 72 Limerick County Council

cross the site. He said that where the contractor had to cross a lot of the site there gates could be put in also.

4.4.8 Submission on behalf of Mr. Lowry by Mr. Rea as follows: - (Transcript Day 9, Pages 174 - 186)

Mr. Rea’s submission included a Powerpoint presentation and this was tabbed OBJ04 and the portion of this Powerpoint presentation referring to Mr. Lowry is on the first six pages.

Mr. Rea said slide no. 3 showed where Mr. Lowry was indicating a location where there was an amalgamation of underground drains which required further consultation. On the following slides (4 and 5) he indicated the additional land being sought which he said there was no need for.

Mr. Rea showed slides indicating the location of the castle and indicated the number of trees in the vicinity. He noted it was very well screened and he said that within the grounds of Mr. David Normoyle’s property there was a hedge and trees. Mr. Rea said if Mr. Normoyle wanted to shade off the castle all he would have to do is let the hedge grow up. Mr. Rea indicated on a slide on Page 3 of his submission where the divide on the castle between Mr. Normoyle and Mr. Lowry was. It was confirmed that looking at the slide that Mr. Normoyle owned the left hand side of the castle and Mr. Lowry owned the right hand side.

Mr. Rea referred to a line of ash trees and he said that the trees would not be sufficient to screen off the castle.

Mr. Rea identified the three plots of Mr. Lowry’s land-take which should be deleted from the CPO as being 36d, 36e and 36f.

It was stated by Mr. Robertson that the planting was required as part of the landscape proposals and it was not in response to any one individual but it was taking all the landscape into account.

Mr. Rea referred to his Powerpoint presentation and the right hand photographs on Page 2 of the presentation indicated views from the same point at different times. He said the top photograph was taken of the castle when the hedge was high and the bottom right hand picture was of the castle when the hedge had been cut.

Mrs. Normoyle said that the castle was owned by the Normoyles and the Lowrys and they had inherited the castle in 1995. She said they generally needed the mitigation looking at the castle as it was three storeys high and she referred to photomontage C on Figure 14 of Mr. Simpson’s brief of evidence which is tabbed LA10 . She said she didn’t think when Mr. Rea took the pictures that he had allowed for the fact that the road was rising. She said standing in the low fields looking at the castle you would see trees but at the heights that were involved there was a huge impact.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 07 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Flanagan said there was a slightly wider context than an individual owner and Mr. Robertson said that they had forward visibility widening at that location.

Mr. Rea indicated that a smaller land-take might be acceptable if it would help and Mr. Flanagan said it was not inconceivable if treatment could be found on the land- take that might meet the concerns, that it could be reduced but it would have to involve cooperation between the parties.

4.4.9 Mr. Rea made a submission as follows: - (Transcript Day 10, Pages 186-193)

Mr. Rea said that Mr. Lowry had set out very clearly what was required for access arrangements for dairy farmers and he would agree with that. He said he was not concerned about tying the hands of the contractor but very much in favour of ensuring that the contractor did certain things for the benefit of his clients.

Mr. Rea submitted that the N21 should be constructed throughout with a low noise surface. He submitted that the final build should be as per the EIS drawings as any variation could impact the public such as Mr. Smyth. He said people affected by any change should have the benefit of independent advice paid for by the developer and the contractor if there was going to be any change.

Mr. Rea submitted that the design of road barriers be totally reviewed and that all future roads be made safe and not be a traffic hazard.

Mr. Rea addressed the question of compensation for people outside the CPO and stated that in the British system the law has been changed so that compensation could be paid. He said mitigation measures should include relocating the family during the excavation works. Mr. Rea outlined the difficulties that people found in relation to contractors who created nuisances and schemes on which a nuisance was created.

Mr. Rea said that it was his view there was a requirement for a bypass in Adare. He said in a time of scarce resources, the resources available should be allocated to where they are most badly needed.

4.4.9 (Continued) Mr. Rea made a submission: - (Transcript Day 9, Pages 120-141)

Mr. Rea made his submission and illustrated it with a Powerpoint presentation which is tabbed OBJ04.

Mr. Rea said he was concerned about fencing, drainage and most importantly the non- compliance by public bodies in building what is meant to be built. He said he understood that the proposals were draft although in the Adare drawings there was no reference to a draft design. Mr. Rea referred to the use of fencing used in Rockwell (Tipperary M8) and the lead-up to bridges because the standard timber posts and rail fence would not be suitable. He illustrated a crash barrier leading from a bridge which he considered highly dangerous.

Mr. Rea used a slide to illustrate the effect of a short barrier and a long barrier and he noted the requirement to protect against vehicles falling into a stream. ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 08 of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Rea submitted that the council engineers had not got control over the length of barriers as these were set down in a manual prepared by the NRA.

In relation to access, he referred to a case in Donegal where 6 acres was cut off and in relation to a contractor taking out a ditch on another scheme; an accident resulted in the death of 9 cattle and could have resulted in the death of a man.

Mr. Rea referred to an area where a contractor was asked to divert a river and it was returned with four extra bends which guaranteed that it would flood.

Mr. Rea showed photographs of timber post and rail fencing which were not adequate or fit for purpose.

Mr. Rea indicated difficulties in other locations and said for those reasons, that what was approved by the Board is what should be built. He referred also to illegal closing of roads during construction and stated that the track record of the County Council had been diabolical and unacceptable.

Mr. Rea showed additional slides in relation to non-compliance and also some in relation to drainage and barriers. He noted the requirement for gradients and noted that in one case it was meant to be 1-10 and it was actually 1-6. He also illustrated areas which flooded and noted one was at the Suir Bridge crossing (M8 Tipperary).

Mr. Rea said there were cases when proposals from a contractor had a substantial improvement on what was originally designed. He stated it would be wrong if there could not be movement but this would have to do with the written permission of all affected parties and if there was a significant change his view was it should go back before An Bord Pleanála.

Mr. Rea said that with a PPP, the contractual bodies should be the NRA and whoever was going to build the road.

4.4.10 Mr. Jones and Mr. Collins withdrew objections as follows: - (Transcript Day 10, Pages 193-197)

Mr. Jones on behalf of John Crowley said he wished to withdraw all objections in relation to the N21 Adare bypass.

Mr. Rea said in respect of the N21 he was withdrawing the objections of Sean Casey (CPO 4, 5), Francis Maloney, no. 34, Joe Hannon, no. 14 and Catherine and James Lynch no. 32. Mr. Rea said he had verbal authority to withdraw the objection of Victor and Helen Alfred references 6 and 7.

Mr. Collins withdrew the objection of Patrick Joseph Gilsenan, CPO ref. 26 which was lodged on behalf of Noonan Solicitors.

Mr. Jones said he had received instructions from Ned Nagle to withdraw objections of Frank Burke, Brenda FitzGerald and Bernard Duggan in relation to the N21 scheme. ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 09 of 72 Limerick County Council

4.4.11 Mr. Nix made a submission as follows: - (Transcript Day 10, Pages 37-39 and 59- 64)

Mr. Nix, while making the bulk of his submission in relation to the M20 proposal, said in the case of Adare if the bypass was looped around the town it was virtually impossible to stream traffic off the N69. He said he could not emphasise enough how dangerous that road (N69) was. He said it was the most dangerous road in County Limerick as confirmed by the EuroRap studies. He said the dominant theme was planning in isolation. He said what would end up was Limerick County Council returning at some later date with an east/west proposal to ease the N69 and this will have to go through the Lower Shannon SAC because they could not link to the current Adare bypass.

Mr. Nix submitted that motorways should not be used to relieve only one road and should be used to relieve two or more existing roads. He said good practice was saying that inter-regional flows needed to be canalised. He said up to that point with the Celtic Tiger financially it was possible to get away with it but he thought the mega borrowing was catching up at that point. Mr. Nix said he was arguing for acknowledging the literature and motorway planning applying and also implementing the NSS and the Regional Planning Guidelines and Development Plans. Mr. Nix said that integration would tie into the idea.

Mr. Nix said (Page 59, transcript, day 10) that the proposed Adare scheme appeared to rely on congestion growth as much as traffic growth and he said it was not clear from the hearing whether the proposed route would actually be attractive to seasoned drivers currently passing through Adare. He asked what other implications follow in the event of a bypass being built south of Adare. He said the N69 was the most dangerous road in County Limerick and a direct or northern alignment bypassing Adare would enable streaming of vehicles off the N69.

Mr. Nix said in relation to the bridge over the lower cSAC, it was a question of detailed design. He said as there was a bridge over the Blackwater at Fermoy this showed it was possible to span a candidate SAC. He said it was evident from Mr. Robertson’s evidence on July 20 th that the Lower Shannon SAC did not appear to have been the leading drawback in the mind of design team. He said while it can be noted that Ireland has many houses fronting onto main roads, the challenge could be overcome with left-in and left-out arrangements for residents with interchanges approximately every 4 kilometres. Mr. Nix said that while limited motorway construction is no doubt beneficial in terms of streaming traffic, it could not be said that motorway construction achieves the optimum safety results per euro spent in overall terms.

4.4.12 Miss Uí Bhroin made a submission in relation to the N21 as follows:- (Transcript Day 10, Pages 110, 119-121, 123, 129-132, 153-155)

Miss Uí Bhroin addressed the M20 scheme in the bulk of her submission and this is on Section 4.4.3 of that report which is referenced HA0027 and is on Pages 85-170 of Day 10 of the transcript. ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 0 of 72 Limerick County Council

Miss Uí Bhroin submitted in relation to both schemes that insufficient detail had been provided to support any reasonable environmental appraisement of the impacts of the scheme as required by the Habitats Directive with specific regard to the requirements of Article 6 and Article 2 and Article 12 and that following the precautionary approach the application should be refused summarily. She submitted also that the ecological assessment did not comply with the requirements of the Environmental Appraisal Directive (85/337/EEC) as amended. She submitted also that the level of additional ecological matter provided in the context of the hearing would necessitate further public consultation as required under Article 6(3)(c) of the EIA Directive.

Specifically in relation to the N21, Miss Uí Bhroin noted that Miss Bateman had been more specific (than Mr. Spear for the M20) in relation to what was protected in her view but her response was incorrect. Miss Uí Bhroin said that while Miss Bateman acknowledged correctly that otters and holts were protected, when queried about couches, she indicated that they did not feel they were protected but volunteered they would probably be treated as such under the precautionary principle. Miss Uí Bhroin said that was incorrect as they were specifically protected. She said An Taisce considered the answers from both ecologists on that matter as unsatisfactory. Miss Uí Bhroin submitted that it raised fundamental issues about the understanding of otter ecology and what is or isn’t protected in their view.

(Page 119) In relation to assessment of breeding places for otters, Miss Uí Bhroin referred to the response in relation to natal holts and stated that the protection required for cubs indicated a remove from the river was much more typical. She referred to the NRA Guidelines which stated that holts and couches used by breeding females are often in secluded areas away from the main river or water body.

Miss Uí Bhroin said the conclusion was that Miss Bateman’s understanding of the degree of remove from the river typically used for natal holts was unsatisfactory. She submitted that the study area for the proposed N21 bypass scheme of just 10 metres coverage was clearly inadequate for the purpose of surveying natal sites. Miss Uí Bhroin said there were concerns for the N21 in relation to the detail on otter surveys and this was compared with the more detailed information provided on bat surveys.

Miss Uí Bhroin referred to questions put by the Inspector to Miss Bateman and said that An Taisce contended that no such techniques as outlined under the ecological surveying techniques for protected flora and fauna during the planning of national roads schemes was outlined by Miss Bateman. Miss Uí Bhroin submitted that Miss Bateman did not know the population of otters for the N21 catchment area.

Miss Uí Bhroin said that in addition to concerns about the otter survey, the limited breeding bird survey approach used on the N21 imposed constraints on the conduct of the ecological surveys. (Transcript, p153, day 10) She noted that a line transect methodology was employed and this was because a blanket breeding bird survey for the entire study area was considered impractical due to the extent of the study area coupled with time/seasonal constraints.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age of 72 Limerick County Council

Miss Uí Bhroin noted that the constraints were acknowledged in the subsequent section of the EIS which stated that a standard limitation to breeding bird surveys was that certain species and groups of birds were not effectively surveyed by the method and therefore may not have been recorded, although they may be present within a survey area. Miss Uí Bhroin submitted that the assessment was inadequate and not of a sufficient basis on which the Board could safely grant permission.

As Miss Uí Bhroin was referring to both schemes, the submission also included that there was an obligation for further public consultation and also she said An Taisce contested the validity of the derogation licences issued.

4.4.13 Mr. McSweeney made a submission in relation to noise: - (Transcript Day 10, Pages 211-213)

Mr. McSweeney said his premises were at the roundabout in Garraunboy which was at the start of the proposed scheme on the Newcastle West side of Adare. He said he was about 200 metres from the roundabout and he was concerned about noise levels. He drew attention to the attention given to bats and noted there was no consultation with the landowner which he found very unusual. In relation to the suggestion to have low noise surfacing throughout Mr. McSweeney said it would not solve the problem of different noise levels. He said living close to a roundabout or a proposed roundabout it would not solve the problem of low and high noise levels. Mr. Robertson replied to say the nature of the noise would be different but a braking noise rather than passing traffic for a free-flowing situation would be different. Mr. Robertson said there had been a full survey done near the roundabout.

4.4.14 Dr. Jervis Good made his submission in relation to the N21 as follows:- (Transcript Day 10, Page 242)

Dr. Good said that in relation to the N21, DoEHLG and the NPWS accepted the re- wording of the otter fencing condition as proposed by the local authority.

4.4.15 Mr. Sweetman made a submission: - (Transcript Day 9, Page 205)

Mr. Sweetman said the fundamental point relevant to noise was that it had not ever been properly addressed by the Board. He said the Guidelines for the assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts as well as impact interactions specifically say we have to look at the relevance of the two. He said in relation to the N21 he could see no argument for not putting a low noise surfacing as a condition by the Board in all the schemes.

4.4.16 Mr. Flanagan made a closing submission on behalf of the local authority as follows: - (Transcript Day 10, Pages 251-283 with special reference to Pages 259, 267, 269-271, 278-279 and Page 282)

Mr. Flanagan addressed the majority of the submissions to the M20 proposal but referred to the issue of strategic environmental assessment for both schemes. He quoted the Regulations and legislation that he considered relevant and concluded that

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 2 of 72 Limerick County Council

as far as the project was concerned no SEA was required. He noted that the draft Limerick CDP for 2010 had been the subject of SEA.

In relation to the CPO, he said 17 of the 25 objections to the N21 had been withdrawn and there were on-going negotiations in other cases. Mr. Flanagan said that the style of the EIS’s for both the M21 and N21 went beyond the legal argument and he quoted case law in respect of the arguments made. He noted particularly Paragraph 74 of the Malster Judgement which stated that the EIS did not have to describe every environmental effect however minor, but only the main effects or likely significant effects.

In relation to Mr. Smyth’s submission, Mr. Flanagan said that an EIA was not carried out in relation to route selection and the development consent procedure as outlined in the Klohn judgement did not require the Board to carry out an EIA of the possible alternatives.

Mr. Flanagan submitted that the M20 and its directly associated proposal, the N21 in terms of strategic, economic and social importance was a project which was not about the numbers using the roads but about a government policy enshrined in documents going back 10 years which look at the development sustainability of that part of the country. He said the people whose land was being taken did not object to it in general and they recognised at local and regional level the benefits, firstly of a corridor.

Mr. Flanagan mentioned Section 18(4) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the Adoption of the variation to the Limerick CDP in relation to the bypass of Adare and this reasserted the primacy of the CDP in circumstances where the LAP had identified a corridor, although outside of the area of the Local Area Plan and Section 18(4) is quoted as stating that any provisions of a Local Area Plan will cease to have effect if there is a subsequent variation to the County Plan. Mr. Flanagan noted that for the avoidance of doubt the County Council passed the Variation and that of course meant that the elected members fully endorsed it.

Mr. Flanagan said they were asking the Board to take the mitigation measures and incorporate them in any approval as may be granted and he said he welcomed the inputs from the NPWS, Mr. Rea and others who had suggested a strengthening of those mitigation measures.

Mr. Flanagan quoted a number of other cases in relation to the EIA and Habitats Directives. He said in relation to the N21 it was always the position in terms of road development that if you can avoid a cSAC then you will do so. He said the Board needed to ask the question if it was irrational - as being contrary to plain reason and common sense - to have regard to avoiding cSAC and connecting to an M20 corridor in the review and decision making process. He said it would be the opposite if the County Council was to disregard the M20 corridor and the avoidance of a cSAC. He submitted that there would be circumstances in which it would be plain they acted irrationally and he stated that it was a rational decision to go to the south for those reasons.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age of 72 Limerick County Council

Mr. Flanagan said that Mr. Robertson had made it quite clear that the existence of the M20 strategic corridor at Government and national policy levels was a factor in that decision-making process as was the avoidance of the cSAC.

Mr. Flanagan said that in conclusion he would ask that the proposed road development be recommended for approval in respect of the M20 and N21 and that the Compulsory Purchase Orders in respect of both would be confirmed. He said he believed it was the right thing to do for the area and for the region and he would overwhelmingly say that the public in the area supported it and even the landowners supported it.

5.0 ASSESSMENT

The proposed Adare Bypass is considered under the headings of need and an examination of the significant environmental effects.

5.1 Need for the Scheme

Based on current and projected traffic volumes, there is an established need for a bypass of Adare for through traffic, although recent reduction in traffic trends has made the level of traffic congestion less of an issue.

5.2 Route Selection and Alternatives

A very large part of the oral hearing was taken with questions and submissions from a number of objectors in relation to the route selection process and the chosen route. To recap, an original route selection process chose a route to the north of Adare (Black route) in 2005. This route was shown in the Adare Local Area Plan. In 2008, when the emerging M20 route was chosen, the Adare bypass was revisited and the current proposal was adopted in 2009. While the process of choosing the new line (blue route) was over a very short time span, the process was approved by Limerick County Council’s elected members and a variation in the Development Plan to reflect the new line was adopted. Therefore it is considered that the revised route, having been chosen, was properly before the oral hearing.

