COMHAIRLE CHONTAE NA GAILLIMHE GALWAY COUNTY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE CONAMARA ELECTORAL AREA MEETING HELD ON Wednesday, 11th of April 2013 at Aras an Chontae I Láthair: Baill Cllr Seán O’Tuairisg, Cathaoirleach Comh. Tomás O’Curraoín Cllr. Eileen Mannion Cllr. Seosamh O’Laoí Comh. Seamus Walsh Cllr. Thomas Welby, Mayor of County Galway Comh. Seosamh O’Cuaig Oifigigh: Mr. Frank Gilmore, Director of Services Mr. Evan Molloy, Senior Engineer, Conamara Area Mr. Tony Kelly, SEE, Conamara Area Mr Feidhlim McGillycuddy, Area Engineer, Conamara South Mr T.J Redmond, Area Engineer, Conamara North Mr. Liam Gavin, Senior Engineer, Roads & Transportation Mr. Fran McEvoy, SEE, Roads & Transportation Mr. Michael Timmins, Senior Engineer, NRDO Mr Sean Groarke, AO, Finance 1. Minutes of Meeting held on the 13-2-2013. The adoption of the Minutes of the meeting held on the 13-2-2013 was proposed by Cllr. S. Walsh and seconded by Comh. S. O’Laoí. Matters Arising: Cllr. T. Welby requested an update on the work required to remedy the damage to the N59 caused by the landslide at Lettergesh. F. Gilmore advised that site investigations involving geotechnical/trial hole surveys were currently being undertaken and the result of these surveys would determine the next stage. He then enquired about the proposed Improvement scheme (Safety measures) on the N59 at Gortacleva and an update on the Community Involvement Scheme ( CIS ). He was advised by L. Gavin that trials hole surveys were currently being conducted at Gortacleva and that there were several issues to be resolved with the NRA. E. Molloy advised that the CIS list would be sent to the Department next week. Comh. S .O’Tuairisg enquired about the funding to construct a footpath on the road in the vicinity of Rossaveal Harbour. He stated that it was a busy road due to traffic using the Harbour and was the scene of recent fatal accidents. Parts of this road are narrow. He requested the Council to examine the matter . Comh. S. O’Laoí concurred with this request and advised that the road at Rossaveal was a major safety concern for the Community. E. Molloy advised that the former Area Engineer undertook works to provide a footpath but at present the Council had no funding to complete this work and the only viable sourse of funding was from Leader. Comh. S. O’Cuaig enquired about the the junction at Recess, the path at Tully and whether lights could be installed on the footpath at Rossaveal. E. Molloy advised that he would complete the works required for the junction at Recess. He also stated that the Council had completed its work on the footpath at Tully 2. R-336 Bearna-Scriób via Ros a Mhíl. F. Gilmore introduced Messrs Gerry Carty, Managing Director and Cian McGuinness, Associate of RPS Consultants to the Committee. He then advised the meeting of the implications of the judgment made on the 11-4-2013 by the European Court of Justice on the interpretation of Article 6 (3) of the Council Directive 92/43/EEC of the 21-May-1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ( Habitats Directive) in regard to the N6-Galway City Outer Bypass Scheme. Part of the proposed route of the N6-GCOB traverses the Lough Corrib cSAC which hosts 6 priority habitat types including karstic limestone pavement , the specific protected habitat forming the subject matter of the main proceedings. The proposed scheme involved the permanent loss of approximately 1.4 hectares of that limestone pavement. Bord Pleanála had granted consent to the development on the 20-11-2008 on the basis that while it would have a localised severe impact on the Lough Corrib c SAC –it would not adversely affect the the integrity of this site. The interpretation derived by Bord Pleanála of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive was challenged in the High Court and the Supreme Court –which referred it to the European Court of Justice for a ruling. He stated that the ruling made by the European Court of Justice on the interpretation of Article 6(3) was restrictive and in effect meant that the N6-GCOB would impact on the limestone pavement priority habitat and would adversely affect the intergrity of that site. In those circumstances –the proposed road scheme cannot be authorised on the basis of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. The ruling also stated that the precautionary principle should be applied for the purposes of that appraisal. The actual judgement stated ― Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site will adversely affect the integrity of that site if it is liable to prevent the lasting preservation of the constitutive characteristics of the site that are connected to the presence