INSPECTOR’S REPORT · Attend the oral hearing, provide assistance to Michael Walsh in its format,...

__________________________________________________________________________________

PL17.HA0026/KA0015 An Bord Pleanála of 124

N2 Slane Bypass Road Scheme – Application for Approval of

Proposed Road Development

County Meath Compulsory Purchase (Roads No. 1) (N2 Slane Bypass

Road Scheme) Order 2009

INSPECTOR’S REPORT

Promoting Authority: Meath County Council

ABP Ref. No. (EIS): PL17.HA0026

ABP Ref. No. (CPO): PL17.KA0015

Observers/Objectors: Details as set out in Appendices II and III

Inspector: Michael Walsh

__________________________________________________________________________________


NATURE OF APPLICATIONS

This is a report to An Bord Pleanála on applications by Meath County Council for

approval under Section 51 of the Roads Act 1993 (as amended by the Planning and

Development Acts, 2000 to 2010) of the road development described in the

Environmental Impact Statement submitted, and for confirmation under Section 76 of

and the Third Schedule to the Housing Act, 1966 of the Compulsory Purchase Order

described on the title page. This preparation of an environmental impact statement in

respect of this development was undertaken on foot of a direction by An Bord

Pleanála.

These applications were advertised publicly in the press on the 16th

and 19th

December, 2009 in accordance with the appropriate statutory requirements. Written

submissions in relation to the likely effects on the environment of this development,

written objections to the Compulsory Purchase Order and written objections to the

extinguishment of specified public rights of way were invited to be made to An Bord

Pleanála not later than the 17th

February, 2010. A full list of those who made

submissions and objections is set out in Appendices II and III.

The Board issued a request for further information on the 17th

May, 2010. This

information was submitted on the 30th

July, 2010 and, following consideration of its

content, the Board determined that it comprised significant additional information and

directed Meath County Council on the 13th

September, 2010 to publish a notice in

accordance with Section 51 of the Roads Act 1993, as amended, in one or more

newspapers and to send notice of the receipt of this information to certain prescribed

bodies. Several submissions and observations were made in response to the

publication of the receipt of this information.

ORAL HEARING AND INSPECTIONS

Oral Hearing: An oral hearing of these applications was held in the Boyne Valley

Hotel, Drogheda in accordance with the relevant statutory requirements. This

commenced on the 14th

February, 2011 and continued on various dates until the 4th

March, 2011. It resumed on the 29th

March, 2011 and continued to its closing on the

1st April, 2011 (18 sitting days in total).

Inspections: Inspections took place on the 15th

December 2010, 26th

January 2011,

8th

, 12th

and 14th

February 2011, 11th

, 14th

, 24th

and 28th

March 2011 and 11th

August

2011.

STRUCTURE OF REPORT

This report includes a description of the proposed development, a general description

of the route of the proposed road and its environs, a review of submissions and

observations made in writing and at the oral hearing, an assessment of the issues

relevant to this case and recommendations on the application for approval and the

application for confirmation of the Compulsory Purchase Order.

__________________________________________________________________________________


The assessment incorporates a review of material issues relevant to the proposed

development having regard to the Board’s obligations to carry out an environmental

impact assessment of the project and to the legislative framework governing the

Board’s deliberations in cases of this type.

The cultural heritage and landscape and visual aspects of the proposed development

are dealt with in the report of Mairead Kenny, which is included as Appendix I and

forms an input to this report. The instruction given by the Board to Mairead Kenny

was as follows:

1. Attend the oral hearing, provide assistance to Michael Walsh in its format,

timetabling and direction and deal with any such issues as may be

determined by the Board and / or the reporting inspector.

2. Ask questions as deemed necessary at the oral hearing.

3. Submit a written report with recommendations to Michael Walsh on the

following aspects of the application:

Landscape and Visual.

Architecture, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage.

The report and recommendations shall be compiled having regard to the

relevant chapters of the EIS together with its accompanying appendices, further

information submitted to the Board in writing or at the oral hearing by any of

the parties and consideration of the likely effects on the environment of the

proposed road development.

Lists of those who made submissions to the Board, those who objected to the

Compulsory Purchase Order, appearances at the oral hearing and a list of material

presented at the oral hearing are included in appendices to the report. The names of

Government departments and agencies and the positions of public representatives are

given in this report in accordance with details correct at the time of the

commencement of the hearing.

The contribution of Mairead Kenny to the preparation of this report is gratefully

acknowledged.