Submissions were also made about the appropriateness of the route chosen, with particular reference to the fact that the chosen route does not improve the situation for the N69 to Foynes. It was pointed out that local plans for Foynes endorsed the northern route. While the points made by an Taisce and Mr Smyth in relation to the economic need for improvements on the route to the port of Foynes, drawing attention also to the accident rate on the route, are considered important, the choice of route was made and it was explained that the new M20 route had a large bearing on the general location of the line. The concern would be that, with the deletion (post hearing) of the next section of the N21 towards Abbeyfeale, the prospect of improving the N69 might recede even further than it might have, given the current and near future economic situation. ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 4 of 72 Limerick County Council

The chosen route links with the proposed M20 at Fanningstown near Croom and depends on the M20 being constructed to be viable. Should the M20 not proceed, the route chosen for the N21 Adare bypass would not have the potential to satisfactorily fulfil the functions envisaged for the scheme. If the M20 does proceed, the proposed N21 scheme would function as a bypass of Adare. While there could be some argument as to the percentage of traffic which would transfer to the bypass, overall the scheme as proposed would be satisfactory from a traffic perspective.

5.3 Safety issues

The proposed road is a dual carriageway and links at the eastern end to a grade separated interchange and at the western end to an at-grade roundabout. There are no intermediate junctions. The proposed road would provide a safer route than that currently available.

5.4 Planning Context

The proposal is in accordance with the Limerick County Development Plan (as varied, September 2009) and is in accordance with the Draft County Development Plan (2010-2016). It accords with the various Government policies outlined at the hearing.

5.5 Cultural Heritage

The evidence given at the hearing in addition to the information in the EIS clarified issues regarding cultural heritage and reports of consultation with National Monuments Service and others are noted. It is considered that the proposed mitigation measures regarding archaeology and architectural heritage are satisfactory.

5.6 Ecology

Due to the movement of the route to the south of Adare, designated sites are avioided. The information contained in the EIS, together with the evidence at the hearing, which included mitigation proposals are considered satisfactory. It is considered that the proposed road would not give rise to significant ecological impacts.

5.7 Water Quality

The proposals for disposal of surface water by use of attenuation ponds and hydrocarbon interceptors were outlined at the hearing and are considered to be satisfactory in principle.

However an issue arises with the water abstraction currently taken from the river Maigue beside the existing bridge which is approximately 500 metres downstream of the proposed discharge point for the main surface water discharge from the roadway.

It is considered that the proposal to discharge surface water upstream of the drinking water abstraction point, albeit through a hydrocarbon interceptor, is not satisfactory. To remedy the situation, the discharge would appear to need to be brought ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 5 of 72 Limerick County Council

downstream of the water abstraction point where the lands are not in the ownership of the Local Authority.

The evidence at the hearing regarding water supply generally stated that the Water Services Department had been carrying out testing and were satisfied that the measures proposed to protect the intake were satisfactory. It may be that had the Water Services Department either supplied a written observation or report or had attended the hearing the matter could have been resolved as regards the acceptability of the discharge arrangements. On that basis, and given the importance of water supply it is considered that it would not be appropriate to recommend approval of the scheme, based on a condition.

5.8 Air Quality, Noise and Vibration and Climate

The impacts regarding air quality are considered to have been adequately addressed in the documentation and the evidence given at the hearing. Mitigation measures relating to dust minimisation are noted. It is accepted that impacts on climate would not be significant. There was extensive discussion in relation to the 2004 NRA Guidelines and the submission regarding the methodology for assessment is noted. The design goal of 60L den has been employed on road schemes nationally since 2004 and is noted to be more stringent than the previously applied standard. The level of impact suffered at receptors which previously had very low noise levels and now face levels approaching the level where mitigation is undertaken is noted and is frequently raised at oral hearings. It is considered that the proposal is acceptable as it follows and complies with the NRA Guidelines. It is not considered that the provision of low noise surfacing is required as a condition in this instance.

5.9 Agriculture

It is noted that 132 agricultural land plots totalling 62 hectares ( 52 hectares in EIS) are included in the CPO. Overall, impacts on agriculture are considered acceptable.

5.10 Material Assets –Non-Agriculture

No habitable dwellings are included in the CPO. The impacts are considered acceptable.

5.11 Individual Objections

Are considered in the order they are reported on in the report on the oral hearing as follows:-

5.11.1 Objection of Mr and Mrs Smyth (submission under 4.4.1 above) (also incorporating the Blue /Route Group)

Mr and Mrs Smyth asked questions regarding most aspects of the proposed road development including route selection and cost benefit issues as well as direct environmental impacts or concerns. The issues raised have been discussed under the

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 6 of 72 Limerick County Council

various headings and the objection is not considered to give grounds for rejection of the proposal

5.11.2 Objection of Mrs Mary Normoyle (ref. 4.4.4)

Mrs Normoyle raised issues primarily concerned with Fanningstown Castle- issues relating to the tourism impact and potential damage during construction, particularly from blasting. It is considered that the mitigation proposed would address the concerns regarding blasting operations. Mrs Normoyle also submitted that the original (black) route would have been the best route. It is considered that the objection does not give grounds for rejection of the proposal.

5.11.3 Objection of Mr O’Grady (on behalf of the Adare Bypass Landowners Group, ref. 4.4.5)

Mr O’Grady said his group agreed with the need for a bypass but not the particular proposal. He submitted that the chosen route was least logical and least economically beneficial. He raised questions regarding traffic projections and water quality in the Maigue arising from the bridge crossing. His conclusion was that it was a knee-jerk response to the proposed M20 scheme. It is considered that the objection does not give grounds for rejection of the proposal.

5.11.4 Objection of Mr Gerard Kearney (ref. 4.4.7)

Mr Kearney submitted the route selection had a low estimated benefit-to-cost ratio. He said some HGV traffic would not use the bypass and also that the proposal deprived Croom of direct access to the M20. He stated that rail transport should be used more. It is considered that the objection does not give grounds for rejection of the proposal.

5.11.5 Objection of Mr Gerard Lowry (jnr) (ref. 4.4.8-4.4.9)

Mr Lowry made a submission and was also represented by Mr. Rea. His main submission was that plots 3d, 3e and 3f should be deleted from the CPO. The matters in dispute in relation to the plots are considered best resolved by ongoing discussion with the Local Authority. Mr Rea highlighted the problems which can occur during construction and the difficulties in ensuring that commitments made by Local Authorities are delivered upon. It is considered that the objection does not give grounds for rejection of the proposal.

5.11.6 Objection of An Taisce (Mr Nix) (ref. 4.4.11)

Mr Nix submitted that the chosen route made it virtually impossible to stream traffic off the N69 (Limerick – Foynes- Listowel). He also submitted that the scheme appeared to rely on congestion growth as much as traffic growth. He noted that a bridge crossed an SAC in Fermoy but had avoided the SAC in Adare. It is considered that the objection does not give grounds for rejection of the proposal.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 7 of 72 Limerick County Council

5.11.7 Objection of An Taisce (Ms Uí Bhroin) (ref. 4.4.12)

Ms Uí Bhroin submitted there was insufficient detail to support environmental appraisal required by the Habitats Directive. She raised particular concerns about the evidence given in relation to otters and breeding bird surveys. It is considered that the objection does not give grounds for rejection of the proposal.

5.11.8 Objection of Mr Mc Sweeney (ref. 4.4.13)

Mr Mc Sweeney raised the issue of noise in the vicinity of the proposed roundabout at Garraunboy which was replied to by the Local authority. It is considered that the objection does not give grounds for rejection of the proposal.

5.11.9 Objection of Mr Sweetman (ref.4.4.15)

Mr Sweetman questioned witnesses on most aspects of the scheme during the hearing and raised concerns about the bat surveys carried out, with particular reference to Fanningstown Castle. He submitted also that noise issues had not ever been properly addressed by the Board and submitted that a low noise surfacing should be provided throughout.

5.12 SUMMARY ASSESSMENT

The need for a bypass of Adare is considered to have been established. The route selection, which differs from that chosen in 2005, arose because of national policy regarding the M20. Essentially, if the M20 is approved for construction the current proposal is clearly the practical route to adopt. It is noted that the construction of both the M20 and N21 does not advance the situation with regard to the N69 and traffic to the west of Adare.

Environmental impacts are considered above and apart from the issue of water quality and water supply; the mitigation measures proposed are considered satisfactory. Based on the assessment regarding the need to be vigilant in relation to pollution, and threats to the Castleroberts water abstraction, refusal of the proposal is recommended, unless a mechanism to provide a suitable mitigation measure is found to address the concerns outlined in 5.7 above.

Individual concerns are noted, but none are considered to give grounds for rejection of the proposed road development.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION -- PROPOSED ROAD DEVELOPMENT

I recommend that the proposed road development N21 Adare Bypass as described in the EIS of February 2010 be refused, for the reasons detailed below.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 8 of 72 Limerick County Council

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Having regard to:

(a) The proposed discharge of surface water from the proposed development to the river Maigue upstream of the Castleroberts Water abstraction point and the mitigation proposed,

it is considered that the proposed mitigation measure does not give a sufficient reassurance as to the safeguarding of the water abstraction point in the event of a serious pollution incident associated with the proposed new road development.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION - COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER

I recommend that An Bord Pleanála should refuse to confirm Limerick County Council Compulsory Purchase Order “Limerick county Council (N21 Adare Bypass) Compulsory Purchase Order 2010.

______Daniel O’Connor Engineer Gd I

28 th June 2011

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 9 of 72 Limerick County Council

APPENDIX I

Objections not withdrawn before Oral Hearing (a) Road Development

Ref Name Blue Route Mr Brian 41 signatures 2 no. 4.4.1 Action Gp Smyth objections 5.11.1 Mr Ivan Fanningstown Ch 7+800 No sub Lawlor An Taisce Mr Ian Lumley 5.11.6 Mr &Mrs Cáit Ní 4.4.4 D.Normoyle Cheallachain 5.11.2 Ms O’Grady Finnertstown 4.4.5 House 5.11.3 Marese Castleroberts No sub Fitzgerald Mr.Kieran Baurnlicka Fitzgerald Adare Trevor & Inis Ealga Niamh Caherass Mc Kechnie Bobby & Leah Dearborn Rackard Lodge Caherass Sylvia & Wm. Beechlawn Cooke Cottage Fanningstown Adare Bypass Mr H O’Grady Finnertstown 4.4.5 Landowners c/o J Canty & House 5.11.3 Group Associates Rea Agri Richard Rea Environmental 4.4.9 consultants 5.11.5 John Crowley No sub Consulting Gerard Kearney Kilcoleman 4.4.6 Ballingarry 5.11.4 Kieran Mc Keeney No sub at Donnell & Fanningstown hearing Others Vincent O’Kelly Caherass Do. Michael Castleroberts Do. Fitzgerald Mick & Anne Fanningstown Do. Mackey Irish James Nix 4.4.11 Environmental 5.11.6 network ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 20 of 72 Limerick County Council

(b) Compulsory Purchase order

Ref CPO Thos Derry- Water abst J Butler vinnane John A.Quinn Quinn’s 37 Crowley Cross Do. Thos.G. Derry- 24 Butler vinnane Do. Thos. Do. 23 Butler Do. David B Dunaman 21 Shire Croom Do. John Do. 18 Shire Do. James Finnerts- 10 Canty town Do. Harry Finnerts- 9 O’Grady town ho. Self Brenda Graigue Also 5a Fitzgerald N Nagle Ned Frank 25 Nagle Burke Do. Bernard 11 M Duggan 12 Martin Gerald Fanning- Excessive 36a-f & Rea Lowry jnr stown landtake Do. John & Do. 35a-k Angela Normoyle Do. Francis Castle- 34a-d Moloney Roberts Snr Do James Do 32a-c Lynch Do. John Caherass 31a-e Brennan 33a-f Do. Bridie Castle- 28a0c Brennan Roberts 30a Do. Liam Do. 29a,b Brennan Do. Gerald Do. 27a Kennedy Do. Thos Granard 16a-e Cussen

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 2 of 72 Limerick County Council

Ref Marin James Granard 15a-m &Rea Cussen Do. Joseph Finnerts- 14a-j Hannon Town Do. James Baurnalicka 8a-c Buckley Do Victor Barnalick 7a-f & Helen 6f-i Alfred Do Sean Croagh 4a-d Casey 5a,b Do Terence Garraunboy 1a-e, Mc 2a,31-d Sweeney

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 22 of 72 Limerick County Council

APPENDIX III

1.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The Environmental Impact Statement is in 3 documents as follows:- • Volume 1 Non Technical Summary • Volume 2 Main Document (Volumes 1 and 2 are in the one document) • Volume 3 Drawings • Volume 4 Appendices

Start here ----there may be duplication with the first few lines of the tape

APPENDIX III

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The EIS is in 4 volumes namely:-

• Volume 1 - Non-Technical Summary • Volume 2 - Main volume presenting the findings and conclusions and the likely significant impacts and effects on the receiving environment • Volume 3 - Figures and drawings that support Volume 2 • Volume 4 - Appendices which provide information in the form of technical data and survey reports.

The contents of Volume 2 are described below.

1.0 Introduction – (EIS Volume 2, Chapter 1, 1-5 pages)

The EIS was prepared by Jacobs on behalf of Limerick County Council. It notes the location of the proposed road development has been shown on Figure 1.1 of Volume 3 of the EIS.

Giving a background, it states that congestion had deteriorated over recent years on the N21 passing through Adare. It states the objectives of the proposed road development include the removal of a bottleneck on the national primary road network, improving journey time reliability, safety, diverting through-traffic from the town centre and improving the local environment for residents, commercial businesses and tourism.

It notes that the Adare bypass was included in the National Road Needs Study (NRNS) from 1998.

The EIS refers to the National Development Plan 2007-2013 which sought to achieve the objectives set out in relation to national roads in both the National Spatial Strategy ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 2 of 72 Limerick County Council

and Transport 21. It notes that the NDP provided for investment in transport infrastructure over the Plan period of €33 billion of which €13.3 billion would be invested in upgrading and building new national roads. It states the construction of the scheme would accord with the key objectives of the Plan. It states that the N21 is identified as a strategic linking corridor in Transport 21 and that it linked the Atlantic corridor as defined within the Atlantic Gateway Initiative of September 2006.

Dealing with regional policy it states that the Planning Guidelines of 2004 covers a period corresponding with the NSS to 2020. It reverses Section 5 of the RSPG and states that the N21 Limerick – Tralee road by implication is identified for upgrade.

Referring to the County Development Plan 2005-2011 the policies are outlined in relation to transportation and a reference is made to Chapter 8 of the CDP which includes the specific objective in relation to the N21 Adare bypass as follows “design, reserve land for and commence construction of a bypass of Adare on a route to the south of Adare to connect with the proposed M20 Cork – Limerick project at a location to the south of Adare as resources become available”.

In section 1.4 it notes that the requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement arises from the construction of approximately 8.6 kilometres of a new road providing four lanes, in a rural area.

The makeup of the assessment team and the EIS are outlined together with a list of documentation to which regard was given namely:-

• NRA – DMRB • NRA Manual of Contract Documents for Road Works • EPA Guidelines on information to be included in the EIS • Advice notes on current practice – EPA 2003 • NRA Project Management Guidelines, 2000 • NRA Environmental Planning and Construction Guidelines.

2.0 Background to the Proposed Road Development – (Chapter 2, Volume 2 EIS, Pages 6-10)

The EIS notes that Adare is located 16 kilometres south-west of Limerick City on the N21 national primary route and refers to Figure 1.2 in Volume 3 showing the existing N21 and associated side roads in the vicinity of the proposed road development.

It states that the current traffic is approximately 16,000 vehicles per day. It notes the N21 also forms part of the main route used by traffic travelling between Galway/Sligo and Kerry. It states the width of the existing road is generally between 6.5 and 10 metres and hard shoulders vary between 0 and 3 metres.

It states that with the exception of a mini roundabout where the L-1420 meets the N21 within Adare and also a recently constructed signalised priority junction within Adare, all junctions on the section of the route are simple at grade un-signalised priority junctions with either stop or yield to controls. It notes that between Garraunboy and ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 24 of 72 Limerick County Council

Monearla there are 57 private accesses and 22 field accesses outside the 50kph speed limit zone.

In Section 2.1.6 – 2.1.11 there is a detailed description of the existing route and it notes particularly the deficiency in alignment. These sections are from Garraunboy to Murphy’s Cross, Murphy’s Cross to Adare and Adare to Gurteen. It notes that on the western approach to the N20/21 Interchange at Attyflin, the cross-section of the road widens from the wide single carriageway to a dual-carriageway. It notes the Adare- Limerick scheme was completed in 2001.

Section 2.2 describes the existing traffic and operational conditions and notes that accident occurrences at road junctions account for 42% of all accidents on the existing N21 and 50% of the fatal accidents. It says by way of summary that the factors that combine adversely to affect the existing traffic and operational conditions are:-

• Low standard of vertical and horizontal alignment • High volumes of traffic • Effects of routine maintenance • Junctions and accesses to roadside facilities.

Section 2.3 describes consultation prior to the statutory EIA process. It notes the first public consultation was in November 2004 and this was to seek feedback from the public on the constraints study and to obtain public reaction to the four route corridor options under consideration at the time. It states that in March 2005 a public display was held at the Dunraven Arms Hotel and that there were a number of meetings held with the affected landowners throughout the development of the preferred route option in 2005. It states that scheme did not proceed through the statutory EIA and CPO processes.

It states that following a decision to review the route selection process due to changes in infrastructural policy and related issues described elsewhere in the EIS, further public consultations were undertaken in 2009. It refers to a public consultation in April 2009 which outlined the reasons for the reassessment of route options.

It states that following consultation, further assessment of the route options was undertaken and in May 2009 a public display was held at the Dunraven Arms Hotel. It states that the input received concentrated on congestion and safety with the potential for disruption during construction. It states also there was strong public feeling registered on the impact on the environment and the potential effects on the landscape.

3.0 Description of the Scheme – (Chapter 3, Volume 2, EIS Pages 11-16)

It notes the bypass would commence at the improved section of the N21 Croagh – Adare Scheme west of Adare and would link to the proposed M20. This is detailed in Figures 2.1 – 2.11 in Volume 3 of the EIS.