of a priority natural habitat whose conservation was the objective justifying the designation of the site in the list of sites of Community importance , in accordance with the directive. The precautionary principle should be applied for the purposes of that appraisal. ― F. Gilmore advised the committee of the consequences this judgment has on the proposed routes for the new R-336 in Conamara- especially the Brown Route which was favoured by the elected members and a majority of the respondents to the public consultation process. He referrred to the meeting with the EC Commission in May 2011 which was held to establish if it would consider an application under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive ( IROPI or Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest )) for a route within the c SAC . He advised that the outcome of the meeting was the following: A formal application was required under the IROPI framework. The Brown would not be viewed favourably. A route at the margin of the c SAC could be considered such as the Emerging Preferred Route ( EPR or the Purple Route ) There must be a very detailed comparison with a route outside the c SAC as the alternative (Natura Optimum Route) The NOR is a route wholly outside or which is of minimal impact on the c SAC. It is intended that where any intrusion into a c SAC is intended –the route in the affected area will be directly compared with the NOR to determine whether the intrusion warrants further investigation or if it should be rejected immediately. The overriding public interest reasons in accordance with Article 6(4) must be very clearly demonstrated. The absence of feasible alternatives must be very clearly demonstrated. Extensive mitigation measures would be required. Significant impacts on Gaeltacht communities could be considered to render an option unviable as an alternative. There is no guarantee of success. Sixteen IROPI applications were made to the EC Commission to date of which fifteen were approved. No application under the IROPI framework was received from Ireland to date. Applications for Article 6(4) derogations are therefore rare and can be very expensive. It may also take up to 18 months for a decision. He then requested Gerry Carty of RPS to make his presentation. Mr. Carty presented an outline of the project to date. He described the route options and the designated c SAC, NHA and p NHA sites which pose major constraints to the route selection process. He advised that the Conamara bogs constituted one of the largest c SACs in Europe –where the blanket bog is the primary habitat being protected. He described the public consultation process in particular the public response to the third consultation.( on the Emerging Preferred Route EPR or Purple Route ) He stated that 1,758 responses were received plus a petition signed by 614 people. The vast majority of respondents were in opposition to the EPR or Purple Route. The overall themes were: No general acceptance that a new road is necessary. The preferred route should be to the north to minimise impact on houses and communities i.e the Brown Route in the NHA/c SAC The respondents considered that the protection of the environment was important but secondary to the preservation of the settlement pattern, language and community in Cois Fharraige. The designated c SAC and NHA boundaries were considered to be arbitrary and did not reflect the ecological value of the area. He advised that National Parks and Wildlife service (NPWS) have been consulted in regard to the route options throughout the route selection process. He outlined the consultation process with NPWS as follows: Meetings in regard to the route options were held with NPWS in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. The Appropriate Assessment Scoping was issued to NPWS in October 2009. The advise from NPWS was that routes potentially impacting designated sites should be disregarded at an early stage. NPWS officials advised that the precautionary principle as outlined in the Habitats Directive should be used where any doubt exists. The Draft Impact Assessment Statement on thr Emerging Preferred Route ( Purple Route) was circulated to NPWS in March 2010 The conclusions reached from the AA Screening and the Draft Impact Assessment Reports was that all the route options considered had potential to impact on the Designated Sites—although some to a lesser extent. In regard to the EPR or Purple Route this involved the potential loss of 17 ha of lowland blanket bog ( 0.05% of the total in the c SAC ) This could represent an ―Adverse impact on the Integrity of the Site‖ and possible indirect and severance impacts on the c SAC were also identified.