__________________________________________________________________________________


CONTENTS

1. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6

1.1 Constraints Study Report 2002 6

1.2 Route Selection Study 2005 7

1.3 Board Directions on Environment Impact Statement 8

1.4 Main Components of Development 9

1.5 Extent of Interests and Lands for Compulsory Acquisition 10

1.6 Statutory Procedures / Reports 11

2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 12

2.1 Background and General Description 12

2.2 Significant Environmental Impacts 13

2.3 Further Information 17

3. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ROUTE AND ENVIRONS 18

3.1 East Meath Area 18

3.2 Slane Village and Surrounds 18

3.3 Significant Heritage Features 19

3.4 Road Network 20

4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION / RESPONSES 21

4.1 Written Submissions on Approval Application 21

4.2 Objections to Compulsory Purchase Order 24

4.3 Preliminary Meeting 26

4.4 Oral Hearing Proceedings 26

5. FRAMEWORK OF CONSIDERATION 27

5.1 Role of Board 27

5.2 Matters for Consideration 27

5.3 Public Participation 28

5.4 Transboundary Implications 29

6. ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT 32

6.1 Extent of Development 32

6.2 Aims and Objectives of Development 34

6.3 Environmental Impact Assessment 35

6.3.1 Outline of Process 35

6.3.2 Adequacy of Environmental Impact Statement 36

6.3.3 Human Environment 38

6.3.4 Noise and Vibration 45

6.3.5 Flora and Fauna 47

6.3.6 Geology and Soils 50

6.3.7 Waters 52

6.3.8 Air and Climate 53

6.3.9 The Landscape 55

__________________________________________________________________________________


6.3.10 Material Assets 62

6.3.11 Cultural Heritage 64

6.3.12 Implications for World Heritage Site 68

6.3.13 Summary (Environmental Impact Assessment) 77

6.4 Achievement of Objectives of Development 79

6.5 Compliance with Meath County Development Plan 81

6.6 Development in Context of Alternatives 85

6.6.1 Alternatives Relevant to Slane Bypass 85

6.6.2 Road Design Standard Alternatives 86

6.6.3 Alternative Routes – Western Corridor 88

6.6.4 Alternative Routes – Eastern Corridor (Bridge Location) 91

6.6.5 Bridge Height and Design 93

6.6.6 Alternative Routes – Eastern Corridor (Remainder of Route) 93

6.7 Alternatives without Bypass Construction 94

6.7.1 Forms of Heavy Goods Vehicle Ban 96

6.7.2 Analysis of Traffic Movements through Slane 97

6.7.3 Implementation of Ban 100

6.7.4 Likely Outcome in Slane 101

6.7.5 Likely Outcome on Wider Network 102

7. OBJECTIONS TO COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 104

MMM

7.0 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 107

8.1 Objectives of Development 107

8.2 Environmental Impact 107

8 3 Alternatives 108

8.4 Conclusions 109

8.5 Recommendation (Application for Approval for Road) 111

8.6 Recommendation (Application for Confirmation of CPO) 113

APPENDICES 114

I – Report of Mairead Kenny on Cultural Heritage and Landscape and Visual

Impacts

II - List of Outstanding Objectors to Compulsory Purchase Order

III- List of Persons/Bodies having made Submissions / Observations on EIS

IV- Appearances at Oral Hearing

V - Schedule of Written Material submitted at Hearing

VI – Summary of Proceedings of Oral Hearing

__________________________________________________________________________________


1. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

1.1. Constraints Study Report 2002

Background

Several studies and plans are referred to, including the National Roads Needs Study

1998, the National Development Plan 2000-2006 and the Meath County Development

Plan 2001, with particular reference to the objective in the Development Plan to

construct a bypass around Slane. Previous studies are referred to. A feasibility report

prepared in 1985 recommended a skew bridge not including a bypass of the village.

A further feasibility study in 1990 deemed that the 1985 scheme would not address

the problems of the steep gradients. It identified three possible bypass routes, two to

the west and one to the east, and concluded that the eastern route would be most

suitable on grounds of limited visual impact on the village, minimisation of land

severance and cost. Short-term safety measures were implemented following a report

in 2001. The existing road network is described with particular reference to the steep

gradients on the approach to the bridge, the poor safety record of this section of the

N2 road and problems at the N2/N51 intersection in the village.

Identification of Constraints

For the purposes of this study, a Route Study Area was identified, comprising a broad

curving band of about 1.25 kilometres in width which crosses the N2 road north and

south of the village. The constraints were identified under headings which included

land ownership, hydrology, utilities, cultural heritage, traffic, physical features,

ecology, landscape and local issues. The section on cultural heritage describes the

archaeological and historical background and lists cultural heritage constraints.

Particular reference is made to the proximity of the Boyne Valley Archaeological

Park, containing the three passage tombs, and also to significant site groupings.

Significant geological constraints include the valley of the River Boyne, difficult

ground conditions in the floodplain, disused quarries/gravel pits and the performance

of different bedrock types. Sites covered by natural conservation designations within

and adjacent to the study area along with other areas of potential ecological interest

are described. Preference for the avoidance of natural heritage areas is expressed

while accepting the necessity of crossing the river. Constraints identified in relation

to landscape, visual impacts and aesthetics include the Boyne Valley, Slane Village

centre, Slane Castle Demesne, listed views, public amenity areas and existing trees

and woodlands. The area to the west of the N2 encompassing the village was found to

contain significant areas of landscape and amenity but that to the east of the village

was not found to have the same interrelationship of views and heritage present in the

western corridor.

Conclusions

Particular points made are that the bypass complies with the National Development

Plan 2000-2006 and the Meath County Development Plan 2001, that no objection was

received to the decision to look solely to the east for potential routes, that it should be

possible to avoid important known cultural heritage constraints, that restrictions on

bridge embankment construction would impact on the determination of the bridge

location and that the bridge design should take potential habitat impacts into account.

__________________________________________________________________________________


1.2. Route Selection Study 2005

Introduction and Need for Project

This report is stated to be the culmination of a detailed examination of the study area

and constraints, determination of route corridors, consultations and an analysis of

relevant factors. The existing N2 road corridor is described, with particular reference

to safety factors at Slane Bridge, and the primary objectives of the scheme are listed.

The need for the project is elaborated with reference to national and local plans,

accidents and functions of the project.

Alternative Routes

The Do Minimum option is described initially with regard to the shortcomings of the

existing N2 road through the village, the limited scope to improve its alignment and

its consequent elimination from further consideration. Referring to the Constraints

Study Report, it was noted that routes to the west of the village were not considered

viable. Four main corridors, with some variations at the ends, were then identified in

the study area fixed by the village to the west and the World Heritage Site to the east.

These are described and cross the river in three locations, one close to the crossing

point now proposed, one further east and one significantly closer to Slane. The

crossing points of the N51 road are fairly close to that now proposed with the

exception of one option passing closer by the village.

Public Consultation

The public consultation programme is described with regard to contacts with interest

groups, public meetings, media publicity and circulation of a questionnaire. From the

small sample of questionnaires returned (57) 81% supported a bypass and 54%

expressed a preference for the route option furthest from the village.

Traffic and Road Standards

Traffic growth factors and existing traffic conditions are discussed, with particular

regard to the effects of the opening of the Drogheda Bypass in 2003 and the N33

Ardee Link Road and also to the impending opening of the M2 Motorway. The

option of a connection to the N51 from the bypass was also recommended, which

would have additional safety benefits. Forecasts of traffic were made with regard to

local traffic generation potential and non-local traffic growth. The maximum

projected flow on the bypass in 2036 (13,045) indicated the need for a standard single

carriageway with a design speed of 100 kph, maximum gradients of 6% and climbing

lanes on steep sections. A detailed comparison of the various route options is set out.

Bridge Assessment

The report includes a bridge feasibility report. The locations are compared under

several headings with particular regard to the river environs, the visual impact and

geotechnical issues. Key design aspects concern the bridge underside, the relative

visibility of the soffits and piers from ground level and the presence of the bridge on

the skyline and in longer views. Different design options were considered including

girder bridges, arch bridges and other non-girder bridges. A height of about 10 metres

above ground level is indicated. Further design options relate to the number of spans,

cross section, materials and finishes. The different route options are compared and it

is indicated that the bridge would have a clear span across the river and would span

the disused canal and towpath on the southern side. The comparison indicated that the

__________________________________________________________________________________


difference between the options is marginal with Option B1 (close to the actual

proposal) being preferred.

Overall Assessment / Recommendations

The different routes are discussed with reference to relevant factors and the likely

impacts on the environment of the various route options. The route options are then

discussed. Route A is advantageous in terms of safety, traffic impact, ecology and

planning terms. It is also the preferred choice of those who returned questionnaires.