It states that the scheme could be considered in three sections:-

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 25 of 72 Limerick County Council

• End of Croagh Adare Scheme to the R519 Ballingarry Road – route running south crossing the Greanagh River before swinging south-east • R519 Ballingarry Road to the River Meg – turns north-east before crossing the River Meg • The River Meg to the proposed M20 Cork – Limerick motorway scheme – route turning eastwards crossing the L-1420 before turning north-east through the townland of Fanningstown and joining the proposed M20 north of Croom.

Traffic levels are described in Section 3.3 and Table 3.1 indicates that the 2009 estimates for AADT were 12,500 west of Adare and 16,000 east of Adare with HGV between 6 and 8%.

It lists in Table 3.2 the estimated future year AADT volumes for 2015 and 2030 and this indicates in the year 2015 that there would be 8,200 AADT through Adare with 10,500 on the bypass. It lists off-peak journey time savings of approximately 1 minute with peak journey times saving between 2 and 8 minutes.

Section 3.4 describes the carriageway provision and notes that a Type 2 dual- carriageway was chosen with verges of 3 metres, hard strips of 0.5 metres, 2 no. 7.0 metre carriageways and a central reserve of 1.5 metres. It notes the scheme was designed to a 100kph speed in accordance with the NRA – DMRB design standards.

Section 3.5 is entitled “detailed scheme description” and it notes that the start point is on the existing N21 at Coffey’s Cross and it notes that a bridge would be provided to allow the proposed N21 to cross the existing regional road after the crossing of the Greanagh River.

From the R519 Ballingarry Road to the Meg River, it notes that the route crosses minor watercourses before the crossing of the River Meg. From the River Meg to the proposed motorway, it notes that a bridge would be provided to allow the proposed N21 to cross the existing local road.

Section 3.6 refers to the physical characteristics of side roads and structures noting that the Greanagh River and several minor watercourses would be culverted below the route and a number of farm accommodation structures would be provided along the route to provide access to severed lands. Table 3.2 gives a list of major structures proposed as part of the N21 Adare bypass and there are 15 structures listed including the River Meg Bridge, the crossing of the Greanagh River, Millrace culvert, Croom Road and a number of accommodation structures.

Section 3.7 gives a more detailed description of the River Meg crossing which states that the structure spans the river between the townlands of Derryvinnane and Castleroberts and the structure crosses on a skew. It notes that consultation had been undertaken with the OPW. It states that any further development of the design such as identifying the method of construction would be undertaken by the design and build contractor and would be subject to mitigation measures contained in the EIS and any further measures or amendments in any approval as may be granted. It states the

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 26 of 72 Limerick County Council

proposed mitigation measures include appropriate consultation with relevant statutory bodies such as the NPWS, OPW and Inland Fisheries Ireland.

4.0 Outline of Alternative Routes Considered – (Volume 2 EIS, Chapter 4, Pages 17- 22)

Section 4.1 describes the initial assessment of route options and refers to the original route corridor selection report of March 2005. The 2005 route chosen was known as the black route and was to the north and west of Adare.

In Section 4.2 it notes that in the intervening years, changes in infrastructure policies occurred in the development of the strategic national road network. Following the publication of Transport 21 and the establishment of the Atlantic Road corridor an emerging preferred route corridor for the proposed M20 Cork – Limerick motorway scheme was announced in October 2008.

The EIS notes that the proximity of the proposed M20 necessitated a review of the N21 Adare bypass route. It states that the possibility was raised that a revised southern bypass route would offer additional benefits not previously taken account of in the earlier studies. It notes that initially a number of southern options had been reviewed and discounted on various engineering, environmental and economic grounds. It states that a green route was identified that ran to the south of Adare and tied into the existing N20 approximately 3 kilometres south of the N20/21 Attyflin junction.

It states that following the announcement of the M20 route, some of the conditions for discounting the southern option routes were no longer applicable. As a result a revised route selection process with four corridors was considered:-

• Option 1 – Black route included in the original route selection process from 2005 • Option 2 – Green route discounted from the original route selection process due to the requirement to upgrade the existing N20 • Option 3 – A new red route not included in the original route selection process • Option 4 – A new blue route not included in the original route selection process.

The EIS describes the route of the four options and the assessment conclusion was given in Section 4.3. It states that on environmental and engineering grounds, Option 4 was clearly preferred and it was also the most economic option.

In relation to environmental impacts the comparative impacts associated with each corridor are summarised in the EIS as follows:-

• Archaeological resource – Option 3 preferred over Options 4, 2 and 1 • Architectural heritage – Option 4 preferred over Options 1-2 and 3 • Ecology – Lower River Shannon cSAC is impacted by Option 1 and Option 2 and 3 have direct impacts on the Adare Manner woodlands and pNHA woodland areas. – Option 4 is preferred ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 27 of 72 Limerick County Council

• Water quality – River Meg and Greanagh are crossed by all route options but Options 2, 3 and 4 cross the River Meg outside the boundaries of the Lower River Shannon cSAC. It states that Option 2 and 3 perform better than Option 4 as there is no impact on the Adare water supply abstraction point located downstream of the Option 4 crossing point. • Air quality – Option 4 preferred • Traffic noise and vibration – Option 4 • Landtake in compensation – Option 2 chosen over Options 1 and 3 with Option 4 requiring considerably more land. • Agricultural severance – Option 2 preferred over Options 4, 1 and 3. • Land use Option 4 – least impact • Economic activity – all route options would have a beneficial and similar impact but Option 1 would be slightly preferred as it runs closer to Adare • Tourism - all options have a similar effect and Option 1 preferred over Option 4. • Landscape and visual – Option 4 chosen over Options 1-2 and 3. • Community effects – Option 4 is the more favoured option. • Soils and geology – little difference with Option 2 preferred followed by Options 3, 4 and 1. • Hydrogeology – order of preference is Options 2, 4, 3, 1.

Taking into account the balance of the environmental factors, the EIS states that Option 4 was identified as the optimum route corridor in terms of environmental impacts and was taken as the emerging preferred route.

Section 4.4 examines a do a minimum option and refers to a deteriorating situation in relation to congestion and the do minimum option would not meet any of the scheme objectives and as such it was rejected.

5.0 Community – (Volume 2 EIS, Chapter 5, Pages 23-55)

Section 5.1 refers to human beings and material assets and states that the impacts relate to direct physical impacts of the construction work and impacts on quality of life arising from change to traffic flows, as well as social severance. It describes the existing environment and the methodology used with reference to the key published reports and consultations undertaken.

It describes the demographic and economic characteristics and notes that the population of both the Adare north and south DEDs declined between 2002 and 2006 and the population in the town were 982 in 2006 which was a decrease of 6% from 2002. It states the Local Area Plan published in January 2009 anticipated long-term growth of 4% per annum to 2028.

The EIS states that in 2002, nearly 20% worked in the services and sales sectors and 10% were employed in manufacturing in each DED. It noted the dependence on the City of Limerick for employment.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 28 of 72 Limerick County Council

Referring to the town of Adare, the EIS states that it is nationally recognised tourism attraction. It states the existing retail businesses in Adare comprise a number of small retail units along the main street and that the retail provision in Adare is limited due to the proximity of Limerick City and the surrounding suburban shopping centres. It notes there are three hotels and a number of bars, pubs and restaurants in the town.

The Limerick County Development Plan and the Adare Local Area Plan has a policy of encouraging retail development. It notes that because of the proximity of Limerick City and the large business parks, larger industries have not located to Adare. The EIS describes the community services and the sports clubs and notes that while there are four primary schools in the town, there is no second level educational facility.

The EIS describes the various church buildings and the Franciscan Friary, (in ruins) which is a historical and religious building.

The EIS refers to the land use and housing and states that the local area plan notes that the area is primarily rural and exhibits broadly flat or gently undulating lowland with local high points. It states that to cater for the projected population growth over the next 20 years, the local area plan of 2002 zoned 63 hectares and the local area plan of 2009 zoned an additional 33 hectares . It states the largest commercial landholding in the area is the equestrian centre at Clonshire and the Adare Manor Estate.

The EIS describes the Limerick-Foynes Railway Line and states there is currently no use of the line. It states the railway is considered an important land use within the local area.

The EIS describes tourism and notes tourism statistics which estimate that 800,000 visitors pass through the town annually.

Tables 5.1 and 5.2 on Page 29 give the summary of existing land use and economic activity on the N21 and a summary of existing land use and economic activity on the proposed scheme route.

Tables 5.3 and 5.4 give details of land use and economic activity relating to the N21 on the town of Adare for commercial premises and for private residences directly fronting or within 20 metres of the existing N21.

Section 5.1.3 describes impacts. It divides the impacts into construction phase impacts, impact on residential amenity on the N21 and the proposed road development, social severance, commercial impact and sustainable development issues. It states that classification is based on the EPA Guidelines of 2002.

In relation to construction phase impacts, it states that people using existing roads in the vicinity of the proposed road development will be affected by traffic management restrictions. It states that impacts were likely to affect pedestrians and local residents alike. It notes that there are no residential properties to be demolished by the proposed road development.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 29 of 72 Limerick County Council

In relation to operational phase impacts, Table 5.5 and 5.6 analyses the expected significant impacts on human beings and material assets on a segment – by – segment basis. Each table lists the segment on column 1, the impact on human beings in column 2 and the impacts on material assets on column 3. For the N21, the impact on human beings is listed generally as being improved residential amenity and for material assets, note is made of businesses which would suffer from loss of passing trade. For the proposed road development, the impacts on human beings referred to a number of instances of moderate to high decline in residential amenity. In relation to material assets, impacts are noted as being moderate in some cases on agricultural properties. Impact on self-catering holiday accommodation is noted as being moderate on the amenity due to changes in the surrounding environs.

On Page 37, the EIS refers to access on social severance. The EIS states that in general measures to mitigate the impacts of severance on local roads have been incorporated into the plans and that bridges for the local roads will have a kerbed footpath to facilitate the safe movement of pedestrians. It states that the current amenity for pedestrians on the N21 is poor. It states there are safety implications as all crossings of the existing N21 are made at-grade with the hazards of crossing a busy road. It states there are no locally recognised walking routes crossing the N21 through the area. It also notes that footpath provision on the N21 is only within the town centre and on the Rathkeale Road.

It states the existing N21 results in community severance and that the proposed road development will remove through-traffic from Adare and result in a more pleasant and safer environment along the existing N21 for pedestrians, cyclists and other non- vehicular road users. It states that access affects community severance and that in the proposed road development a number of farm access tracks would be severed and it notes a small area of woodland to the south of Derryvinnane at chainage 5+000 would be crossed.

It states the general impact on the town of Adare would be to remove heavy goods vehicles from residential areas and reduce traffic by approximately two-thirds of what it would be otherwise in 2025.

In relation to impacts on the local economy, business, tourism and development it states that removing traffic would have a positive effect on enhancing safety and convenience for visitors and would act as a potential catalyst for the development of further tourist facilities.

The EIS states that a diversion of city traffic away from the service area of Adare has the potential to impact on the commercial activities situated along the existing N21. It states a significant number of the commercial activities in Adare are tourist related and the reputation of the town is built on its picturesque character and rural ambience as well as the historic attractions and tourism facilities of the centre. It states that overall the proposed road development is likely to have a beneficial impact on the local economy by improving the shopping and working environment within the town.

A survey was carried out of the expected commercial impacts in Adare in 2005/2006 and this is shown in Table 5.7. This notes that 77% of the establishments said that ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 0 of 72 Limerick County Council

nearly all the customers who said they were just passing through had done so intentionally. It states that there was a feeling among the traders that although Adare is often not a final destination, it was a planned, rather than the impulse stop. The survey showed that 43% predicted an increase in trade as a bypass with 14% predicting a decrease in trade. The EIS states that it is uncommon for a high proportion of traders to forecast an increase in trade.

The EIS refers to the contribution to urban renewal and states that the road development would facilitate the process of urban renewal. It states that the road development would fortify sustainable development policies for the county of Limerick.

The EIS discusses the do-nothing impact and predicts a continued reduction in residential amenity, traffic congestion, risk of accidents and the compromising of sustainable development objectives.

In accordance with the NRA guidance a worst-case scenario is if the road scheme was implemented and operated under worst-case traffic conditions.

In relation to indirect impacts, the EIS states that with regard to the scheme, a balance must be struck between removing unwanted traffic from the town centre, where serious congestion occurs particularly during the summer months, and retaining the possibility of business from passing trade. It refers to the pattern of residential development within Adare and notes that de-classification of an existing national primary route can result in increased development pressure. It states that the policies of the Limerick County Development Plan and the Adare Local Area Plan are considered sufficient to control those developments.

The EIS states that accessibility of Limerick from settlements west of Adare would be increased, with a resultant increase in shopping trips to Limerick and Adare.

On Page 44 mitigation is described which involves appropriate signage with particular reference to tourism signage. It states that to avoid social severance, the proposed road development had been developed to maintain accesses to properties and farmlands to avoid social severance.

It states that direct individual residential and commercial property impacts would be as set out in Table 5.6. The conclusion is that the proposed road development is intended to fulfil the requirements of all of the policy documents in terms of EU, national, regional and local development. It states that in the long-term, it is envisaged that the proposed road development would facilitate the expansion of the tourist/retail/industrial sectors in Adare with the consequent enhanced accessibility of the town. The impact on amenity is predicted to be positive. It states that tourism would be likely to experience the greatest positive impact and traffic reduction would facilitate the process of urban renewal. It states that the local positive impacts would likely outweigh the possible initial fall in business predicted by some traders. It states that B&B establishments, depending on signage would be the most likely to be negatively impacted.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age of 72 Limerick County Council

The EIS states that there are 97 occupied houses fronting directly onto, or within 20 metres of routes that will be relieved of traffic by the proposed road development. It represents a larger number of residents benefitting from the reduction in traffic than those being impacted by the proposed road development which would amount to approximately 12 properties. It states that overall there would be a net increase in residential amenity.

Dealing with agronomy, the EIS describes the existing environment beginning on Page 48. It states that Farm Business Advisors Limited were commissioned to undertake an agronomy assessment which was carried out in June 2009. It notes there were 25 landowners who would be impacted by the proposed road development. It notes that 23 landowners were visited and assessed and the representative of one landowner allowed a farm visit and one landowner did not agree to facilitate an agronomy assessment and farm visit. It refers to Appendix 5.2 in Volume 4 for details of impacts.

The receiving environment described that approximately 886 hectares is the total area of the 25 agricultural holdings. It states that most of the acquisitions are greater than 0.4 hectares. Of the land to be acquired, in the majority of cases the area is less than 10% of the holding. It states the land is all free-draining and almost all of the affected agricultural land is good quality with the vast majority or 97% of the lands proposed to be acquired being good quality land.

It states that the farm enterprises are predominantly based on grassland with a small share of tillage. Table 5.8 gives the total area of impacted land used and lists the enterprises of cattle, dairying, and suckling, fodder production for sale, horses, tillage and sheep. It states that most of the land owners are full time farmers and 32% are participating in the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS).

The EIS states that the construction phase would inevitably cause disturbance to the agronomy of the area and in relation to operational phase impacts, a profound impact is predicted on one holding with a significant impact on seven of the 13 high intensive agricultural holdings before mitigation. Table 5.9 sets out the predicted impact of severance before mitigation which it states it arise in 12 of the 25 impacted holdings. It states a do-nothing scenario would have a slight negative impact on the agronomy of the area.

Indirect impacts are referred to which note the reduction in traffic congestion in the Adare Area. It states the cumulative impacts on the agronomy as a result of land loss, severance, disturbance, noise and dust emissions are considered moderate negative. It states that compensation, farm accommodation works and other mitigation measures proposed would minimise negative impacts.

In relation to mitigation, it states that landowners would be provided with accesses to severed or separated lands wherever it is reasonably feasible to do so. In relation to the operational phase, it states that permanent access is provided to retain severed lands where practical and in the majority of cases alternative accesses would be in the form of new service roadways. It notes that a small number of holdings have installed

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 2 of 72 Limerick County Council

artificial drainage systems and where such systems are impacted an alternative system may be put in place or the existing system restored.

On Page 53 the EIS refers to residual impacts and states that mitigation measures would generally have beneficial effects on the impacted land blocks and would facilitate the continuing operation of the holdings. It states the proposed mitigation would reduce the impact on the scheme on the 25 impacted holdings. It states the predicted impact of severance/injurious affliction after mitigation is summarised in Table 5.10. This table gives predicted impacts of significant in eight cases, moderate in six, slight in 11 and in none profound.

The conclusion is that the proposed road development passes through a wood farming area but would only have a moderate impact on its agronomy.

6.0 Ecology: - (Chapter 6, EIS Volume 2, Pages 55 – 125)

6.1 Terrestrial Ecology

The EIS states that follows the EPA guidelines from 2002 and in relation to methodology, a desk study was carried out to collate the available information and used a number of sources including constraints and route corridor selection reports from 2004, bat season assessment report 2006, survey of large mammal activity of 2006, the route selection report of 2009, information from the National Bio-Diversity Centre, Butterfly Ireland, Bees of Ireland, the Irish Deer Society and information provided by John Lusby of Bird Watch Ireland. It states that to obtain relevant unpublished records a number of other organisations were consulted including Badger Watch Ireland, Biology Ireland, the NPWS, Central Fisheries Board, the Heritage Council, the EPA and An Taisce.

A multi-disciplinary walkover survey looked at an area of approximately 450 metres either side of the proposed road development and it notes that figures 6.3 – 6.5 in Volume 3 show the results of the habitat surveys.

The specific surveys are referred to as follows: -

• Bat survey – previous surveys were reviewed and the bat survey included an assessment of trees along the proposed route and also buildings, structures, bridges and treelines. Table 6.1 sets out the roost potential levels and the qualifying characteristics. Table 6.2 gives a categorisation of potential tree roosts. It states that bat surveys tend to under-record species with weak echo location calls, such as brown long-eared bats. It states the limitations were addressed in the ecological impact assessment.