It would however have the most severe impact on the farming community and have

severe visual effects because it is closest to the World Heritage Site. The routes of the

B route group are considered among the most favourable in planning terms and

impact on ecology and would have the least overall visual impact. They are also

preferred in terms of archaeology, including the World Heritage Site. The C routes,

due to their proximity to the village, are less attractive in terms of archaeology and

cultural heritage. They also have less than desirable horizontal radii and a high

ecological impact and would be at the high end of cost estimates. Route D would pass

very close to the Ledwidge Cottage and would be less favourable in terms of cultural

heritage and ecology. Route E is a combination of Routes A and B/B1. It would be

favourable in terms of planning and ecology but not in terms of agriculture. It shares

the same drawbacks in relation to visual and archaeological impacts as Route A

because of its proximity to the World Heritage Site. The second public consultation

process is described and, on foot of the route options study, it was considered that

Route B1-B-B2 with a link to the N51 is, on balance, the preferred route. A number

of detailed recommendations are made on this basis.

1.3. Board Directions on Environmental Impact Statement

17.ED2050. Direction to Meath County Council by an Bord Pleanála on 4th

October,

2005 to prepare an environmental impact statement in respect of the N2 Slane Bypass

on the basis of the following reasons and considerations:

Having regard to section 50 of the Roads Act, 1993 and to the Roads Regulations,

1994 the preparation of an environmental impact statement is a mandatory

requirement for the proposed road development consisting of the construction of

the bridge over the River Boyne. It is considered that having regard to the

cumulative impact of the proposed road with that of the bridge, to the extent and

degree to which the road and bridge are essentially parts of the same project, to

the environmental sensitivity of the route of the proposed road, and to the report of

the person appointed by the Board to report on the matter, the proposed road

development would be likely to have significant effects on the environment .

17.HD0016. Direction to Meath County Council by an Bord Pleanála on 2nd

December, 2009 to prepare an environmental impact statement in respect of the N2

Slane Bypass.

__________________________________________________________________________________


1.4 Main Components of Development

Description of the Scheme

The scheme is stated to be approximately 3.5 kilometres long and will cross the River

Boyne on a new bridge at a location approximately 1.1 kilometres to the east of the

existing N2 Slane Bridge. It is stated to include from south to north the following

elements:

N2 South Roundabout to form a junction at the southern end of the scheme to

connect to the existing N2 at Johnstown;

An overbridge where the new N2 road will pass under the Rossnaree road at

Fennor including slight vertical realignment of that local road;

A major 200 metre long bridge crossing of the River Boyne;

A Roundabout junction at the N51 at Cashel, approximately 1.2 kilometres east

of the existing N2/N51 junction in the centre of Slane Village, with realignment

of the existing N51 over a length of 700 metres;

N2 North Roundabout to form a junction at the northern extent of the scheme to

connect to the existing N2 at Slane;

Various accommodation works for affected landowners and other ancillary

works.

The development includes the acquisition and demolition of four private dwellings.

General Route

The general route and layout of the scheme is described. It is indicated that from the

southern end of the scheme the existing terrain generally falls from a high level of

about 75 metres OD (ordnance datum) down to a low point of approximately 12

metres OD at the River Boyne crossing point over a distance of 1.5 kilometres. North

of the river the terrain climbs more steeply at an average gradient of 5% over a length

of about 400 metres towards the N51 junction. The final 700 metre long section north

of the N51 crossing climbs more gently to the northern end of the scheme. A

pedestrian and cyclist link to Slane along the N51 is proposed, as is a pedestrian and

cyclist link to Crewbane. A number of improvements are proposed along the N51

from the new junction into the village of Slane. It is pointed out that direct access on

to national roads is not desirable and that farm accesses to severed or affected lands

will where possible have alternative access provided from other non-national roads.

Road Type and Design Standard

The N2 mainline route is classified as a Type 2 dual carriageway and its cross section

comprises the following:

1 x 1.5 metre wide central reserve with wire rope traffic separation barrier;

2 x 7.0 metre carriageways, with two traffic lanes in each direction;

2 x 0.5 metre hard strips;

2 x 3.0 metre grass verges (including hard strips), with widening to provide adequate

stopping sight distance;

Paved width: 16.5 metres;

Overall width to back of verges: 21.5 metres.

It is not proposed as part of the development to provide a dedicated pedestrian and

cyclist facility on this road, but an additional verge width of 2.5 metres has been

incorporated into the land-take to allow for such a possible eventuality.

__________________________________________________________________________________


Earthworks

Estimates of the quantities of earth works are a total of 300,000 cubic metres of cut

and 147,000 cubic metres of fill, leaving a surplus of 153,000 cubic metres. Most of

the excavated material would be suitable for use as either general or structural fill and

there will be no requirement to import general fill material to the site.

River Boyne Crossing

The overall length of the River Boyne Bridge crossing would be approximately 200

metres. Within this the flood channel is up to a width of approximately 120 metres

and the main river channel is approximately 50 metres wide. While the Design and

Build process allows for some variation, the contract will stipulate the minimum 200

metre length of the bridge and the general 3-span form with limitations on deviation

in the two pier locations. The foundations for the piers will be set at a minimum of 10

metres from the edge of the river channel. The preliminary design has identified an

indicative road level on the bridge deck of 30m OD (approximately 18m above the

valley floor) at mid-span over the centre of the river channel. On the southern side of

the river the bridge would span over the Boyne canal and towpath, which form part of

the Boyne navigation, and a vertical clearance over the canal of over 10 metres would

allow for future canal navigation.

Drainage and Lighting

The road drainage system will ultimately discharge to the River Boyne and details of

this system are included, along with the location of ponds and swales and their storage

volumes. Diversions of existing watercourses and design of culverts are described

and it is indicated that road lighting would be provided at each of the roundabouts

using columns no higher than 14 metres and high pressure sodium lanterns.

1.5 Extent of Interests and Lands for Compulsory Acquisition

The County Meath Compulsory Purchase (Roads No. 1) (N2 Slane Bypass Road

Scheme) Order, 2009 lists the lands, rights of way, easements and other rights which

are proposed to be acquired for the purposes of enabling this road scheme to be

constructed. Part I of the schedule lists parcels of land to be permanently acquired

and a total of 104 parcels are listed. Four of these comprise or include houses and

three of these are inhabited houses with one being an uninhabited gate lodge. The

houses to be acquired are all situated close to the N51 road east of Slane. Part II of

the schedule lists parcels of land to be temporarily acquired and a total of 35 parcels

are included in this list. Part III of the schedule lists public and private rights of way,

easements and other rights to be permanently extinguished. There are six portions of

roads or lanes included in this list. Two of them relate to all rights existing over

portions of the N2 Road, two relate to all rights existing over portions of the N51

road, one relates to all rights existing over a section of laneway partly traversing the

townland of Cullen and one relates to all rights existing over a section of private right

of way partly traversing the townland of Fennor. Part IV of the schedule lists public

and private rights of way, easements and other rights to be temporarily extinguished.