It states that otter surveys took place in June 2009 under ideal conditions during a mainly dry spell. It states the survey comprised two kilometres upstream and two kilometres downstream on the River Maigue and were less extensive due to access issues on the River Greanagh and the tributary of the Maigue.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age of 72 Limerick County Council

In relation to breeding birds, it states a line transect methodology was employed and the route is shown on Figure 6.12 – 6.14 in Volume 3 and incorporates a study area of 200 metres either side of the proposed road development footprint. It notes that a standard limitation to breeding bird surveys is that certain species and groups of birds are not effectively surveyed by that method and therefore may not have been recorded, although they could be present within the survey area.

On Page 62 the EIS refers to designated conservation areas and notes that a total of nine proposed Natural Heritage Areas (pNHA) are located within a 10-kilometre radius of the proposed route alignment. The nine sites are indicated in Table 6.3 and include the Lower River Shannon SAC, Tory Hill, Curraghchase Woods, Askeaton Fen Complex, River Shannon and Fergus Estuaries, Adare Woodlands, Gorteen. Amrock, Ballinbirick Marsh, Cappagh Fen and Ballymorrisheen Fen. It notes that sections of the Adare Woodlands pNHA are located at the western end of the proposed road development and separated from the route by the existing N21, a local road and the River Greanagh. It states the route does not pass through any SAC, SPA or pNHA and no impacts had been identified for any of those designated areas.

In relation to flora, the EIS states that the triangular club rush and meadow barley which are afforded protection under the Flora Protection Order, 1999 exist north of the study area but there are no records of either species in the vicinity of the proposed road development and they were not observed. It states that all habitats in the vicinity of the proposed road development are described and shown in Figure 6.15 – 6.26 in Volume 3. Table 6.4 summarises the area of habitat identified in the survey corridor. Table 6.4 gives the approximate hectares of each habitat found in the survey corridor and lists 18 habitats, 11 of which are less than nine hectares and the main habitats are improved grassland (919) tilled land (30), wet grassland (24), arable crops (15), mixed broadleaved/conifer woodland (16), mixed broadleaved woodland (10) and depositing lowland river (9).

The EIS describes the habitats with the classifications as per Fossitt 2000 and notes that dry meadows and grassy verge (GS2) occur in a small area of 0.5 hectares in the grounds of Garraunboy Castle and comprise a relatively diverse grassland strip with few agricultural but tall, rank grasses. It states that 13 small areas of mixed broadleaved woodland (WD1) were recorded within the study corridor. It also notes that single small area of 0.23 hectares of wet willow-alder-ash woodland was recorded and located south of Castleroberts Bridge. It states that this is a linear habitat that followed what previously would have been drainage ditch.

In relation to hedgerows, (WL1), Table 6.5 gives a summary of the data which notes that 207 kilometres of hedgerow is in good condition with 75 kilometres length in average condition. It also lists the lengths of treelines and stone walls in the study area.

In relation to the terrestrial environment survey limitation, the EIS states that at the time of the survey in May 2009, the area had undergone prolonged periods of persistent rain resulting in water logged habitats throughout the survey corridor.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 4 of 72 Limerick County Council

Table 6.6 lists the protected species and the protection afforded under the Habitats Directive and the Wildlife Act. These include the otter, brown long-eared bat, Leisler’s Bat, the pipistrelle and Lessor Horseshoe Bat, badger, red squirrel and the White Clawed Crayfish.

Page 71 describes fauna and commences with badgers, stating that evidence of badgers was recorded as part of the walkover survey in May 2009. The survey was carried out in accordance with the NRA Guidelines. It states no active badger sets were found within the study area but two inactive out-layer sets were identified, one near Finiterstown approximately 350 metres south of the proposed road development and the other at chainage 3+670 within the land take. It states that due to the locations of the records, it was considered that two distinct badger groups were involved and it was noted that due to the heavy waterlogging of the study area at the time of the survey, large areas were considered to be unsuitable for badgers.

The EIS identifies six suitable badger habitat areas and states that while these occur within the survey area, they were infrequently used by badger groups.

The EIS states that otters are legally protected species under Annex II and IV of the Habitats Directive and have been protected in Ireland since 1976 under the Wildlife Act. It notes that otters are one of the species for which the lower River Shannon SAC is designated and otters are known to be present within the Maigue Valley. It states that the otter surveys sought to identify habitats of otters lying within 10 metres of the watercourse, but where signs were abundant, the survey was extended to include adjacent habitats. It refers to Figure 6.6 to 6.8 in Volume 3 of the EIS. It refers to otter field signs in the survey of May 2009 which was a potential otter slide and pathway at Beabus Woodland and an otter observed near the Greanagh River to the north of the existing N21.

The survey indicated four potential holt/couch locations along the River Maigue and this showed the highest density of otter field signs in the June 2009 survey. In relation to the River Greanagh, the survey would indicate the watercourse being used by otters and as such it states that watercourses thought to be of low – medium value to otters.

On Page 74 the EIS refers to bats and notes that all bat species in Ireland are protected under the Habitats Directive, and listed under Annex IV. It states the proposed route is within the known range of the lessor horseshoe bat it refers to a 1997 survey of West Limerick which identified several roosts of lesser horseshoe and other bat species in the general area of Adare Town but no roosts were identified within the proposed land take.

The NPWS and the 2006 Natura Study identified eight species of bats in the area and notes that the common and Soprano pipistrelle, Daubenton’s and possibly Natterer’s bats were confirmed to forage in the area of the proposed route in 2009.

The 2006 bat surveys found 18 bat roosts in the Adare/West Limerick area and Table 6.7 gives the details of relevant roosts for the current route. These gave building references of W137, W140, W5. ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 5 of 72 Limerick County Council

Table 6.8 in the EIS gives data obtained from Mr. Conor Kelleher of the County Cork Bat Group and this gives the details of 26 sites with a grid reference and a comment in relation to the bat species. The table refers to bat roosts within five kilometres of the proposed road development.

On Page 77, the EIS refers to bat buildings and refers further to Appendix 6.1.5 in Volume 4 of the EIS. It states in total 32 building roosts were identified with the common pipistrelle, brown long-eared and natterer’s bats being identified. It states three of the 32 roosts identified were likely to be maternity roosts. It states a total of 92 individual or small groups of trees with features conferring potential for use as bat roosts were found throughout the survey area and reference is made to Figure 6.9 – 6.11 in Appendix 3. It states a total of five transects were surveyed and the details of this survey are given in Table 6.9 which gives the transect number, habitat description, species recorded and the activity noted. It states that in addition to the walked activity transects a number of remote recording bat detectors were deployed and the results of those surveys are in Table 6.10 which gives the date, feature and location, the species recorded, the number of bat passes and the bat activity index. It notes that the bat activity index was calculated by dividing the total number of bat passes by the survey effort, i.e. number of hours and then multiplying the result by 100 to allow easy comparison.

The EIS states that in December 2009 Bat Survey, 56 of the total 268 buildings assigned bat potential rating were considered to have medium to high potential for supporting hibernating bats and were surveyed. It states no lesser horseshoe bats were identified or recorded.

Page 82 of the EIS refers to breeding birds and notes that a total of 43 different species were recorded with Table 6.11 listing the birds of high importance, namely the peregrine for which an incidental record of a peregrine was taken in transect 2 and the Red Shank where one Red Shank was recorded on the River Maigue. It notes the Red Shank was likely to be foraging in the area and may be breeding in wet grassland nearby.

The EIS states the complete results for each transect are set out in Appendix 6.1 of Volume IV of the EIS. It states the study area is composed primarily of a mosaic of improved agricultural grassland with wet grassland and hedgerows. It states the habitats of greatest importance to breeding birds including broad-leaved semi-natural woodland, hedgerows, wet grassland, watercourses and the riparian borders along the River Maigue.

The EIS considers terrestrial ecology evaluation and notes that the areas of wet grassland (GS4) provided additional grassland habitat that has the potential to support a more species-diverse community. Dealing with environmental impacts, it states that the EPA and NRA Guidelines are followed and it describes construction phase impacts. In relation to designated conservation areas, it notes that the lower River Shannon cSAC is approximately four kilometres north of the proposed crossing point of the River Maigue and could potentially be impacted upon by siltation and any pollution caused, especially by the construction of the bridge over the Maigue. It ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 6 of 72 Limerick County Council

states that Appendix 6.1.7 has a Findings of No Significant Effects Report (FONSE) with reference to Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. It states this concludes there are no significant impacts identified prior to mitigation in relation to the flora of the River Shannon cSAC.

In relation to non-designated areas, it notes that for site compounds consultation would be required in relation to additional land and it states that there would be minor to moderate temporary negative impacts on fauna along the entire proposed road development during the construction stage.

During the operational phase, it states that no designated nature conservation sites would be affected and in relation to the terrestrial environment, it states the habitats most vulnerable are wet grasslands, woodlands and hedgerows. It states the construction of the road would result in the removal of hedgerows and treelines within the proposed road development boundary. It states the total length of hedgerow and treeline to be lost would be approximately 4.6 kilometres and 1.2 kilometres respectively and this would constitute a moderate negative impact overall. It states that a replacement planting would help to offset the impact. It states that losses of habitats such as improved grasslands and drainage ditches have a neutral impact.

The EIS states in relation to fauna that there would be negative impacts as a result of the proposed road because of disturbance, loss and fragmentation of areas of suitable habitats, severance of territories and isolation of populations.

On Page 86 the EIS refers to large mammals and states that assuming no new otter holts are established prior to construction, the impact on otters has been assessed as neutral.

In relation to bats, the key impacts would arise with the loss of roosts, loss of feeding areas and commuting routes. It states watercourses would not be significantly impacted and bats were likely to continue using them with the main impact being through the loss of hedgerows and treelines along the route.

The EIS states that about eight groups of trees with potential for bat roosts were recorded within the proposed road development land take.

It states that birds would be negatively impacted by the loss of feeding and nesting habitat and potentially by increased disturbance. It states that the loss of hedgerows, treelines and stone walls are the most important part of the landscape as well as being important in their own right. They also provide habitat for a number of other species groups including the large mammals, bats, reptiles, birds and invertebrates. It states that overall the level of impact on birds would not be significant and would not require mitigation.

Referring to a worst-case scenario impact, the cumulative effects on terrestrial ecology are considered to be major negative without mitigation.

Section 6.1.5 describes mitigation and notes that for habitats, the working area would be defined by the erection of fencing to define the limits of site works. It states that ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 7 of 72 Limerick County Council

all woody vegetation would be afforded protection in line with the NRA Guidelines and landscape design would compensate over time for the loss of habitat, connect severed areas and offer opportunities for habitat creation.

In relation to mitigation for large mammals, the badger outlier sett is referred to and that any works would be carried out under licence from the NPWS. It states that badger fencing would be required to guide badgers to the relevant accommodation structure and in addition to specific mitigation, pre-construction surveys would be undertaken to confirm whether any new sets have become established since the baseline surveys were undertaken. It states that badger underpasses would be combined with proposed culverts greater than one metre in diameter by the incorporation of raised mammal ledges and that badger resistant fencing would be incorporated during the road construction, preferably during erection of the permanent fence–line. It states that gates entering into farm access roads would require concrete sills and mesh to exclude badgers from accessing the proposed road. It states that the accommodation underpasses and watercourse culvert structures allow for the passage of mammals to cross under the proposed road development and minimise therefore potential direct mortality.

Mitigation measures for otters would follow the guidelines for treatment of otters document from the NRA of 2005. It notes that otters use most of the watercourses and could utilise any of these watercourses which are crossed by the proposed road development and as such each of the culverts and bridges would incorporate provision for mammal passage. It states a mammal resistant fence in accordance with NRA Guidelines will be provided either side and up to 250 metres of the Rivers Greanagh and Maigue and the tributaries. It states a detailed pre-construction survey would check for any otter holts if 36 months or more has elapsed between obtaining statutory approval prior to construction of the development.

Mitigation for bats is as per the NRA Guidance document and any new roosts found would be notified to the NPWS locally.

Trees with bat potential which are to be removed would be felled in a period late August to early November to avoid any disturbance of any roosting bats. It states that a number of accommodation underpasses and watercourse culvert structures are proposed and those structures would also enable bats to fly under the proposed road development. It states that provision of lighting for road safety is limited to the junctions of the existing N21 to the west and the grade-separated junction with the proposed M20 to the east.

The EIS states that in relation to birds, the felling of trees and clearance of hedgerows would be avoided during the peak nesting season from March to July.

The EIS refers to operational phase mitigation for habitats and states that no specific measures are required for improved grassland. It states that direct mitigation is not possible where hedgerows and treelines cannot be avoided and to compensate for the loss of those habitats, new hedgerows, treelines and areas of woodlands would be planted in appropriate locations. It states that where practicable, topsoil and subsoil

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 8 of 72 Limerick County Council

from agricultural land-use would be identified on-site and stripped and stored separately.

In relation to non-legally protected fauna, the proposal is to retain as much semi- natural habitat as possible and to retain as far as possible, the network of ecological links and wildlife corridors.

Page 93 refers to residual impacts and states that through the implementation of mitigation, the residual impacts are likely to be neutral as the landscape connectivity would be retained in the long-term through replacement planting and safe under-road crossing points for mammals.

The conclusions of this section notes that the area is predominantly agricultural land with no designated conservation areas within the 250 metre study area. It states that based on the results of the 2009 bat surveys, the cSAC is unlikely to be affected by the proposed road development. It states the mitigation measures have been designed to avoid, reduce and compensate for the impacts of the proposed road development. It states the provision of landscape planting and safe mammal crossing points would retain the connectivity of the area for the mammals in particular. It states that the mitigation would reduce the levels of impact to minor negative in the short term and neutral once the landscape planting was established.

6.2 Aquatic Ecology

The introduction notes that the report was carried out in accordance with a number of advice notes and guidelines and refers to a desk study to collate available information with consultation with the relevant Fisheries Boards and the NPWS. It also consulted the NBDC (National Bio-Diversity Data Centre) to request available data for fisheries, macrophytes, macro-invertebrates, algae, diatoms, protected species and river habitats. It also notes consultation with the EPA where data records for watercourses namely the Greanagh, Clonshire and Maigue Rivers were available from regular surveys.

Referring to macro-invertebrates it refers to Volume 3 and Figure 6.27. Table 6.11 notes the 11 locations where macro-invertebrate and macrophytes were surveyed.

The Mean Trophic Risk (MTR) Survey Methodology for Macrophytes is explained as having a higher number for the lesser levels of degradation. It states that a score of zero will indicate elevated nutrient levels and score of 100 would indicate pristine and undisturbed conditions. Table 6.13 identifies the MTR survey locations with Site No. 8 being the River Maigue and Site No. 6 being an unnamed tributary of the Greanagh River.

On Page 99 physico-chemical parameters are discussed which include dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature and specific conductivity. It notes that the Rivers Maigue, Dunnaman and Greanagh are classified as depositing lowland rivers (FW2). It notes that none of the watercourses crossed by the proposed route have protected status. The Annex II Species of relevance to the proposed road development are the sea, river and brook lamprey, the Atlantic salmon and the freshwater pearl mussel. ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 9 of 72 Limerick County Council

With reference to biological assessment of water quality, it states this was assessed through the interpretation of data on freshwater macro invertebrates and macrophytes in watercourses along the proposed route. It was confirmed that the freshwater pearl mussel was not present in the area but that the duck mussel was recorded in all tributaries. It notes that the kick sample from the River Maigue on Site 8 contained 22 families or higher taxa with no Group A or sensitive taxa and small numbers of Group B which is less sensitive to organic pollution were present. It notes that the Group C are tolerant of organic pollution taxa were present in large numbers. The River Maigue sample is noted in Table 6.14 as being of Q2 – 3 which is between seriously polluted and polluted. The EIS similarly refers to other samples and notes that the Q value is lowest on a tributary of the Greanagh River while no location has a Q value of greater than 3-4.

Table 6.15 gives a list of the macro invertebrate families identified from samples collected in May 2009 and Table 6.16 gives the macrophyte mean trophic rank survey results which were highest for Site No. 2 which is a drainage ditch and lowest for Site No. 6 which is a tributary of the Greanagh River.

Table 6.17 gives the macrophyte species composition and the correlation with the EPA results is made on Page 105. Table 6.19 gives the in-situ water chemistry recordings for temperature pH, conductivity and dissolved oxygen. It notes that the results of the physico-chemical analyses for samples collected in 2005 showed there were no exceedences in any of the guideline limits. It notes suspended solids in the River Maigue in 2005 was 26mg/l and this was only slightly above the MAC value of 25mg/l for suspended solids.

On Page 107 the EIS describes fisheries and protected aquatic species and notes that the River Maigue was historically an important fishery river with angling for salmon and brown trout. It states that during 2009 fishing for salmon and sea trout was not permitted due to the conservation of salmon and sea trout by-law. It states this has been introduced to conserve fish stocks throughout Ireland. It notes that juvenile salmon would migrate downstream passed the proposed crossing point as smolts would spend their adult life feeding at sea and along the coast.

It notes three species of lamprey occur in Irish waters and there are records of unspecified lamprey in the upper reaches of the River Maigue from 1999.

It notes that the European Smelt is a species indigenous in Irish waters and though listed in the Irish Red Data Book is not afforded protection under the Wildlife Act of 2000.

In relation to the white-clawed crayfish, Table 26 gives records for four locations on the River Maigue provided by NBDC in May 2009 for white-clawed crayfish.

Dealing with other species, it notes the signs of otter activity were found along the River Greanagh and Maigue and there was anecdotal evidence that the freshwater pearl mussel used to be present but it has been many years since a live specimen has

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 40 of 72 Limerick County Council

been found in the River Maigue. Table 6.21 lists invasive species records within five kilometres of the study area, including water fern, giant hogweed and dace.

On Page 110 the evaluation of watercourses states that biological assessments of water quality carried out as part of the study indicate that the River Maigue and Greanagh have a Q index of 2-3 and 3-4 respectively and are therefore subject to pollution levels that are slight to moderate. It states the watercourses are known to support salmonids and may contain a number of species listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive.

Table 6.22 evaluates the Rivers Maigue, Dunaman and Greanagh under the column headings of watercourse and chainage, aquatic habitat, riparian habitat, fisheries value, presence of Annex II species and evaluation. The overall evaluation ranges between C which is high value and locally important for the Greanagh at Site 1 and the Maigue at Site 8 to a rating of E of low value and locally important for drainage ditches at chainage 1320 and 2255 and unnamed tributary of the Greanagh chainage 1055 and unnamed tributary at chainage 5400 and 6400.