There are four items in this list and these effectively are all rights existing over part of

the canal traversing the townland of Fennor, a section of the towpath in the same

location, a section of the River Boyne in the same location and a section of private

right of way partly traversing the townland of Cashel.

__________________________________________________________________________________


1.6 Statutory Procedures / Reports

Notices of the proposal to construct this road project under Section 51 of the Roads

Act, 1993, as amended by the Planning and Development Acts, 2000 to 2010, were

published in the press on the 16th

and 19th

December, 2009. Prescribed bodies were

also notified. These notices invited the making of written submissions in relation to

the likely effects on the environment of the proposed development to An Bord

Pleanála no later than the 17th

February, 2010. Notices of the compulsory acquisition

of the land needed for the project and of the extinguishment of public rights of way

were likewise published on the 16h December, 2009. These notices provided for the

making of objections to An Bord Pleanála no later than the 17th

February, 2010.

The Manager’s order authorising the acquisition by compulsory purchase of the lands

in question, the extinguishment of public rights of way and the making of an

application to An Bord Pleanála for approval of the project was made on the 14th

December, 2009. This was done on foot of certification by Mrs. Wendy Bagnall,

Senior Executive Planner, Mr. Seamus Mac Gearailt, Director, Roughan &

O’Donovan, Consulting Engineers and Mr. Nicholas Whyatt, Senior Engineer,

National Roads Design Office.

__________________________________________________________________________________


2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

This is a brief summary of the contents of the Environmental Impact Statement. It is

based substantially on the Non-Technical Summary but includes some elaboration of

particular points and a review of significant effects and proposed mitigation measures.

2.1 Background and General Description

Introduction

The stated purpose of the proposed bypass is to overcome major safety problems on

the N2 route passing through Slane village. It is required to overcome the

inadequacies of the existing road network through provision of a local bypass of the

village of Slane.

A number of policy documents are referred to. It is stated that the N2/A5 corridor is

indicated in the National Spatial Strategy as the key link between the East Coast

region and the linked gateways of Derry and Letterkenny. The National Development

Plan (2007 – 2013) emphasises the importance of a transport infrastructure being

crucial to the promotion of national competitiveness and sustainable development and

states that further improvements on the N2 route, in cooperation with the Northern

Ireland authorities, is an objective of that Plan. Improvements already carried out to

various sections of the M2/N2 road are listed and these are to varying standards. Two

schemes at planning stage are listed, these being from Ashbourne to Ardee and

Clontibret to the border, both of which are subject to constraints studies. Reference is

made to a funding package by the Irish Government to contribute towards the A5

Western Transport Corridor through Northern Ireland. It is noted that the N2 remains

the formally designated route between Dublin and Derry.

Referring to local planning policy, it is noted that Infrastructure Objective 15 of the

Meath County Development Plan (2007 – 2013) states to support major road

improvements and proposed national road schemes by reserving the corridors of any

such proposed route free of development, which would interfere with the provision of

such proposals. This plan identifies the Slane Bypass incorporating a new bridge

over the River Boyne under this objective. The Slane Local Area Plan 2009 – 2015

acknowledges an N2 bypass comprising approximately 5 kilometres of single

carriageway road proposed to run to the east of Slane in order to relieve traffic

volumes. Reference is also made to the Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater

Dublin Area 2004 – 2016 and the Slane Bypass is identified in an update report of

2007.

Background to the Development

The existing road network in the area is described and the need for the scheme is

detailed with reference to the very poor safety record of the N2 road at Slane, the

delays arising from the one-way traffic system across Slane Bridge, increases in

traffic flows since the opening of the M2 Finglas to Ashbourne Road Scheme in 2006

and further projected traffic growth. It is submitted that it is in the best interest of the

population of Slane village and of all N2 road users for traffic to be diverted from the

village and that this proposal is to provide the appropriate road infrastructure for Slane

village, whose historical character and community infrastructure is threatened by

continuous flows of heavy traffic.

__________________________________________________________________________________


The primary objectives of the N2 Slane Bypass are:

(a) To improve traffic safety by removing through traffic from the existing route

through Slane Village and over Slane Bridge.

(b) To improve the environment of Slane Village by removing a significant portion

of north/south through traffic.

(c) To obtain an improved level of service suitable for a national primary route.

(d) To achieve the objectives of various national and regional policies for the

national road network.

(e) To achieve an objective of the Meath County Development Plan 2007 – 2013.

Description of the Scheme

The main components are set out in Section 1.4 above.

Outline of Alternatives Considered

Various alternative route options are discussed. It is pointed out that on-line widening

of the existing bridge was rejected on the basis of the likely extent of destruction of

properties, the steep gradient involved and the continued use of the village by

excessive volumes of through traffic. Potential routes to the west of the village were

reviewed during the constraints study, but were considered not to be viable having

regard to cultural heritage constraints at Slane Castle, the Hill of Slane and Slane

village. Four route corridors were developed for routes to the east of the village.

These were considered on the basis of archaeology and cultural heritage, landscape

and visual impact, ecology and agricultural land use. This led to the selection of the

preferred route in June 2005 (Route B1/B/B2). A proposal to upgrade the bypass to a

dual carriageway / motorway standard was considered but a further review in mid-

2009 determined that a reduced Type 2 dual carriageway would be provided. Options

for the Slane Bypass/N51 junction are discussed and it is explained that a roundabout

would provide adequate capacity, limit earthworks, reduce landtake and be less

expensive than a grade separated junction. Bridge height options are set out with a

summary of results for four height options varying from 12 metres to 35 metres over

the river. It is concluded that the optimum balance point between earthwork costs and

bridge cost is achieved with the second lowest option, likewise in the balance between

the visibility of the bridge and the depth of the cuttings on the approach roads.

Traffic Impacts

An analysis of traffic impacts suggests that a Type 2 dual carriageway would be the

correct standard of road for the forecast volumes, that there would be significant

journey time savings arising from use of the bypass and that there would be a very

significant reduction in truck traffic through Slane. Construction traffic is estimated

with regard to its overall volume, routing and traffic management. Any negative

impact would be of short duration and an environmental operating plan would be put

in place by the contractor during the construction phase of the scheme.

2.2 Significant Environmental Impacts

Human Beings

It is pointed out that the construction phase would require traffic management that

would give rise to community severance to various degrees, though the contract

would seek to minimise traffic disruption. In the operational phase the resident

community would experience reduced travel times and safer driving conditions and

__________________________________________________________________________________


the removal of HGV traffic from the existing bridge would greatly improve safety.

The residents of houses along the existing N2 would enjoy considerably lower traffic

flows, though there would be a potential increase in traffic levels along part of the

N51. The proposed bypass would enhance the economic potential of Slane and

communities along the N2 and, while there would be an initial loss of business in the

short term, this loss should generally recover in the medium to long term. The

scheme would be beneficial in employment terms during the construction phase.

The Natural Environment

It is pointed out that the length and height of the bridge would ensure that the impact

of the proposed scheme on the ecology of the Boyne Valley would be negligible and

that the impact arising from the removal of hedgerows would be mitigated by

additional planting. Extensive mitigation measures would be provided for various

species of fauna where necessary. The River Boyne is an important salmonid river

and the scheme has been designed so that there will be no in-stream works at this

location. Suitable control measures are to be put in place to prevent accidental

contamination of watercourses during the construction and operation of the bypass

and particular care will be taken during the construction phase in proximity to the

river and canal.

In the case of noise and vibration, a conservative approach has been adopted based on

a worst-case scenario for potential long-term traffic flows and noise predictions have

been provided for two scenarios: the use of hot road asphalt and the use of low noise

surfacing which reduces noise levels. Noise bunds or barriers would be provided

where required to reduce traffic noise to acceptable levels in accordance with the

relevant guidelines. These would be to the northeast of the N51 roundabout and at the

northern tie-in.

In relation to air quality, the road scheme would redirect traffic away from Slane

Village to less densely populated areas and this would benefit the majority of the local

population without exposing others to significant levels of emissions. The removal of

traffic, especially trucks, away from the very steep hills, sharp bends and traffic

signals in Slane would lead to a reduction in air pollution by enabling more efficient

engine performance. The construction phase impact on air quality would be limited

through application of a dust minimisation plan. It is anticipated that the impact of

this project on climate would be negligible in the national context and no significant

micro-climatic effects are expected as a result of the scheme.

It is stated that the most significant drainage feature within the study area is the River

Boyne and it is estimated to drain a catchment of 2,682 square kilometres. Other

features are the Mooretown Stream and man-made drains to the north and south of the

Boyne. The proposed bypass crosses over 10 distinct geological formations and two

have been classified as locally important karstified aquifers. The vulnerability ratings

for lengths of the road have been assessed. In relation to wells, 11 were identified

within a 1,000 metre buffer zone from the proposed bypass alignment and four were

identified within a 500 metre buffer zone. Construction phase and operational phase

impacts for water systems are described together with mitigation measures for

temporary excavations, water supply wells, suspended solids, contamination risk by

hydrocarbons and contamination risk by dangerous substances. The residual impacts

of the bypass are some localised permanent lowering of the watertable in some

sections of the road scheme and a very small permanent loss of natural catchment and

__________________________________________________________________________________


sub-catchment areas. It is not expected that there will be impacts for water supply

wells.

In relation to bedrock geology, it is pointed out that no County Geological Sites have

been identified within the proposed land-take for the road scheme. The earthworks

quantities give a surplus of 153,000 cubic metres. Borehole information and

preliminary excavation trials have indicated that the uppermost weathered rock is

amenable to mechanical excavation by breaking but it is also likely that several zones

of rock in major cuttings will require drilling and blasting to free up the stronger and

more competent rock materials for removal. The side slopes have been assumed to be

two horizontal to one vertical for preliminary design purposes, but these details are

subject to further ground investigation. Mitigation measures are described and it is

estimated that the development will have no environmental impact on the soils and

geology of the area.

Landscape and Visual Analysis

The receiving environment is stated to pose major challenges and design constraints

to achieve an acceptable intervention in the landscape. The town of Slane is a

heritage town with a distinctive urban form, historic buildings and a major castle and

demesne. The wider landscape is judged as being of very high value and the River

Boyne Valley is deemed as being of exceptional value. Coupled with the numerous

historic monuments and the World Heritage Site of Brú na Bóinne, which enjoy

relatively unspoilt views over the route corridor, this is stated to be a very sensitive

environment. The proposed route alignment seeks to hide the road within cuttings

and topographic adjustments in the landscape, coupled with extensive roadside

planting which would mitigate much of the landscape and visual impact of the road.

The assessment indicates that the more long-term and comprehensive change will

occur where junctions and associated infrastructure are accommodated.

The biggest challenge for the design is accommodating a new bridge over the River

Boyne. The preferred design seeks to balance the immediate local impact from within

the Boyne valley, where a taller larger span bridge might appear more appropriate,

against the impact on the wider landscape, where such a longer or taller structure

would have more visual impact even at a distance. The actual bridge profile is simple

and understated. Key views have been examined and the assessment illustrates that

most of the longer distance views, while experiencing impacts at medium to high

level of significance, have a net neutral visual impact; in effect the degree of change

within the general wide view experienced is acceptable, does not alter the quality of

the view and may add an interesting and logical feature to it. It is accepted that views

closer to the new bridge would experience generally adverse change. In general the

road corridor is mitigated through topographical features and soft landscape and most

impacts on residential amenity can be mitigated through screening and planting. It is

submitted that, subject to detailed design of mitigation requirements and refinement of

the bridge design, the current proposals are an acceptable interpretation of the need

for a bypass of Slane and will protect the wider landscape context.

Material Assets

In relation to agricultural use, the impacts will be limited to the farms directly

traversed by the route. This would apply to 16 farms through severance or reducing

the area of the respective farms. The impact would be major on one farm and

moderate on eight. The scheme would involve the acquisition of three currently used

__________________________________________________________________________________


dwellings, one unoccupied dwelling and parts of the curtilages of other properties.

The removal of traffic from Slane would enhance its economic potential together with

that of other communities along the N2 road, though there would be some loss of

business for local services from passing traffic. It is not considered that there would

be significant impacts on natural resources, utilities or transport networks.

Architectural, Archaeological and Cultural Heritage

The physical landscape of the area is stated to be extremely rich with considerable

evidence of human settlement, almost certainly related to the River Boyne and its

tributaries. The nearest point on the proposed route is located approximately 574

metres to the west of the buffer zone of Brú na Bóinne, a UNESCO World Heritage

Site which covers an area of 3,300 hectares and whose archaeology spans a period of

7,000 years. It is suggested that some townland boundaries have been long-

established and may date back to the Anglo-Norman period. The archaeological

assessment identified 44 archaeological and cultural heritage constraints within 500

metres of the route. Of the 10 sites that would be impacted by the road the impact is

considered potentially significant for three sites, moderate for two, slight for two and

none for the remaining site. A further two areas of undetermined archaeological

potential would also be impacted.