Section 6.2.3 refers to environmental impacts and notes that the main potential contaminant during the construction phase would be suspended solids and a potential for spillages of construction materials and chemical substances. It states that construction of a bridge over the River Maigue could produce levels of noise and vibration that would be sufficient to disturb the behaviour and migration of salmonids. In relation to the crossing of watercourses other than the Maigue, Table 6.23 gives the proposed culvert locations on the seven other watercourse crossings and notes that impacts on white-clawed crayfish could arise from the installation of culverts in the watercourses.

In relation to operational phase impacts it notes the River Maigue Bridge would be set back a minimum of three metres from the riverbanks. It states culverts and realignments along the smaller watercourses would alter the level of habitat complexity provided by existing conditions. It states in the majority of cases, the introduction of culverts would lead to habitat fragmentation for fish and inhibit the free passage of invertebrates. It states the absence of bridge supports within the river channel would prevent damage or loss of habitat used by white-clawed crayfish. It states that along the extent of the proposed route, impacts during the operational phase would be concerned mainly with stormwater run-off from the road surface and the possibility of accidental spillages. It notes that in accordance with the UK-DMRB Volume 11, referring to water quality and drainage risk assessment of accidental spillage for proposed road development was undertaken based on the traffic projections for the year 2030. The assessment indicated that the risked posed of a serious pollution incident occurring is once in 140 years calculated for the proposed road development. It notes the DMRB suggests that all sensitive surface and groundwater should normally be protected such that the calculated risk of a pollution incident is less than once every 100 years. It states the calculated risk for accidental spillage on the proposed road development is lower and is not considered a significant risk. The EIS describes the do-nothing impact, the worst case scenario and indirect impacts. It states that with mitigation measures fully implemented, the ecological value and water quality of watercourses crossed by the proposed road development ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 4 of 72 Limerick County Council

would not be reduced. It states ecosystem function would not be significantly affected by the construction or operation of the proposed route south of Adare.

Section 6.2.4 deals with mitigation firstly in the construction phase and sets out methods and control measures for pollution prevention which include bunds, hydrocarbon and grit interceptors and control over construction activities. It states that bankside vegetation would be left intact where feasible and the diversion of the Greanagh at chainage 0+600 would be carried out prior to the removal of bankside vegetation. It states that replanting or rehabilitation of banksides would be carried out following grading of the banks and in-stream works would be carried out as per the NRA Guidelines of 2005. In relation to bridge and culvert design, the setback for the River Maigue Bridge is noted again as being three metres leaving a natural bank path on either side and it states the River Greanagh culvert would be designed to maintain some natural bank on both sides or provide ledges to allow for mammal passage. It states pre-construction surveys would be carried out to determine the presence of white-clawed crayfish in the vicinity of suitable watercourse crossing points. It states that if found at the site they would be salvaged and relocated under licence in accordance with the requirements of Inland Fisheries Ireland.

There would be time constraints in relation to in-stream works. It is stated that operation of machinery in-stream would be kept to a minimum and vehicles would be prevented from fording main watercourses by the provision of temporary bridges.

Page 124 refers to operational phase mitigation and notes the use of filter drains, carrier drains and ditches leading into attenuation systems. It states that the attenuation ponds would store the run-off, allow a degree of settlement to occur and control the discharge rate into the receiving environment. It states this would be via an oil/petrol interceptor provided between the carriageway drainage outfall and the attenuation pond within each drainage network. It states this would also serve to buffer any potential impacts of accidental spillage on the road from entering a watercourse, allow time to organise remedial measures.

On Page 125 it refers to discharge quality and it states the discharge would prevent deterioration of receiving watercourses through the release of excessive sediment or pollutants. It states there would remain a residual risk that pollution could have a negative impact on the Maigue and Greanagh Rivers as well as the Lower River Shannon cSAC. This would be if a severe pollution event occurred.

The conclusion of the section is that during the construction phase of the proposed bypass there would be potential negative impacts on watercourses from siltation and hydrocarbon pollution and a risk of impact from noise and vibrations effects on migratory fish and incubating eggs in the River Maigue and Greanagh Rivers. It states in the longer term operational phase the impact on watercourses would be lower than associated with the existing road as a result of the proposed drainage system reducing the risk of a pollution incident by providing emergency spillage capacity and treatment of road run-off.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 42 of 72 Limerick County Council

7.0 Geology, hydrology and hydrogeology – (EIS Volume II, Chapter 7, Pages 126- 174)

This section is divided into three parts with each part following the format of describing the methodology used, the receiving environment, the environmental impacts in both construction and operational phases and mitigation measures, followed by residual impacts.

7.1 Geology

The main texts used in the desk study were the soils of County Limerick Publication, Limerick Groundwater Protection Scheme, the GSI Geology of the Shannon Estuary and the Route Selection Reports of 2005 and 2009. It states consultations were undertaken with the GSI, Irish Peatland Conservation Council, Teagasc, OPW, Limerick County Council and the EPA.

It states that areas of rock outcropping located within the study area are at chainages 800, 3,700 and 7,800. It states that while much of the underlying rock is Waulsortian limestone, no known or recorded karst features were identified within the study area.

It states that the depth to bedrock is a critical factor in determining groundwater vulnerability and the area is underlain predominantly by grey-brown podzolics with areas of glazed soils and isolated brown earths to the south.

The overburden geology is described in Section 7.1.16 and the route is mostly underlain by glacial tills. It states that in the 2009 ground investigation topsoil was encountered at thicknesses of 100-600 millimetre and granular deposits were encountered at a number chainages between 1.1 and 4 metres below ground level. In relation to the bedrock geology, the GSI Geological Map indicates that the route is underlain by Waulsortian Limestones (WL). It states that dolomitisation was recorded in drill records obtained from the GSI. It notes that no identified areas of geological heritage have been recorded by the GSI within the route corridor. Section 7.1.25 refers to historic land use and it notes that sites identified at Fanningstown were former quarries and it notes that areas of made ground recorded in the area are primarily located around residences and farm buildings. It states no active mines, pits or quarries were identified but Boliden Tara Mines has held prospecting licences for areas crossed by the proposed route for a number of years.

Table 7.1 notes the soil and geology criteria for rating site attributes while Table 7.2 and 7.3 indicate definition of magnitude and assessment of significance criteria.

Construction phase impacts are described including the potential for contamination of soils and the removal of protective cover to underlying aquifers. It notes that the GSI, in response to a consultation letter for the route selection had requested that any significant bedrock cuttings created would be designed to remain visible as rock exposure rather than covered with soil and vegetation.

In the operational phase, it states that proper consideration of the potential karstic nature of the bedrock has been incorporated into the design and states this would ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 4 of 72 Limerick County Council

allow the construction of a route with negligible impact on either the road itself or any underlying subterranean drainage networks. It states there is a possible low impact on geology relating to the increase in exposed bedrock. It states no cumulative impacts are anticipated with regard to geology and soils.

Construction phase mitigation involves an environmental operating plan as per the NRA Guidelines (2007) and a Demolition Waste Management Plan. It states that the design would produce a surplus of approximately 110,000 m3 based on a total cut of 750,000 m 3 and a total fill requirement of 640,000 m 3. It states that the priorities would be to reuse materials where it meets the required specifications for road construction and topsoil would be reused as a growing medium for landscaping measures. It states where on-site reuse is not feasible than off-site reuse would be considered.

In relation to the operational phase, it states the removal of soils would have a low impact on soil resource and mitigation is not considered necessary. It states a sealed drainage system would be incorporated for the entire length of the proposed route and this would prevent the uncontrolled leakage of the main line carriageway drainage into the soils and bedrock which could cause pollution. It states it would also prevent the creation or widening of any karstic features within the underlying limestone.

It states that negligible residual impacts on the geology and soils are expected. It states the impact to the soils affected by the route proposals would be imperceptible.

7.2 Hydrology

The introduction to this section refers to the guidelines and advice notes followed and the desk study is stated to extend 250 metres beyond the land take boundary in line with NRA Guidance. The fluvial geomorphology is described on Page 139 and it notes that assessments are required as part of environmental impact assessments due to the EU Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD).

It states that ecological status is split into three elements namely biological, hydromorphological and supporting a physic-chemical factors. It refers to the Shannon International River Basin District Management plan of 2008 and the risk of compromising a WFD objectives as set out by this plan has been assessed in the impacts and conclusions sections of the EIS. It states that sampling locations were possible upstream and downstream of the proposed crossing points. It states, where that water samples were taken on 20 th May 2009 at the rivers as follows:-

• River Maigue at Chainage 6+150. • River Dunnaman – Chainage 4+930 • River Greanagh – Chainage 0+500.

The EIS states that the River Maigue is approximately 15-20 metres wide at the location of the proposed crossing. The river banks were stable and vegetated. It states that reed beds have formed along much of the channel margins which suggest

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 44 of 72 Limerick County Council

deposition of finer materials of low flows. It notes that the modifications on the Maigue include Castleroberts Bridge which is a four arch bridge with in-channel piers, concrete reinforcements are on the banks or islands and weirs downstream of Castleroberts Bridge and in the vicinity of the proposed crossing.

The Shannon RBMP of 2008 classes the Maigue as moderate ecological status and at risk of failing to achieve good ecological status by 2015. It notes that the River Maigue is a salmonid River with salmon and sea trout. The dry weather flow is given as 0.62 m 3/second, the 95 per centile at 1.09m 3/second and the mean annual flow of 12.6m 3/second. It states the OPW has no record of flow measurements for the River Greanagh or Dunnaman.

The EIS states the River Dunnaman is between 1 and 2 metres wide to the crossing point and is classed as moderate ecological status but probably at risk of failing to meet the objective of good ecological status by 2015 due to defuse pollution. It is not thought to be at risk for morphological alteration. The River Greanagh is between 0.5 and 2 metres wide.

Table 7.4 gives the flow measurements which indicate flow velocities in metres per second on 20 th May 2009 with figures between 0.28 and 0.74 metres per second.

The EIS states that the OPW flood map service indicates no flood plains within or adjacent to the proposed land take but a flooding event had occurred in the vicinity of Caherass approximately 250 metres south of the route and reference is made to figure 7.3 in Volume 3 to indicate the location.

In relation to water schemes, it states a large proportion of the Adare area is connected to the main County Council group water supply which is sourced from the River Maigue near the Castleroberts Bridge. The proposed road development intersects both the Council Group Water Scheme at Chainage 3+000 and a local Group Water Scheme at Chainage 7+400. It notes that the main areas left/un-serviced by these schemes are likely to have private water supplies such as wells.

The EIS states that a pumping station is located on the Council’s Group Water Scheme on L8022 near Derryvinne but is not directly impacted by the proposed road development. It states the reservoir for the scheme is located near Murphy’s Cross at a height of approximately 38 metres above ordnance datum.

It states there are no discharge or IPPC licence issued within a vicinity of the proposed road development and that water is abstracted from the River Maigue at the Castleroberts Bridge.

It states that the physio-chemical properties of water samples extracted from the Rivers were analysed for the purpose of establishing a baseline for existing levels of pollution typically associated with roads and basic parameters relating to nutrient enrichment. The results were shown in Table 7.5 which is on pages 146-148 of the EIS. It covers 11 sampling points for 36 different parameters. It notes some exceedances on some samples for certain parameters namely BOD, suspended solids, CO, NO 2 and diesel range organics. Measurements for conductivity, DO, ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 45 of 72 Limerick County Council

temperature, pH are shown in Table 7.6. Table 7.7 gives the watercourse sensitivity for the three rivers dealing with fluvial geomorphology.

Section 7.2.3 deals with environmental effects and the results of impacts are summarised in Volume 4 in Appendix 7.2.1. For construction phase impacts it lists the reduced stability of river banks involving erosion, sediment release and this also occurs from building structures on or adjacent to watercourses.

In the operational phase, a likely impact would be an increase in both the volume and rate of surface water discharge at certain locations. It states in the absence of a considerable pollution event, the impact on the Rivers Maigue and Greanagh would not be significant. It states specifically that no impacts had been identified for the water extraction point at Castleroberts Bridge.

The hydrological and geomorphological impact of culverts can also reduce the passage of mammals. Specific watercourse impacts are noted in Table 7.8 which gives potential impacts without mitigation on the three rivers. Section 7.2.4 deals with mitigation and lists the requirement for an environmental operating plan. It notes the requirement for monitoring and the following of the construction industry research and information association (CIRIA) and the NRA best practice Guidelines.

It notes there are a number of industry standards and well understood mitigation measures that would be implemented to reduce the impact of the construction phase. It includes the provision of exclusion zones and barriers, silt traps, avoidance of access roads adjacent to watercourses, limiting the use of temporary culverts and limiting the clearance of vegetation. Where operation at mitigation is required, it notes that watercourse realignments operated in the design may present an opportunity to improve local morphological conditions.

It describes the drainage design and states the preliminary drainage design solution comprises systems including kerbs and gullies and surface water channels. It states that the outfall locations have been divided into eight networks with each network having a distinct outfall point. It refers to Volume 4 and Appendix 7.2.2 for the outfall locations. Table 7.9 gives the outfall locations and of note is network I which is from Chainage 6+150 to 8+580 and discharging into the River Maigue.

The EIS refers to attenuation in water quality measures and states that the discharge rate will be limited to the 1 in 50 year flood flow for the equivalent green field catchment. It states that each attenuation pond will incorporate a noise/petrol interceptor before the pond. It states that Volume 3 on figure 7.7 shows the approximate locations of the attenuation ponds.

Residual impacts on fluvial geomorphology are stated to comprise the disturbance to bed and bank morphology and sediment regime. It states that the residual impacts associated with the proposed road development would be minimised if there is an adherence to the mitigation measures.

The conclusions of this section are that without mitigation there is a potentially high risk to the River Maigue. It states that with mitigation in place there would be no ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 46 of 72 Limerick County Council

significant impact on either the River Maigue or the lower Shannon cSAC. It states that as the watercourses are currently classed as moderate ecological status under the Water Framework Directive, there is a very low risk that the proposed road development will cause deterioration in the status of any watercourse.

7.3 Hydrogeology

The EIS describes the existing environment and notes that groundwater discharges to the River Maigue along its entire length. It states the main recharge area for groundwater is most likely to be high ground to the south of the proposed road development near Ballingarry. It states that groundwater levels are generally encountered at shallow depths along the route corridor and its refers to Volume 3, Figure 7.11 which indicates the water table and direction of flow in the area of the proposed road development (this may be figure 7.10 which is titled groundwater map and those water levels at various points along the route and indicates ground water flow at being inferred running towards the Maigue from both east and west).

It refers to Volume 4, Appendix 7.3.1 for an assessment of private water supplies within 150 metres of the proposed road development.

The EIS refers to aquifer classification and Table 7.10 gives GSI survey vulnerability categories. It states that the Waulsortian aquifer along the length of the route was classified as generally having a high to extreme vulnerability characterisation. (Reference is made to figure 7.10 in Volume 3 but it appears that figure 7.12 is the groundwater vulnerability map in Volume 3).

In relation to water supply, it notes that a large proportion of the Adare area is connected to the main Council water supply near Castleroberts Bridge which is approximately 550 metres downstream from the proposed crossing point of the River Maigue. It states that the source abstracts approximately 1,100 m 3/day (1.1 megalitres) and it states that the treatment works are located near the abstraction point and the associated reservoir is located at a height of approximately 39 metres above ordnance datum near Murphy’s Cross. (Figure 7.11 in Volume 3 of the EIS indicates the locations of water mains both public and group scheme).

It notes that many farms and small settlements rely on wells and springs. It refers to figure 7.12 in Volume 3 of the EIS for the location of the wells but this appears to be figure 7.11 which indicates the wells on which the location is confirmed and wells for which the locations are not confirmed).

Table 7.11 gives details of springs and wells located within 250 metres of the proposed route and 27 springs and wells are listed.

Section 7.3.2 describes environmental impacts and Table 7.12 gives groundwater sensitivity while Table 7.3 indicates definition of magnitude of impacts criteria while 7.14 is an assessment of significance criteria for impacts on groundwater.

The EIS states that the proposed road development comprises two significant cuttings and it is anticipated that rock cutting will be required and states that cutting of the ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 47 of 72 Limerick County Council

rock may include the use of blasting and it states this could increase the potential for contaminant migration to groundwater and could also impact upon infrastructure associated with private water supplies. It states that the magnitude of impact of blasting on groundwater could be minimised by the use of environmentally friendly blasting agents. It states the magnitude of impact to local groundwater levels are expected to be medium to high.

The EIS states there are a number of groundwater abstraction locations which could be potentially affected by a local reduction in the water table and water quality. The EIS notes the cuttings where a potential impact might occur:-

• Five private water supplies at the Shanaclogh, Granard and the Glebe could potentially be affected with one of the wells being approximately 5 metres from the proposed route.

• Caharass and Fanningstown have potentially four wells that could be affected with the closest lying approximately 7 metres from the proposed route.

The EIS states the significance of impacts would be likely to be negligible to substantial and Volume 4, Appendix 7.31 sets out the individual water supply assessments for the wells. This compares the chemical analysis with the drinking water regulations and examines the wells for e-coli and a number of other parameters.

The EIS states the magnitude of impact on the regional groundwater regime is considered to be negligible and therefore a rating of slight significance of impact is indicated in the EIS.

The EIS states that existing overburden functions is a filter medium and that although aquifer vulnerability is already classified as extreme, removal of some or all overburden is likely to increase the vulnerability. It refers to points source releases and notes that the risk is considerably higher in cuttings. It states that without mitigation the impact on local groundwater quality and quantity from construction phase works would likely be substantial.

In relation to the operational phase impacts it refers to the potentially karsified nature of the limestone and the local groundwater quality could be impacted by road spillages.

For construction phase, mitigation measures include an environmental operating plan (EOP) and a monitoring programme to establish and record any changes in the quantity and quality of the groundwater in the identified private water supplies. It notes that such monitoring was commenced as part of the EIS process and it is referred to in Appendix 7.3 of Volume 4.

It states that in general the employment of good construction management practices would serve to minimise the risk of pollution from construction activities. It states that mitigation of removal of substantial depths of overburden would be by means of a sealed drainage system.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 48 of 72 Limerick County Council

For the operational phase, the EIS mentions the use of a sealed drainage system and notes that during the construction phase, private groundwater supplies would have mitigation in place.

The EIS states that aquifer vulnerability and the dolomitised nature of the bedrock was included as part of the design consideration and the proposed road would have little impact on the underlying groundwater flow.

The EIS states that the residual impacts would comprise the potential localised lowering of groundwater levels associated with potential cuttings through bedrock. It states the residual impacts would be minimised provided that the mitigation measures are adhered to.

The conclusions in 7.3.4 are that the assessment indicates the potential likelihood of significant impact through a small number of individual water supplies and an increase in the vulnerability of the underlying aquifer. It states that a sealed drainage system would allow construction of a route with negligible impact on either the road itself or the groundwater resource in the area. It states that a monitoring programme in accordance with the EOP would be required to establish and record any changes in the quality and quantity of the groundwater in those supplies.

8.0 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY – (EIS, VOLUME 2, CHAPTER 8, PAGES 175-197)

Section 8.1 deals with climate and notes the methodology applied is the NRA Guidelines of 2006. It states that emission of greenhouse gas in Ireland in 2007 was 69.21 million tonnes CO 2. It notes the transport was the third highest contributor with 20.8%. It notes that construction plant would give rise to emissions such as CO 2 and NO 2.

In relation to operational phase impacts, Table 8.1 sets out the estimated CO 2 emissions with the proposed development and without the proposed development for the years 2015 and 2030. It concludes that the increase in emissions of CO 2 is of small magnitude and amounts to 0.0052% of 2015 and 0.0076% in 2030. It notes that without the proposed road development the area would produce 18,220 tonnes per annum of CO 2 and with the proposed road development it would give rise to 21,512 tonnes per annum of CO 2. This is regarded as the worst case scenario. The EIS concludes that the proposed road development would lead to an imperceptible increase in CO 2 emissions and any indirect and cumulative impacts would be insignificant.

It states that mitigation will not be required during the construction phase for climatic effects and it refers to the national climate change strategy of 2007-2012 published by DEHLG in 2007 and also the national programme for Ireland for the progressive reduction of national emissions transboundary air pollutants by 2010. It concludes that the impact of the proposed road development on climate would amount to an imperceptible increase in CO 2 emissions.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 49 of 72 Limerick County Council

8.2 Air Quality

The assessment includes details of established baseline air quality and it is noted that as the existing N21 passes through Adare town there are a large number of properties located within 200 metres of the road. It states that no reliable evidence is present than air quality standards have been exceeded but measurements at roadside and background locations indicate elevated pollution levels.

The EIS notes that blasting could be required east of the R519 crossing in Granard and either side of the L-1420 around Fanningstown.

Section 8.2.2 sets out the methodology used and reference is made to the guidelines for the treatment of air quality during the planning and constructions of national roads schemes (NRA, 2006). It states the baseline air quality is assessed and the likely concentrations of the pollutants are compared against the levels set down in AQS legislation. It states that local measurements of existing nitrogen dioxide concentrations were undertaken using passive diffusion sampling. It states that archived air quality information was also reviewed and a dispersion modelling exercise using the DMRB screening tool was carried out. It states the predictions of current and future pollutant concentrations were made and the modelling methodology and assumptions were outlined on Volume 4, Appendix 8.2B.

It states that 14 receptors were identified

It refers to ambient air quality standards and refers to the regulations of 2002. It states that a monitoring programme was carried out to assess baseline levels of NO 2 and monitoring of benzene was not carried out explicitly for the purpose of the proposed road development. It states that reference is made to the recent monitoring along the existing N20 which is indicated in Appendix 8.2 in Volume 4 of the EIS. It states that PM 10 monitoring had not been continued from the route selection stage on the ground that there were no exceedances measured at the time.

Table 8.2 describes the monitoring results for NO 2 at 16 locations. It states that the monitoring period was sufficiently long given indication of likely annual average values. The range of values in micrograms per m3 are over 60 at receptor AM04 which is on the roadside of the existing N21 to less than 5 for a number of the other sites also listed as being on the roadside.

The EIS refers to Volume 4 for Table 8.A6 in Appendix 8.2A for results for monitoring carried out adjacent to the N20.

The methodology for assessment % environmental impacts is set out on page 184 and a do-something and a do minimum scenario for both the years 2015 and 2030 were used. It states a total of 14 sensitive receptors were selected and these were modelled at different speeds to reflect the likely speeds passing the location. Table 8.3 details the receptor information and reference is made to figure 8.1 and volume 3. It is noted that the air quality receptor locations are in green on figure 8.1 and the monitoring locations for NO 2 are in purple. Receptors 456 and 8 are in the Castleroberts area and receptor no. 7 is at Fanningstown. “ ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 50 of 72 Limerick County Council

Reference is made to sensitive eco systems and it states that dispension modelling was carried out at Rower which is part of the Adare Woodlands proposed NHA. (This is west of the N21 and north of Garraunboy – see Volume 3, figure 6.1 EIS). The EIS predicts that the proposed road development will reduce traffic volume and associated pollutant emissions in the vicinity of Rower Wood along the existing N21 and it would therefore likely experience a reduction in nitrogen deposition.

In relation to construction phase impacts, it notes that it is not possible to give a detailed prediction because the programme for construction works would not have been established. It states any potential impact would be associated with the generation of fugitive dust rather than human health impacts arising from the emission of particulates.

The EIS states that detailed traffic flow information was obtained for the project and used to model pollutant levels under various traffic scenarios. It relates in relation to the do-minimum impact for PM 10 , CO and benzene that the levels of all three pollutants would range from 2% of the limit value for carbon monoxide to 43% on the annual limit value for PM 10 in 2030. For NO 2 it states also that the hourly standard would be met.

In relation to the do-something and operational phase impact, the EIS states that the levels of all three pollutants range from 2% to 41% of the respective limit values of 2015. It states the highest predicted NO 2 concentration was 9.62 micrograms per cubic metre against an air quality standard of 40 micrograms per cubic metre. It refers to tables 8.4-8.6 which gives the details for each of the receptors for the do- minimum and do-something situation. It states that the impact of the road development in terms of CO, PM 10 and benzene is negligible.

In relation to the impact on each individual receptor, it states the greatest negative impact would be to increase the annual NO 2 levels by 1% of the limit value bringing it from 17% to 18% of limit value (in relation to receptor no. 5 close to residential monitoring point AM02 it is noted that on Table 8.4 the do nothing situation gives a value of 6.62 in 2015 and for the same receptor under the do something scenario it is given as 7.11 micrograms per cubic metre). The EIS refers to the highest value which is at the school and states that it would be considered not a significant impact. It states the greatest positive impact from the road development would be in Adare town centre. Comparing Table 8.4 and 8.5 it is noted that in the do nothing situation the NO 2 level at receptor 2 is 13.24 micrograms per cubic metre while in the do- something situation it reduces to 8.35 micrograms per cubic metre.

The EIS states that the worst-case negative impact on the road development in terms of NO 2 is negligible. It states that indirect impacts are calculated in accordance with the NRA guidelines of 2006 in relation to the Rower Wood and it states that the predicted annual average NO x level at Rower is significantly lower than the limit value of 30 ug/m 3 in 2015 and that levels were significantly lower for the do- something scenario and were only 38% of the limit at 10 metres from the road edge. It states that the road contribution to the NO 2 deposition rate along the 10-200 metre transect within Rower Wood is detailed in table 8.7. ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 5 of 72 Limerick County Council

It states that the cumulative impacts include background sources of pollutants and minor roads in the vicinity of the road development and that these had been included in the assessment.

It states that in relation to the worst-case scenario impacts, that conservative traffic speeds were used in the assessment and the results could be considered to represent the worst-case scenario impact.

Section 8.2.4 deals with mitigation and states that for the construction phase the environmental operating plan would be in accordance with the NRA Guidelines and also in accordance with industry guidelines as detailed in the Building Research Establishment document of 2003. It states dust production will be minimised by regular cleaning at the site access roads and that access roads would also be cleaned at least 0.5 kilometre on either side of the approach roads to the access points.

In relation to the operational phase, it states that the results of the air dispersion modelling show that the air quality limit values for CO, benzene, NO 2 and PM 10 would not be exceeded with the proposed road development in place and therefore no operational phase mitigation is required. It refers to mitigation measures at an international and international level which focus on both engine technology and fuel quality. In relation to residual impacts, it states that ambient concentrations of the pollutants would be significantly lower than their air quality limit values. In conclusion it states that levels of traffic-derived air pollutions would not exceed the ambient air quality standards with or without the road development place. It states that the worst-case impact of the road development in terms of NO 2, PM 10 , CO and benzene is negligible and the best-case impact in Adare town centre is slightly beneficial.

9.0 NOISE AND VIBRATION (EIS, VOLUME 2, CHAPTER 9, PAGES 198-213)

Section 9.1 deals with noise and reference is made to the NRA guidelines for the treatment of noise and vibration in national road schemes of 2004. It states that a noise survey was carried out which included a representative location in Adare town. The survey was conducted at the entrance to the Adare town Park and the reference no. N table 9.1 is NSR03. The EIS notes the use of locations with unattended measurements and attendant measurements and refers to the shortened measurement procedure and the calculation of a road traffic noise (CRTN).

It is noted that the location and description of each survey position are illustrated in figure 9.1 of Volume 3 and their location is described in tables 9.1 for the existing N21 and table for 9.2 for locations along the proposed route. These are provided between locations which were rotated and ones which were fixed. It notes that shortened measurements were conducted at survey locations on a rotational basis with sample periods of 15 minutes. It states for the 24 hour monitoring locations, measurements were carried out continuously throughout the period that data was stored every hour on the hour.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 52 of 72 Limerick County Council

Receiving environment is described and parameters for measuring a noise are explained and these include Laeq, L a90, LA10 , L A10 (18 hour) and L den . It gives the formulas for deriving L den and the derived L A10 (18 hour) and L den values for all the 18 locations presented in Table 9.3. These vary from a figure of 72 L den in the centre of Adare to 47 L den south of the proposed route at Castleroberts.

It describes the construction phase impacts and the maximum permissible noise levels during construction are set out in Table 9.4. It lists the items which would give rise to construction noise and notes that construction noise would be short-term and temporary in nature.

It describes the operation phase impacts and sets out the three conditions in the NRA guidelines where mitigation is required and notes the design goal which is set for Ireland which is 60dB L den (free field). It states the design goal is applicable to new road schemes only. It states that the goal is applied to existing receptors in respect of both the year of opening and the design year or 15 years after the projected date of opening.

It states that 438 buildings were listed and the details are in Appendix 9.2 of Volume 4 of the EIS. It states that of the 438 buildings, 68 were considered to be non- sensitive and were excluded from the assessment.

The EIS states that although a number of noise sensitive properties were predicted to receive an increase in noise level as a result of the proposed road development, none were predicted to exceed the NRA design goal which would meet the criteria requiring noise mitigation measures to be implemented. For the years 2015 and 2030, it states that many receptors in Adare itself and along the N21 would have a significant decrease in noise levels typically 3-5 dB but some would continue to exceed the 60dB L den design goal. It states that for the sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed road development it was not predicted that the design goal would be exceeded at any of the sensitive receptors and as all the three conditions involved in mitigation were not satisfied, no noise mitigation measures were considered necessary in accordance with the NRA guidelines.

It states that the predictions were undertaken at a height of 4 metres which would assume a two-storey building at each location and this was in accordance with the NRA guidelines. It states this would represent a worst-case as the predicted noise levels at ground floor height for single-storey properties would, under the vast majority of circumstances, be lower. It states the screening effects of embankments and cuttings have been incorporated into the noise prediction model. It states five scenarios were considered namely the based year of 2009 for validation of the noise model and the years 2015 and 2030 in the do-nothing and do-something scenarios.

The EIS refers to the assessment results and states that predicted noise levels at all of the 438 properties are given in Appendix 9.2 in Volume 4. It states that many of the receptors considered would receive a beneficial noise impact with the proposed road development in place.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 5 of 72 Limerick County Council

The EIS considers the do-nothing impact and a worst case scenario impact involves the noise generated by the worst type of traffic and speeds. It notes that indirect impacts would be potential visual impact as arising out of noise barriers but as there were no noise barriers considered necessary, there would not be any direct impacts from a noise perspective. It notes the cumulative impact would involve the M20 and N21 together.

Section 9.1.4 deals with mitigation and for the construction phase reference is made to BS5228:2009 which is the code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction open sites. It notes that the BS5228 does not detail any specific noise limits in relation to construction noise and the recommended limits are those in the NRA guidance. It refers to normal working hours and also to emergency work.

For the operational phase mitigation that states that no sensitive receptors were predicted to exceed the design goal and it states that the residual noise levels are the predicted do-something noise levels for the proposed road development.

In relation to noise, the conclusions are that the existing noise levels are typical of a semi-rural area and that properties located along the route with experience and notable noise decreases significantly of a 3-5 dB reduction as a result of the proposed scheme. It states that although noise levels are predicted to increase the sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed scheme, the design goal was not predicted to be exceeded and as such noise mitigation measures were not considered necessary. It concludes that the proposed scheme complies with the appropriate guidance in relation to noise and therefore the associated impact is considered acceptable.

Section 9.2 deals with vibration and sets out the methodology and notes that in relation to the receiving environment, vibration was not noted as being perceptible at any of the noise survey locations. It notes that the construction phase impacts could involve those arising from blasting and it states there will be vibration monitoring of piling. Relating to operational phase impacts it states that the NRA in 2004 found that ground and vibrations produced by road traffic were unlikely to cause perceptible structure of vibration of properties located near to well-maintained road services.

Table 9.5 sets out the allowable vibration levels during the construction phase and notes that the NRA guidelines recommend that in order to ensure that there is no potential or vibration damage during construction, that vibration for construction activity be limited to the values set out in Table 9.5. It states that the construction would employ the best practical means to minimise vibration produced by contractors operation. It notes that trial blasting would be performed. It also states that as a precaution building condition surveys would be carried out to ensure building damage had not taken place as a result of blasting activities. It states that no residual impacts in relation to vibration had been identified.

The conclusion on this section is that the proposed road development was not expected to give rise to vibration and is either significantly intrusive or capable of giving rise to structure of cosmetic damage. It states there was potential for vibration during construction of rock cuttings. It states that contract documents would specify

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 54 of 72 Limerick County Council

that the contractor would be obliged to take specific abatement measures during blasting operations and to comply with the vibration limits set out.

10.0 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL – (EIS VOLUME 2, CHAPTER 10, PAGES 214- 239)

In the introduction for the section, the main texts which were reviewed are listed and it notes that the assessment was carried out with reference to the guidelines produced by the EPA in 2002. The EIS describes visual impact noting the definition of visual intrusion and visual obstruction states that three assessments of visual impacts were made at construction, pre-establishment and post-establishment stages. It notes that the visual impact survey is illustrated in figures 10.3.1-10.3.4 in Volume 3 of the EIS and also notes that Appendix 10C in Volume 4 gives the overall summary of visual impact schedule. This lists 67 properties with impacts at construction stage, pre- establishment and post-establishment.

It states that within rural areas all residential properties within 250 metres of the centre line of the proposed road were listed and that the properties outside of the 250 metres of the centre line and not considered likely to suffer an appreciable impact were not included.

It describes landscape character as the distinct recognisable and consistent pattern of elements in the landscape that makes one landscape different from another. It refers to Volume 4, Appendix 10A for full descriptions of sensitivity, magnitude and significant threshold criteria in relation to the significance assessment criteria.

Section 10.2.2 refers to the receiving environment and it states that the atlas of the Irish rural landscape places County Limerick at the western end of the southern hill and vale area, a sub-section of the central lowland of Ireland. It states in terms of local topography, the landscape is broadly flat or gently undulating lowland typically set between 10 and 20 metres above ordnance datum. It states there are some locally prominent hills and ridges around Finniterstown House, Granard, Fanningstown and within the townland of Kiltenan. It states the most distinctive features within the landscape are Adare town and Adare Manor estate. It states the parkland estate extends south from the town as enclosed by dense deciduous woodland. It notes that ribbon residential development typifies many of the local roads particularly the roads between Drehidtarsna to Castleroberts and Castleroberts to Caherass.

The EIS states the local area includes numerous rural structures, a farm north of Chainage 3+700 which includes Granard House (Ref. No. 41 in figure 10.3.2) and Castleroberts House is north of Chainage 6+300 and this is also on figure 10.3.3.

Dunnaman Castle is south of Chainage 4+400 and is noted to be derelict while Fanningstown Castle is north of Chainage 7+500 and this is a group of buildings and outbuildings, the main body of which is being used as a holiday accommodation alongside some residential buildings.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 55 of 72 Limerick County Council

In relation to the landscape character, the Limerick CDP identified 10 landscape character areas and the road development falls within the agricultural lowlands LCA. It states the majority of adjacent LCAs are too distant to be affected by the proposed road development. It states the closest LCA is Tory Hill which is 3 kilometres to the east of the route. It states the Adare Manor estate and surrounding extensive woodland is a feature of the area.

In relation to landscape planning, it states that in the assessment, local and regional strategies and plans were reviewed and reference is made to figure 10.2 of Volume 3 of the EIS which indicates the architectural conservation area, woodlands and Fanningstown Castle.

Referring to the Limerick CDP, it notes the importance given to native trees, hedgerows and woodlands and it refers to policy ENV 6 which requires the adequate integration of development into the landscape by their retention of trees and landscape features and/or encouraging suitable planting. It notes Policy ENV7 which is to promote the distinctiveness and where necessary, the sensitivity of Limerick’s landscape types.

Tory Hill is listed as a scenic view and substantial parts of Adare town are listed as architectural conservation areas. It states part of Fanningstown Castle is noted in a list of significant archaeological sites and nine local buildings within the study area, shown on figure 10.2 of Volume 3 are listed in the record of protected structures.

The EIS notes the policies in relation to nature conservation including Policies ENV2 and ENV4.