In relation to the World Heritage Site, the introduction of a new infrastructural feature

into the landscape would impact on the continuity of the valley, on views along the

river from that Site and on views of that Site from Slane and its environs. While it is

felt that there would be no direct impact on the World Heritage Site as currently

bounded, the proximity of significant development to it may have consequences for its

status and possibly have implications for any application to extend it to the west.

A selective assessment was carried out of the potential visual impact of the proposed

road on sites. The results indicated that there would be a high and adverse effect on

two sites, including Slane Mill and the Boyne Navigation, a high and neutral impact

on five sites, a medium and neutral impact for Knowth, a low and neutral impact for

Newgrange and no perceivable impact on views from the Brú na Bóinne Visitor

Centre or Dowth. It is noted that the bypass would have a positive impact in re-

routing heavy traffic away from Slane bridge and Slane village.

The architectural heritage assessment identified 21 sites within the study area. The

proposed development would have a negative impact on two sites and features – a

gate and a lodge. It would have an indirect negative effect on five sites and features

and the proposed scheme would have an indirect positive impact on an architectural

heritage site, namely Slane village.

Inter-relationships

Inter-relationships and interactions are displayed in a table and those that are

significant are described.

Mitigation Measures

The principle measures proposed are preconstruction surveys relating to species,

extensive landscape planting of the route, noise bunds or barriers at two locations,

limitation of construction transport to national roads, provision of pollution control

measures and implementation of appropriate traffic management measures during the

construction period.

__________________________________________________________________________________


2.3 Further Information

A submission of further information was made in response to a request from the

Board. This included further maps, montages and other illustrations. I would refer

briefly to some of the items of information contained in this submission.

Measures to Upgrade Road to Type 1 Dual Carriageway or Motorway

This would require a higher design speed of 120 km/h, larger horizontal radii, changes

to the vertical alignment and replacement of roundabouts with grade separated

interchanges. In summary the following measures would be required:

Widening of the road pavement by 5.1 metres.

Horizontal realignment at Cullen Hill.

Vertical realignment on the approaches to the Boyne Bridge.

Increase in the cutting depth at Cullen Hill.

Replacement of the three roundabouts with grade separated junctions.

Vertical realignment of the bypass at the N51 junction.

Horizontal realignment of the northern and southern terminals of the scheme.

Western Route Option

In response to the request from the Board to examine a western route option, four

possible options were initially selected and, from a preliminary examination of likely

impacts, it was decided to select Option 4, which was the longest option. A detailed

study of potential impacts was submitted and the overall conclusion was that the

eastern option is preferable in terms of economic benefits, visual impact, terrestrial

ecology, archaeology and architectural and cultural heritage. There would be no

significant differences in terms of impact on agriculture and aquatic ecology and the

overall conclusion is that the eastern route is clearly identified as the preferred option

for the N2 Slane Bypass.

Noise Levels in the vicinity of the World Heritage Site

Noise measurements were made at three locations within the World Heritage Site and

buffer zone and the conclusion of the assessment was that the magnitude of the impact

would be negligible at Knowth and Newgrange in future design years but would be

perceptible at the edge of the buffer zone.

Other Matters

Further material included in this submission includes an archaeological synthesis

report and illustrations of the bridge design and photomontages showing the effects of

various bridge heights from selected viewpoints. Some revisions have been made to

the conclusions in relation to the visual impact of the bridge in views from some of

the selected viewpoints.

__________________________________________________________________________________


3. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ROUTE AND ENVIRONS

3.1 East Meath Area

Much of the East Meath area comprises reasonably level land of good agricultural

quality. The River Boyne flows through this area generally from west to east and is a

very significant physical feature in it. It has a substantial flow of water and was

developed for navigation purposes in the past, though the Boyne navigation is now

disused. Its course is irregular and it has several loops and bends, with wide

floodplains in some locations. In the vicinity of Slane much of the surrounding land

is at a level of approximately 70 metres OD (Ordnance Datum) and there are steep

slopes down to the river. Upstream from Slane the river is effectively in a type of

gorge with very sharp escarpments on either side.

This area is fairly densely settled and the pattern of settlement, along with the

traditional road network, has been influenced by the river. The main settlements are

located on the river and include Drogheda, Slane and Navan. These and other

settlements in the area have expanded significantly in recent decades. The traditional

road system, leaving aside recently constructed major road projects, is orientated to

crossing points at Drogheda, Slane and Navan. These roads have been improved

progressively in the past and many sections have good alignments, though there are

also some unrealigned sections. The land to the south of Slane is generally level but

to the north there are some areas of higher land and areas having an upland character.

3.2 Slane Village and Surrounds

Slane Village is located north of the crossing point at Slane bridge, which is an old

structure and a feature of significant architectural interest. The village is set back

from the river on its northern side and is significantly elevated above the river valley

and floodplain. It has a formal layout and is focussed on a central crossroads. It has

regular streets branching out from the crossroads and four landmark Georgian

buildings at the corners. It has many other buildings of architectural interest and

many protected structures. There are two churches (Church of Ireland and Catholic),

both quite old and both of architectural interest. It also has a significant amount of

newer residential development, mainly to the north of the N51 road, which runs

through Slane from east to west. Some of the development to the east of the village

centre is on elevated ground and quite prominent in some views. There are also

significant commercial uses, including a factory to the north of the village, an

industrial estate between the village and the river and a quarry some distance to the

west of the village.

The course of the main N2 road through the village has been influenced by the steep

slopes on either side of the river. The road from the village centre down to the bridge,

Mill Hill, drops very steeply and there are sharp turns at either end of the bridge.

There is a corresponding rise on the south side of the river though this is less steep.

There is a cluster of buildings of significant architectural interest in the vicinity of

Jebb’s Mill close to the bridge and on the north side of the river.

The N2 road rises to the north from the crossroads in the centre of the village but

further out this road levels off and has a good alignment beyond the village limits.

Some ribbon development has taken place along the roads in the immediately

__________________________________________________________________________________


adjoining area, including the N51 to the east, the N2 to the south and the Rossnaree

road, a minor road running alongside the southern bank of the Boyne.

Radical safety measures have been introduced on the bridge and on the road down to

the bridge from the village centre. These mainly comprise a traffic signal controlled

one-way traffic flow system across the bridge and a dual approach system for traffic

coming from the village, such that cars and light vehicles are allowed to proceed in

advance of heavy vehicles. Other safety measures include traffic lights at the central

crossroads, a 30 km/h speed limit in the village, a high friction surface near the

junction and variable message signs on the bridge approaches.