Section 10.3 deals with environmental impacts. It notes that embankments in particular have the potential for significant visual intrusion. The western section of the route crosses often a low-lying and occasionally undulating rural agricultural land. It states the visual impact would be restricted residential properties in close proximity to the route.

The central section of the route is stated to be characterised by larger fields and relatively fewer hedgerow trees and it rises to high embankment in order to accommodate two access tracks and again as it crosses the River Maigue. It states the topography of the eastern section rises from the River Maigue and the route is in deep cutting.

In relation to construction phase impact, it states that landscape and visual impact would tend to be most pronounced during the construction stage and in the pre- establishment phase. It refers to the visual impact schedule which is an Appendix 10 B of Volume 4 (it is noted that Appendix 10B is in three sections and Section 10B.3 refers to the different receptors which have a reference of 1-60).

The EIS states that the landscape type is considered to be of medium sensitivity and during construction there would be a significant negative effect to the landscape character. It states that Tory Hill LCA is an isolated, locally prominent hill to the east of the proposed road development and due to distance, intervening topography and ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 56 of 72 Limerick County Council

vegetation, the area is stated to be likely to experience only slight negative effects during the construction phase.

Dealing with the impact on landscape elements, the EIS notes that the R519 Ballingarry Road rises on embankment to cross the main line. It states that the proposed route would impact on a number of small watercourses which would be culverted. This would involve the loss of vegetation which would have a negative impact on local landscape quality.

It notes the proposed route crosses the River Maigue at Castleroberts and the impact on the River Maigue during construction is stated to be likely to be profound but temporary.

The EIS states the quality of the settlements affected by the proposed road development is ordinary, consisting largely of relatively new, one-off detached and modern houses. It states the magnitude of impact during construction would vary but generally the impacts during construction would be moderate but most severe at Fanningstown. It notes there are a number of derelict farmhouses in the study area and older buildings in poor states of repair. It notes that a section of stone wall forming a field boundary on the L-1420 would be lost and this would give rise to a negative impact on the local landscape.

It notes that Dunnaman Castle is derelict and the immediate surrounding landscape is derelict and the proposed route passing to the north of the castle would have an effect on the feature which would be temporary and profound. It also notes that a new route would involve the loss of an existing field pattern at Fanningstown Castle.

The EIS refers to impact on landscape planning aspects and the policies in the Limerick County Development Plan which are relevant to the issue.

It refers also to visual impact on road and footpath users and in relation to the L-1420 in the vicinity of Fanningstown the views are of a high quality landscape. It states during construction users of that road would experience profound and negative effects. It states that the informal pathway for anglers along the River Maigue is a highly sensitive receptor and the impact on users of the pathway during construction would be profound at local level.

The impacts on residential properties are discussed and it is noted that 67 property receptors were identified of which seven had a significant effect predicted and 23 had a profound effect.

Section 10.3.8 deals with operational phase impact and commences with the impact on landscape character. It states that a pre-establishment phase there would be a significant negative effect to the local agricultural lowlands at landscape character. It states this would reduce to moderate at post establishment phase when mitigation planting had become established.

It notes that between the start of the proposed road development and the R519 there is a pronounced rural character with mature hedgerows. It notes the elements would be ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 57 of 72 Limerick County Council

severed as the proposed route progresses west to east and mitigation planting when established would reduce the impact from significant negative to moderate.

It notes the field pattern is larger between the R519 and the River Maigue and the negative impact would reduce from significant to moderate as planting became established.

On the eastern section between the River Maigue and the junction with the proposed M20, it notes two landscape character types are evident. It notes that Fanningstown Castle is locally distinctive with long fields, tall hedgerows and a line of mature hedgerow trees forming a distinctive feature. It also includes the stone wall which is bounded with the local road. The EIS states that the impact on local landscape character would be profound during the pre-establishment phase and significant at post establishment. Regarding the route east of Fanningstown Castle the landscape is more open and the EIS states that post establishment of the impact would reduce from significant to moderate. It states that the effects of the road would be imperceptible to the Tory Hill LCA.

The EIS describes the impact on the landscape elements and notes that at pre- establishment stage the impact on the River Maigue and the surrounding landscape would be profound and this would reduce to significant. It states that at Fanningstown the impact pre-establishment would be profound and would likely to remain a significant at post-establishment. It notes that Granard House which is currently unoccupied/derelict would have an impact likely to be significant.

It notes there would be no impact on national landscape designations or listings and no impact would arise on scenic views.

It refers to the visual impact to road and footpath users and states that the users of the R519 Ballingarry Road would experience profound negative effects locally at pre- establishment and this would reduce to moderate at post establishment. It states the local road L1420 would continue to experience a significant negative impact due to the loss of a stone wall and the loss of views of the adjacent high quality landscape.

It states also that the users of the informal pathway along the River Maigue would continue to experience a profound impact which would reduce to significant in the post establishment phase.

The EIS refers to visual impact on residential properties and 67 properties listed in Appendix 10B, Volume 4 and also illustrated on Figures 10.3.1 to 10.3.4 in Volume 3. It notes the impacts at the pre-establishment stage and at the post establishment stage it lists the seven properties where the estimate is of significant impact. These are properties no. 6, 33A, 41, 45 and 45A, 45B, 46 and 50. It is noted that 45, 45A and 45B are in the Castleroberts area all north of the proposed roadway and Fanningstown Castle is property no. 46.

The EIS notes that in approaching and crossing the River Maigue off-scheme views would register over a wide area and it notes the worst case scenario would involve the construction stage. It states that indirect impacts would likely be of occasionally and ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 58 of 72 Limerick County Council

temporary duration. It refers to cumulative impacts and includes the assessment with the proposed N20 Cork-Limerick motorway scheme and it states cumulative effects would also arise from severance, perceived or real benefit, attraction or dislike and accessibility.

Section 10.4 deals with mitigation. It states that consideration was given to avoidance of impact wherever possible. The mitigation measures are stated to aim to protect residential amenity and enhance and restore the long-term roadside landscape and its potential for diversity. It sets out the objectives which include the development of a landscape with the character relating to the patterns, scale and diversity of the existing character of the locality, to develop a structure which would physically and visually integrate the proposed road development to the local surroundings, minimise visual intrusion and protect, reinstate or enhance elements of the existing landscape.

Construction phase mitigation is set out under Section 10.4.3 and it notes that the protection of vegetation would be achieved at various locations including the watercourse at Chainage 700 to 900, vegetation at a watercourse south of the route around Chainage 2+900, vegetation with the watercourse Chainage 4+950 to 5+300, mature lime trees at Chainage 3+800 associated with property no. 41. Between Chainage 7+500 to 7+900 the hedgerows and hedgerow trees not directly required to enable construction would be preserved. It states there might be opportunities for advance planting, subject to the design and construction programme.

Section 10.4.4 refers to operational phase mitigation. It states the general landscape mitigation measure would include low maintenance or a naturalising grass/herb sward would generally be established over the entire slope. It states planting in sensitive locations would be used to reduce visual intrusion and mitigate against visual obstruction. For areas at-grade it states that proposed planting would aim to ameliorate the negative impacts of vehicles and the visual expanse of the road. Specific mitigation measures are listed in Table 11.2 and are also referred to in Figures 10.3.1 – 10.3.4 in Volume 3.

Table 10.2 gives a location of the specific measurse and the landscape and mitigation function.

The EIS states the proposed planting would generally be established with standard planting techniques for extensive works which is using bare-root transplants, whips and feathered trees. It states that a detailed soil management plan in accordance with NRA guidelines would be prepared in association with the detailed landscape proposals. It states that tree species utilise would be selected from a list of native Irish species as would shrub species be selected.

In Section 10.5 entitled conclusions it states that the proposed route would have a permanent impact and therefore some degree of residual impact on the landscape and visual character of the immediate corridor. The EIS states that it is considered that the proposed road with development of landscape in overall integration would have a moderate residual negative landscape and visual impact.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 59 of 72 Limerick County Council

11.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE – (EIS, VOLUME 2, CHAPTER 11, PAGES 240-284)

The introduction quotes the Council of Europe convention on the value of cultural heritage (Faro 2005) giving a definition of cultural heritage as including all aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time. It states that in the Section of the EIS the term cultural heritage would be taken as synonymous with the archaeological heritage and the built heritage.

The legislative background is set out including the National Monuments Acts, 1930- 2004 and the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997. It refers to the Heritage Act of 1995 for definition of terms.

The National Monuments Amendment Act of 1994 is quoted in that a record of monuments in places (RMP) should be established and maintained by the DEHLG. It notes that any works in relation to a recorded monument requires two months notice to the DEHLG. It notes the Planning and Development Act 2000 requires that a local authority set up and maintain a record of protected structures. It notes that designation confirms protection on land and structures within the curtilage of the protected structure. It states that attendant grounds are defined as lands which lie outside the curtilage of a protected structure but are intrinsic to its appreciation, function or setting. It states that features of importance within attended grounds are not automatically protected as part of the curtilage of a protected structure and requires specific inclusion in the record of protected structures.

The methodology is set out which involves guidance from the guidelines of the EPA 2002, advice notes on the current practice and the preparation of EIS of the EPA 2003, NRA Guidelines for assessment of archaeological and architectural heritage and framework and principles for the protection of the archaeological heritage (Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, 1999). It also refers to the policy and guidelines on archaeological excavation from the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, 1999.

The EIS states that in accordance with the NRA Guidelines, a study corridor extending 50 metres to either side of the centreline of the proposed road development was defined. It states that the following sources have been consulted:-

• Record of monuments in places (RMP). • National inventory of architectural heritage (NIAH). • Draft NIAH survey for County Limerick. • First edition ordnance survey 6 inch mapping of 1829-1841. • Transcripts of the ordnance survey field in name books. • Topographical files of the National Museum of Ireland. • Pre-ordnance survey mapping. • Down survey maps. • Aerial photographs. • Database of Irish excavation reports • Limerick County Development Plan • Adare Local Area Plan ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 60 of 72 Limerick County Council

• General public sources and local history. • Collections of the Irish folklore commission. • NRA archaeological database.

The EIS states the conservation officer for Limerick County Council was consulted and a walk over survey was undertaken in June 2009. It states each site of cultural heritage within the study corridor was inspected by an archaeologist and the buildings archaeologist and a basic written and photographic record prepared.

The assessment of potential impacts was carried out in accordance with the NRA Guidelines of 2005. It states the impacts were assessed as direct, indirect or of no predicted impact. It also notes the duration of the impacts had been assessed on a scale of permanent, long and medium-term, short-term or temporary.

The assessment of impacts on archaeological heritage was assessed on importance and a significance of impact and for architectural heritage the magnitude of impact was assessed on a scale of very high to low in accordance with the NRA Guidelines. For Archaeological Heritage Assessment, it notes a total of 40 archaeological sites or potential sites were identified, and these are shown on figures 11.1 – 11.3, Volume 3 and an inventory of the sites is provided in Volume 4, Appendix 11. It notes that Fanningstown enclosure (recorded monument L1021.158) and Fanningstown Mound are located at the very eastern end of the study area. It states the sites would be removed during construction of the M20 Cork-Limerick Motorway Scheme and were dealt with as part of the assessment and mitigation measures for that scheme.

Table 11.1 gives the archaeological heritage baseline sites for the 44 sites. This refers to the site number, site name, site type, designation and importance. In relation to designation, six sites are recorded monuments and in regard to importance, 14 sites are listed as being either medium or high importance.

It states in Section 11.2.4 that of the 44 archaeological heritage sites identified within or near to the study corridor, impacts or potential impacts were identified on 35 sites.

The EIS states the Castleroberts former field system (site 309) was assessed to be of medium importance and the significance of the permanent impact was assessed as moderate. It states the proposed main line and a side road to the south-west would pass 45 metres north-east of the upstanding earthworks at Finniterstown Ringfort 2 (site 60). It states it would also pass approximately 22 metres north of Derryvinnane enclosure (site 326). Both sites were assessed to be of high importance. It notes the Derryvinnane enclosure is outside the landtake at the Finnertstown Ringfort is within the landtake but the known extents of the site lie outside of the roadtake. It states the site would be preserved in situ.

In relation to slight impacts it lists the Derrynavinnane Ridge and Furrow (site 325 and the Castleroberts building 1 (site 202). It also notes that the construction of the proposed route would cross 11 townland boundaries and would pass 69 metres to the south-east of Granard possible enclosure 1 (site 122).

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 6 of 72 Limerick County Council

The archaeological heritage impacts are set out in Table 11.2 with the site no. and site name indicated and the importance of the site, the significance of construction impact and the significance of the operation impact also listed. Of the 44 sites, five are listed as having impacts in the operational phase.

The EIS lists the sites which would have an imperceptible impact and these are listed as for record only and include Finnertstown Draw Well, Castleroberts buildings (sites of 215, 220, 225, 229 and 244) and also the Derrynavinnane Millstream, Baurnalick Stream and Fanningstown watercourse.

It states that a lack of detailed information about a small number of sites had led the impact of the proposed road development being assessed as unknown in the EIS. It states that in each case it is because it is not possible to predict the presence, nature, quality or extent of any remains. The sites include the Finnertstown possible enclosures and Granard possible enclosure 2. It states that the Rivetownr Maigue area of archaeological potential has been assessed as being of medium importance. The Baurnalicka area of potential is stated to be a seasonal pond and was assessed as having a high potential for the presence of unknown archaeological remains and particular fulachtaí fia. It states the significance of the impact has been assessed as unknown.

In relation to indirect impacts, it notes moderate impacts on Finnertstown Ringfort 2 and the Derrynavinnane enclosure. Slight impacts are predicted on the Castleroberts possible fulacht fia. The EIS states that it would not impact on what was understood to be the site. It also predicts slight impacts on Finnert’s Town Ringfort 1 and the Caharass enclosure.

A magnitude of “no predicted impact” is predicted on Fanningstown Quarry, Dunnaman area of archaeological potential and Caharass fish pond.

Page 259 deals with operation phase impacts and these are assessed as moderate on the Finnertstown Ringfort 2 and the Derrynavinnane enclosure and slight on Finnertstown Ringfort 1, Caharass enclosure 1 and the Castleroberts possible fulacht fia.

Referring to cumulative impacts, the EIS states the significance of the cumulative impact prior to mitigation has been assessed as slight.

The EIS states that all archaeological mitigation measures would be subject to approval by the NRA project archaeologist and the National Monuments Service. It states that where it is not possible to preserve an archaeological site in situ, the site would be preserved by record. It states this is in accordance with the framework and principles for the protection of archaeological heritage (DAHGI), 1999.

Pre-construction archaeological testing is proposed which include photographic survey, earthwork survey, survey of townland boundaries, archaeological survey of watercourses, geophysical survey, test and archaeological excavation and landscape planting. Under the heading of archaeological survey of watercourses, the EIS states this would be carried out under a licence where necessary for three of the ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 62 of 72 Limerick County Council

watercourses crossed by the proposed road development. It states the bed and banks of the River Maigue would not be impacted upon and would therefore not require underwater archaeological assessment. It states that the wider area of archaeological potential associated with the river would have non-invasive intrusive testing carried out.

The EIS states that a geophysical survey would be non-invasive and would be carried out to clarify the layout and extent of known sites within the roadtake. It states that geophysical survey would be carried out on eight sites.

The EIS states that all known archaeological sites within the footprint of the proposed road development would be subject to test excavation and all possible sites in areas of archaeological potential identified from examination of aerial photos and field survey would also be subject to testing and, where necessary preserve by record. It states that testing would be conducted throughout the entire footprint of the proposed road development and would comprise a standard array offset trenches. It states test excavation is of particular importance on sites where there is not currently sufficient information to enable an accurate assessment of the significance of impact and these are sites 316, 318, 319, 320 and 323. These are at Finnertstown and Granard.

Archaeological resolution is described as Phase 2 following the pre-construction archaeological testing. This would include design solutions such as burial below embankments to preserve in situ and preservation by record. Table 11.3 summarises the proposed site-specific mitigation measures and this covers all 44 sites.

In relation to the operational phase, it states the impacts on the setting of sites no. 58, 60,238,335 and 336 would be mitigated by photographic survey to record their present setting. It states the landscape mitigation proposed would also include the impact on sites 58, 238, 335 and 336. It states no landscape mitigation is proposed in the vicinity of site 60 which is at Finnertstown.

Residual impacts are described on page 270 with these detailed in Table 11.4. This indicates fives sites with residual impact, two of which are imperceptible, two slight and one moderate. It states that after mitigation no residual impacts are predicted to result from construction.

Architectural Heritage Assessment is described in Section 11.3. It states that four sites of architectural heritage interest namely sites 113, 187, 265 and 333 were identified within the study corridor. It states a further six which are located outside the study corridor were included in the baseline survey. Table 11.6 gives the 10 architectural heritage baseline sites and the four sites within the corridor are Granard House Demesne, Castleroberts Demesne, Caharess Court Demesne and a gateway at Fanningstown.

Table 11.7 indicates the predicted impacts of construction on architectural heritage and this is tabulated with the site names, importance, magnitude of impact during construction and the significance of impact during construction. While the gateway (site no. 333) is stated to have a very high magnitude of impact, the importance is given as record only and the significance of impact is imperceptible direct. ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 6 of 72 Limerick County Council

Indirect impacts are referred to on page 275 and the impacts in relation to the setting of Dunnaman Castle and Dunnaman Church are described as moderate as is the setting of Castleroberts.

In relation to the setting of Fanningstown Castle which is site no. 259, it states there would be construction of a cutting with several field boundary to the south of the paddock. It states that the magnitude of the short-term impact has been assessed to be medium states that while the schedule of significance indicates the significance of the impact to be significant, that using professional judgement it was reduced to moderate as there were no formal views or vistas associated with the Castle, that no evidence had been for a design of the landscape associated with the building, the key relationship of the castle to the enclosure would not be affected and road noise from the existing N20 already forms part of a setting of this site (this issue was discussed extensively at the oral hearing and the evidence of the Council was noted as elaborating on what was in the EIS).

A slight impact is predicted on the Castleroberts Demesne and no impact is predicted on the setting of Garraunboy Castle. It states that Caharass Court Demesne (site 265) was assessed to be a record only importance and the setting does not contribute to its understanding. It states no impact was predicted to result from the construction of the proposed road development on that site.