The route of the proposed bypass skirts the village of Slane to the east and runs

primarily through agricultural land. It cuts into the side of Cullen Hill in a location

where it swings to the east from its southern tie-in point. The route drops steadily

from the south into the river valley and crosses the river at a point where the valley is

relatively narrow. It then rises on the far side to the intersection with the N51 road. It

crosses that road some distance to the east of the village and there is a certain amount

of dispersed residential development in this area, including some houses proposed to

be acquired. The route continues to the north from this intersection, skirting Norris

Hill to the east and on a more level course. The land on and in the vicinity of the

route for the most part comprises agricultural land in productive use, generally

divided into large fields.

3.3 Significant Heritage Features

The Boyne Valley area in general has a very rich archaeological and architectural

heritage and this is described in more detail in the report of Mairead Kenny. Slane

Village, as described above, has a significant architectural heritage, including the

bridge, the adjoining mill complex and canal features. The Hill of Slane occupies a

dominating position above the village and is an important ecclesiastical site.

Slane Castle is a dominating feature set on high ground upstream of the village and

overlooking a large sloping field. It is a building of 18th

century date and is associated

with a demesne and planted property. It has survived quite well, notwithstanding a

serious fire in 1991. The castle and associated buildings comprise a building complex

of significant architectural interest. The grounds between the castle and the village

are extensively wooded. Upstream of the demesne there are further demesne lands,

including the house and demesne at Beauparc on the south side of the river and

Stackallen on the north side. Other items of interest in the vicinity include Fennor

Castle and the Ledwidge cottage.

The Brú na Bóinne monument complex includes the monuments at Newgrange,

Knowth and Dowth and these form the core of the Brú na Bóinne World Heritage

Site. This site has defined boundaries and is adjoined by a buffer zone. The named

monuments are located north of the River Boyne on elevated ground where that river

swings to the south, thereby skirting the Site. The monument closest to Slane is

Knowth, located in a commanding position overlooking the Boyne valley upstream

towards Slane. The area in which the monuments are located is served by a network

of minor roads but public access is through a visitor centre on the south side of the

river, which has road access from a road running from McGruder’s Cross to Donore.

The primary land use in this area is agricultural and, while there is a dispersed pattern

__________________________________________________________________________________


of residential settlement, this is essentially rural in character and at a relatively low

density.

The expanding town of Drogheda is located on the Boyne downstream of the World

Heritage Site and some other outlying settlements are located on the western outskirts

of Drogheda. These include Duleek, Donore and Tullyallen. Parts of Donore and a

nearby water tower are on high ground and visible from parts of the World Heritage

Site. Similarly the cement factory at Platin is clearly visible, as are the chimneys of

the incinerator currently under construction at Carranstown.

3.4 Road Network

The village of Slane is located at the crossing point of two national roads, the N2

national primary road and the N51 national secondary road. From a junction at the

terminal point of the M2 motorway north of Ashbourne the N2 comprises a single

carriageway two-lane road with hard shoulders, is of a reasonably good standard of

horizontal and vertical alignment and has a limited amount of frontage development.

The course of the road through Slane has been described and perusal of any map will

show a series of sharp bends as the road drops down to cross the River Boyne and rise

on the far side. The slopes down to the bridge are severe, particularly on the north

side. North of Slane the road is of a good standard and has been realigned in parts. It

continues on through the village of Collon, but from Collon to Ardee its standard is

poor. On the northern outskirts of Ardee it links with the N33 road, a new road built

on the course of a former railway line which is of a good standard and which links

with Junction 14 on the M1 road north of Dunleer.

The N51 road commences at Junction 10 on the M1 Motorway west of Drogheda and

runs in a westerly direction through Slane and on to Navan. The section from

Drogheda to Slane is of a generally poor standard in terms of cross section and

alignment but the section west of Slane has been improved and is generally of a better

standard. This road runs through Navan and continues on to Athboy and Mullingar.

Referring to other significant link roads in the area, the R169 from north of Collon to

Dunleer, which links with Junction 12 on the M1, is of a reasonably good standard but

the R168 from Collon to Drogheda is of a relatively poor standard for much of its

length. The R152 from Kilmoon to Drogheda is generally of a good standard and the

R150/153 from Duleek to Navan, which skirts Slane some distance to the south, is

also of a good standard.

There are three junctions on the M1 Motorway west of Drogheda. Junctions 8 and 9

to the south of the Boyne link in with the R152 road to Duleek and with a local road

leading to Donore. Junction 10 to the north of the Boyne links directly with the N51.

The main toll plaza is situated south of Junction 8 but there are secondary tolls at

Junction 9 such that any traffic crossing the Boyne on the M1 is subject to a toll.

A railway branch line runs from Drogheda to Navan, following a course south of the

Boyne. It crosses under the N2 road south of McGruder’s cross south of Slane. It

continues on to Navan and serves Tara Mines. No passenger services are provided on

it. A former station is located at Beauparc southwest of Slane.

__________________________________________________________________________________


4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION / RESPONSES

4.1 Written Submissions on Approval Application

The publication of the project and notification of the compulsory purchase of lands in

December, 2009 invited submissions to be made to An Bord Pleanála by the 17th

February, 2010. A total of 86 submissions were made in relation to the likely effects on

the environment of the proposed road development. These included submissions made

by prescribed bodies, notified in accordance with legislative requirements. As noted

above, a further opportunity to make submissions was given in the notice published

advertising the receipt of significant additional information. Further submissions were

received in response to the publication of this notice, including submissions from five

persons/bodies who had not made submissions originally.

A number of issues were raised in the submissions made in relation to the application

for the proposed road development but two broad issues run through many of the

submissions. These are the current road safety situation in Slane, together with the

case for the removal of through traffic from the village, and the likely effects of the

development on the setting of the World Heritage Site centred on Brú na Bóinne. The

main elements in the submissions are summarised under the subheadings set out

below.

Slane Road Safety Issue

Details of several fatal and serious accidents have been submitted, including accidents

on Mill Hill involving trucks having gone out of control and accidents involving

multiple vehicles. There have been 22 fatalities in the last 20 years. The human cost

of deaths and accidents is emphasised, though the traffic control measures introduced

in 2002 are stated to have improved the situation. The 30 km/h speed limit is also of

some benefit, though observance is a problem. The poor alignment of the N2 road

through Slane is emphasised, with particular reference to the sharp bends and steep

slopes through the village and on the approaches to the bridge. In general the stretch

of the N2 road from McGruder’s Cross to Collon is stated to be a collision-prone

zone. It is noted that the National School adjoins the N2 road at the top of the village

and that the heavy flow of lorries passing the school is a serious hazard, such that the

children cannot walk to school. The location of the playground beside the N2 on the

far side of the road to the school is unfortunate. It is important that the bypass should

not be tolled.