Table 11.8 gives the predicted impacts of operation and these range from no impact and imperceptible to moderate in the case of Granard House, Dunnaman Castle, Dunnaman Church, Castleroberts and Fanningstown Castle. In relation to cumulative impacts, the EIS states the proposed road development would result in direct impacts on two sites of record only importance, indirect impacts on the setting of three sites of national importance, two sites of regional importance and one site of local importance. It states there would be a slight positive impact for architectural heritage within Adare and the cumulative impact of the construction and operation upon architectural heritage and was assessed to be slight negative.

Construction phase mitigation would include photographic recording of the gateway at Site 333 and subject to the agreement of the landowner, the relocation of the gateway within the farmland associated with Fanningstown Castle. In relation to operation phase mitigation it states the scheme was designed to avoid the removal of the trees to the south and east of Granard House. It notes the location of the trees is shown on figure 10.3.2. It states that woodland planting along the edge of the proposed road development would be carried out to mitigate predicted operation phase impacts on Dunnaman Castle and Dunnaman Church. It also states landscape planting would be carried out to mitigate potential operational phase impacts on a setting of Castleroberts and Castleroberts Demesne.

The EIS recommends that visual impacts on the setting of Fanningstown Castle should be mitigated by woodland planting along the proposed road development embankment (this issue was discussed extensively at the oral hearing).

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 64 of 72 Limerick County Council

It states that as no impact is predicted on Garraunboy Castle or Caharass Court Demesne no mitigation is proposed.

Table 11.9 sets out the predicted residual impacts of construction on architectural heritage at eight sites and Table 11.10 gives the predicted residual operation impacts on architectural heritage at seven sites. It describes the significance of impact after mitigation on Fanningstown Castle as slight.

The conclusions were that during construction after mitigation, impacts were predicted as indirect moderate negative on five sites, indirect slight negative on one site, a direct imperceptible impact on one site and no predicted impact on three sites. It states that after mitigation the operational impacts would be moderate negative on two sites, slight negative on two sites, imperceptible negative on one site, no impact on five sites and a slight positive impact on the architectural heritage sites in the town of Adare.

12.0 INTERACTIONS – (VOLUME 2, EIS, CHAPTER 12, PAGES 285-292)

The EIS states the interaction of environmental aspects was identified in an early stage of the project and these were discussed in relation to the human environment and the interaction between human beings and agronomy and also human beings and traffic. It notes that where a significant impact was predicted from visual impact that screening would be provided and it notes the extent of the impact on businesses with a reliance of passing trade would depend on factors which would include the extent of which motorists requiring services are diverted into the town from the bypass through signing.

The interaction of human beings and ecology is discussed in Section 12.2.3 and it states that implementation of the proposed mitigation measures would ensure no significant long-term impacts.

Interaction of human beings and geology, hydrology and hydrogeology relate to the potential of pollution of groundwater and water supplies in the area. It states that the proposals for the road drainage ensure that groundwater in the area is protected from surface water run-off and accidental spillages during the construction and operational phases. It states that mitigation measures include the provision of an alternative water supply.

Interaction of human beings and air quality refers to the prediction that exhaust emissions would be lower than at urban areas where stop-start motions in queuing lead to higher emissions. In relation to human beings and noise and vibration, it states that for the changes in traffic related noise adjacent to the proposed road development that no noise sensitive locations had been identified where noise mitigation measures were deemed necessary (This issue was discussed extensively at the oral hearing). Section 12.2.8 refers to the interaction between human beings and landscape and visual and it states that there would be visual impacts on properties that exist along the proposed route bypass. It refers to the specific landscaping mitigation which is proposed. ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 65 of 72 Limerick County Council

Interaction between agronomy and traffic notes that there would be an improved accessibility of the area and to give opportunities for agri-trade. It states there would be no air quality impact on agricultural activities such as dairy and tillage. It states that existing field drainage systems would be disturbed at various locations along the proposed route but that the impacts relating to geology, hydrogeology and hydrology would be short term in nature where they arise from construction activities. It states that the provision of landscape planting along the proposed route would assist to mitigate against the impact on agronomy from ecological impacts.

Section 12.3 refers to ecology and the interaction between ecology and geology, hydrology and hydrogeology. It states that topsoil that would be removed would be reused were suitable elsewhere along the proposed route and all materials unacceptable for use in the works would be handled in accordance with the provisions of the Construction Demolition Waste Plan which would comply with the best practice guidelines and the preparation of waste management plans for construction and demolition projects (DEHLG, 2006).

It notes that impacts on hydrology would have significant ecological impacts if the receiving watercourses hold flora and fauna of conservation interest. It notes the risk of pollution of watercourses from accidental spillages and notes the sensitivity of otters and fish to disturbance and deterioration of water quality. It states that watercourse crossings will be designed to provide as little obstruction and disturbance as practicable to the river corridor.

It states that the installation of culverts at proposed watercourse crossing may give rise to temporary alterations in flow regime during construction. It states to counteract the potential interaction a positive drainage system would be used. It states this would greatly reduce if not eliminate potential significant impacts on downstream surface water or groundwater quality and flow conditions.

It states that the operation of the road would not be expected to have any significant effects in relation to ecology combined with air quality and climate and noise and vibrations.

In relation to the interaction between ecology and landscape and visual it states that severed linear features such as hedgerows and tree lines would be reconnected where practicable using mature planting with hedgerow species and would compensate for habitat loss and provide continuity in the landscape. This states that all landscape treatments have taken into account the assessment and recommendations of the ecology section of the EIS and that the detailed landscaping proposals would be prepared in consultation with a qualified ecologist.

Section 12.4 deals with the interaction of geology, hydrology and hydrogeology with other impacts and in relation to traffic and states in most areas that a proposed road development the construction activities would be more or less limited to the linear alignment of the route. It states in areas of soft soil, construction activities and vehicular movements could be necessary beyond that alignment which would lead to

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 66 of 72 Limerick County Council

more extensive damage over a wider area. It states this would also lead to more extensive loss of structure and changes in drainage.

It notes the potential for generation of dust from earthworks activities and the dust minimisation plan is referred to. In relation to the interaction with landscape and visual it notes that embankments have potential for significant visual intrusion and deep cuttings can result in significant change to the visual nature of landscape character. It states landscape and mitigation measures have been proposed to mitigate potential landscape and visual impacts.

Section 12.5 deals with climate and air quality and states that in relation to ecology interaction, the predicted levels for oxides of nitrogen indicate no impact on the resultant air quality in the region and therefore no resultant impact on the surrounding vegetation. It states that the impact of the proposed road development on climate would amount to an imperceptible increase in CO 2 emissions. For noise and vibration interaction it states there are no mitigation measures required for the proposed road development.

Section 12.7 refers to landscape and visual. It states that impacts on landscape have an associated impact on their component parts such as hydrology, geology, hydrogeology and ecology.

Section 12.8 refers to the cultural heritage and refers to the archaeological testing along the whole of the proposed route. It states this could potentially overlap with any pre-construction ecology work required such as the exclusion, evacuation and removal of badger sets. In relation to the interaction with a landscape and visual it states that the setting, character and integrity of buildings of cultural heritage were taken into consideration when conducting the landscape and visual impact assessment. The interaction with geology, hydrology and hydrogeology refers to watercourses and rivers and it notes a low potential for the presence of unknown archaeological remains.

13.0 CONSIDERATION OF ADJACENT SCHEMES – (VOLUME 2, EIS, CHAPTER 13, PAGES 293-300)

The EIS assesses the impacts of the N21 Adare Bypass is a stand alone road development. It notes that in Chapter 13 the potential cumulative effects of the adjacent and proposed road development namely the M20-Cork-Limerick Motorway Scheme is considered. It notes that the Cork-Limerick Motorway Scheme is approximately 82 kilometres of main line. It notes the schemes connect at a grade separated junction north of Croom in the townland of Fanningstown which is to be known as the Croom Junction.

Section 13.3 refers to environmental aspects and notes that the N21 would have the effect of removing a significant bottleneck on the road between Limerick and Kerry. It states that the net traffic movements would result in an increased traffic volume between Croom and Attyflin. It states this would not present any new human being

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 67 of 72 Limerick County Council

impacts. It states there might be a slight positive impact on human beings with a Croom Junction benefiting some small businesses in the vicinity of the junction.

Section 13.3.2 refers to ecology and the potential for cumulative impacts between the N21 and M20 Schemes. It states neither development would have a significant impact on the lower River Shannon SAC and it states that overall with the mitigation proposed for both developments in relation to a terrestrial and aquatic ecology, the likelihood of significant long-term cumulative impacts is negligible.

It states there are no geological features of importance located at the tie in point and therefore no likely significant cumulative impacts predicted. For hydrology, it notes the assessment of the N21 scheme there is a potential risk to the River Maigue from construction impacts. It refers to the findings of no significant effects F.O.N.S.E and Appendix 6.1.7 which concludes there are no significant impacts identified prior to mitigation in relation to the lower River Shannon cSAC. It states that after the successful implementation of mitigation during the construction of the proposed M20 Scheme there would be an imperceptible and temporary residual impact. It states with mitigation for both proposed road development there would be no significant impact on hydrology from the interaction of the two proposed road developments.

In relation to hydrology the increased vulnerability of aquifers is noted and the monitoring programme in accordance with the environmental operation plan is also noted. It states there would be no significant impacts from the interaction of the two proposed road developments on hydrogeology.

In relation to both climate and air it notes there are no residential dwellings within 200 metres of the proposed Croom junction and that that was the distance beyond which it is accepted that traffic emissions from a road would have no significant effect on pollution concentrations.

For noise and vibration it states even with the worst case scenario traffic from the proposed N20 Scheme adding to the traffic flows on the N21, no sensitive receptors are predicted to exceed the NRA design goal and meet the criteria whereby noise mitigation measures are required. It states therefore no noise mitigation measures considered necessary for the N21 proposed road development.

Section 13.3.7 describes landscape and visual impacts and states that the impacts on a number of properties from the construction of the N21 could be compounded by the proposed M20 game. It states these locations include a group of residential properties south of the proposed N21 and a group of residential properties on the L-1420 and Fanningstown Castle. It states that the settlement would experience potential oblique views to the Croom junction with an illumination impact. It states there would be moderate impact in the vicinity of the junction in relation to illumination which would potentially affect the group of properties east of the proposed junction and also Fanningstown Castle. It said with mitigation measures such as dense landscape, planting, impacts would not be significant on the properties and on Fanningstown Castle.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 68 of 72 Limerick County Council

Section 13.3.8 refers to cultural heritage and notes there are two archaeological sites overlapping with a study area of the proposed road developments. It states these consist of Fanningstown Quarry and an area of archaeological potential. It states there is no anticipated cumulative impact from the construction or operation of the proposed M20 Scheme. It states the overlap between the two developments would impact two architectural areas namely Fanningstown Castle, a protected structure and an unprotected gateway. It states there would be no anticipated impact on the gateway. He states the construction and operation of the proposed road developments would both have a moderate impact on Fanningstown Castle. It states there is likely to be a significant impact on Fanningstown Castle due to both proposed road developments. It states that landscape mitigation for both the proposed road developments would reduce the significance of that impact.

CONCLUSION

In Section 13.3.9 the conclusion is that there would be an accumulation of impacts. It states that mitigation measures proposed for both road developments reduces the severity of the impacts on the level of impact arising from the interactions of the two proposed road developments is stated to be not significant.

Section 13.3.10 considers the potential impacts should the M20 Scheme be delayed (this was discussed in detail at the oral hearing). The EIS states that the proposed N21 would connect to the existing N20 with an upgrade roundabout and this is shown on figure 2.7 in Volume 3 of the EIS. It notes that some aspects would receive a short term positive impact which would include agronomy, ecology, landscape and visual, hydrology and hydrogeology. It states that a number of aspects would not be impacted by the delay in the M20 project and these would be cultural heritage and geology. Short-term negative impacts could arise from impact on human beings, noise and air quality. In relation to human beings the EIS states the existing N20 does not meet the existing traffic peak or demands of several locations. It states if the M20 were delayed the N21 the ADare Bypass would place additional traffic onto that section of the N20. It states the increased traffic levels on the N20 would have a temporary negative impact on human beings due to increased traffic levels, a decrease in journey times, journey time reliability and an increase in road traffic accidents. It states that the surplus of approximately 110,000m 3 of material which is estimated for the M21 would be disposed off-site at an appropriate licenced waste management facility. The EIS considers that to be a short-term slight negative impact. The summary of the section is that if the proposed M20 were delayed there would be a number of negligible and short-term positive and negative impacts on some of the environmental aspects. It states the impacts would be experienced for the duration of the delay and would be concentrated around the proposed tie-in point of the two road developments.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 69 of 72 Limerick County Council

14.0 A SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES/ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS – (EIS VOLUME 2, CHAPTER 14, PAGES 301-342)

In Section 14.1 it states the Section summarises the mitigation measures proposed in the EIS and it states the purpose of the environmental commitments is to mitigate or ameliorate potentially significant adverse impacts which were identified in Sections 5- 11 of the EIS. All the commitments are given in tabular form and refers to the different chapters of the EIS.

Section 14.2 is described as general and refers to the environmental operating plan. Section 14.3 refers to the human environment with references to Chapter 5 of the EIS.

Section 14.4 covers ecology and outlines the mitigation measures which were listed in the various sections of Chapter 6 of the EIS. Section 14.5 relates to geology, hydrogeology and hydrology and has EIS references to Chapter 7 and the commitments contained in that chapter.

Section 14.6 refers to climate and air quality and chapter 8 and chapter 9 of the EIS. Section 14.8 covers landscape and visual and the commitments and mitigation measures included in Chapter 10 of the EIS.

Section 14.9 covers cultural heritage and the commitments and mitigation referred to in chapter 11 of the EIS.

15.0 APPENDICES – (VOLUME 4, EIS, CHAPTER 5-11)

Volume 4 of the EIS has 14 appendices listed but Appendices 1-4 and 12-14 are listed as being not used. This means that the appendices 5-11 corresponds with the relevant chapters on the same topics in Volume 2 of the EIS.

15.5 Community Appendix 5.1 Human Beings and Material Assets (there is no entry under this appendix).

Appendix 5.2 is agronomy which is in tabular form with information on the various farmholdings nos. 1-25 and details of the area of the farm, affected area, area to be acquired and percentage landtake together with an indication if its full-time or part time farming and if a member of the REPS Scheme. The table also gives details of the primary and secondary soil types, land quality, farming intensity, predicted impact, temporary disturbance, permanent disturbance and overall residual impact.

Appendix 6.1 – Terrestrial Ecology

Tables give details of protected species, rare and protected plant species and butterfly species. Appendix 6.1.2 gives habitat photographs. Table 6.A5 is target notes referring to habitats and species. Appendix 6.1.4 is the breeding bird survey results and Appendix 6.1.5 is the bat survey results. Appendix 6.1.6 is the value of habitats of the local otter population. ______

0028 n Bord leanála age 70 of 72 Limerick County Council

Appendix 6.1.7 is the Article 6(3) findings of no significance effects report or the lower River Shannon cSAC.

Appendix 6 also includes references and maps of the locations involved in the bat roost surveys. Appendix 6.2 refers to aquatic ecology.

Appendix 7 – Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology – this is largely in tabular form with Appendix 7.1 for geology if not used and the first table for hydrology sets out the criteria to assess sensitivity of water courses and a second table gives the magnitude of protected impact on water courses. Appendix 7.2.2 describes the drainage network descriptions. This is a network A- network I.

Appendix 7.3 is hydrogeology which refers to source protection zone assessment, hydraulic testing and flow system mapping and groundwater gradients. Appendix 7.3.1 gives well details for private water supply wells (References W1-W36).

Appendix 8 – Air Quality and Climate – Appendix 8.1 deals with climate and refers to the National Climate Change Strategy 2007-2012 while Appendix 8.2 refers to air quality and gives the relevant air quality standards and the policy and legislative context including an explanation of the air quality zones A-D which were defined in the air quality regulations 2002 (SI No. 271 of 2002). It lists also the pollutants of concern and the available background data.

DMRB modelling is described in Appendix 8.2 B and description of the dust minimisation plan is given on page 203.

Appendix 8.2C gives the impact assessment methodology.

Appendix 9 – Noise and Vibration (Volume 4, EIS, page 207-243)

Appendix 9.1 gives the conversion table for Lden . Table 9.A2 gives details of the short-term measurements from 12 th May 2009 for the three receptors used. Table 9.A3 gives details of the 24 hour measurements and Table 9.A4 details the short-term measurements. Noise modelling results are given in Appendix 9.2 on tables from page 215-238 and these give the receptor location, the predicted do minimum noise levels, the predicted do-something noise levels and the co-ordinates of the location.

Appendix 9.3 is the model variation and Appendix 9.4 refers to baseline noise level contributors.

Appendix 10 – Landscape and Visual – (Volume 4 EIS, pages 245-268)

Appendix 10 A gives the methodology and method of assessment including the criteria for landscape and visual sensitivity and magnitude of change criteria. It describes the assessment of landscape effects, visual effects and description of mitigation measures.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 7 of 72 Limerick County Council

Appendix 10B are the landscape and visual impact tables and these set out the element, description, sensitivity, magnitude of impacts, significance of impact, comments and mitigation for a variety of different elements. Its specific references in the case of Dunnaman Castle and Fanningstown Castle.

Appendix 10 B.2 is the landscape character impact assessment and this table has 60 references which include details of sensitivity, magnitude of impact, significance of impact and notes on the reference.

Appendix 11 – Cultural Heritage – (Volume 4, EIS, pages 269-343)

Appendix 11.1 describes the existing environment including the archaeological and cultural heritage background. Table 11.A1 gives townland names and translations.

Appendix 11.2 is gazetteer of archaeological heritage sites and this is in tabular form from page 276-310.

Appendix 11.3 is the gazetteer of architectural heritage sites and this is from page 311-331.

Photographs of various sites including Dunnaman Castle and Church, Fanningstown Castle, Garraunboy Castle and other sites listed by number with the Castleroberts field system (309) and the gateway to the east of Fanningstown Castle (site 333) taken from the north. The final pages of this appendix are the references used.

______

0028 n Bord leanála age 72 of 72