Slane Amenity and Heritage Issues

The architectural heritage value of the village is stressed and significant elements of

this are described. These include the structure of the village itself, the group of

Georgian buildings in the main square, the bridge, Jebb’s mill, the Ledwidge cottage

and the Church of Ireland and Catholic churches. It is stated that the choking of the

village by traffic, along with noise and pollution, is damaging the social and

community life of the village and the health and wellbeing of residents. Old age

pensioners are afraid to cross the road. The traffic is also having a detrimental effect

on the fabric of the village and extensive damage has occurred to the bridge. The

harsh traffic calming measures, including the gantries, take from the visual quality of

the village.

__________________________________________________________________________________


The traffic, along with the consequent noise and pollution, is stated to be having a

serious effect on the business life of the village. Shops are stated to have closed and

parking spaces are limited by slip lanes. The bypass is supported by most, though not

all traders in the village. The tourism potential of the village is not being achieved

due to traffic conditions and also the relocation of the Newgrange visitor centre to the

south of the Boyne.

Brú na Bóinne

The complex of monuments in Brú na Bóinne is a most important complex of

prehistoric sites and this is recognised in its inscription by UNESCO as a World

Heritage Site. The experience of the de-listing of the World Heritage Site in Dresden

indicates that the same could occur in this case. The core area and buffer zone cover

3,300 hectares but the western boundary is weak and the bypass would run about 500

metres from the boundary of the buffer zone. It is submitted that the boundaries were

based on circumstances at the time of inscription and that there is now a need for

these boundaries to be revisited. The buffer zone is inadequate as the Crewbane

discoveries and other matters indicate. The landscape here is of exceptional value and

there are significant modern structures adjoining the World Heritage Site, including

the cement factory at Platin, the M1 Boyne bridge and retail development on the

outskirts of Drogheda. There may also be potential for cumulative effects. UNESCO

raised the issue of the M1 Boyne bridge and the same could happen here. The EIS

refers to views from the monument at Knowth but is stated to play down the negative

effects of the development. Noise and lights from the road would have a detrimental

effect on the World Heritage Site but it is also submitted that there is scope for

mitigation and that planning policy provides a high degree of protection. It is for An

Bord Pleanála in its assessment of the application to determine that the proposed N2

Slane Bypass will not incur any adverse impact on the Outstanding Universal Value

of the Brú na Bóinne World Heritage Site.

Other Cultural Heritage Impacts

This area in general has a very rich archaeological heritage with a high density of

known sites together with the likelihood of the discovery of many other sites. The

discovery of the site at Lismullin on the M3 motorway is referred to, as is the

archaeological discovery at Crewbane. The development would result in negative

impacts on known archaeological sites. Future residential use of Fennor House would

be unlikely if the road scheme went ahead. The western route options would have

significant impacts. The preferred western route would be 500 metres from the Castle

and would have a large impact on the landscape between the demesnes of Slane

Castle and Beauparc. The numerical comparison of cultural heritage items along the

western and eastern route options is inappropriate.

Visual Impact

It is submitted that the proposed road would be an obtrusive and discordant element in

the landscape. The Boyne Valley is in Landscape Character Area 5 in the

Development Plan and is an area of immense beauty. It is further submitted that this

road would be a permanent scar across an unblemished landscape and would increase

the degradation of the rural environment. It is pointed out that the planners are

preventing other developments but now seek to permit this bridge. Light pollution is

a potential effect. The towpath is a feature of significant amenity value but there are

conflicting views on the proposed bridge. One view is that it would be a detrimental

feature on the Boyne Valley Scenic Route but another is that it would be at a

satisfactory height and of an appropriate minimalist design.

__________________________________________________________________________________


Ecological Impact

It is submitted that the river valley in this location is a European Site and that the

impact of the development has not been assessed. There are omissions in the EIS

with regard to habitats, bats and species of birds. Particular concerns are the

assessment of effects on the Boyne canal and surface water drainage. A number of

queries have been raised in relation to other conservation matters. This part of the

river is stated to be a resting place for Atlantic salmon.

Implications of Heavy Goods Vehicle Ban

There are many submissions to the effect that the traffic problems in Slane could be

solved by the imposition of a ban on the use of the bridge by HGVs and that this

would obviate the need for a bypass and bridge downstream of the village in an area

close to the buffer zone of the World Heritage Site. The point is made that the

opening of the M1 Motorway together with the N33 road linking the N2 at Ardee with

the M1 has provided a satisfactory alternative to the N2 and that, if HGV traffic were

diverted fully to this route, the traffic problems at Slane would be solved. There is a

perception that a significant proportion of HGV traffic uses the N2 in order to avoid

paying the toll on the M1. The M3 Motorway is also an available alternative route.

One suggested solution is the abolition of or reduction in the tolls. It is submitted that

the bypass would remove the deterrent to HGVs using the N2 and encourage more

vehicles to avoid paying tolls. A further point is that the bypass could increase

east/west traffic on the N51, which is a road of poor standard, and would not benefit

traffic linking the N2 (south) with the N51 (west). References are made to the

resolution of the members of Meath County Council in June 2009 to ban HGVs from

Slane and the failure of the Council to act on that resolution. It is not argued however

that the ban should be complete, given that some exceptions would be required for

locally generated traffic. The ban is seen by some as an interim measure, not a

substitute for a bypass, and in this context there is seen to be no viable alternative to a

bypass.

Environmental Impact Assessment Process

It is submitted that the Environmental Impact Statement is flawed and fails to comply

with legislative requirements and European Union Directives. It fails to identify

significant effects. A particular defect is the description of the design as a

“preliminary design.” The Non-Technical Summary is vague and contains no picture

of the bridge and no map showing the location of the buffer zone. The discussion of

alternatives is queried in that they deal with route alternatives only; there is no

explanation as to why a dual carriageway has been selected, why a western route was

not considered and why a HGV ban was not considered. In general it is submitted

that the negative effects have been played down.

The consultation undertaken in connection with this project is stated to have been

inadequate and to have omitted details of the route selection and bridge design

processes. The transboundary implications of the development should have been

considered, having regard to the current proposal to replace the A5 road in Northern

Ireland with a dual carriageway to link with the N2 north of Monaghan. It is

submitted that the overall improvement of the N2 / A5 is being implemented by

stealth in that the dualling of the N2 is contained in the National Development Plan

2007-2013 and that the NRA have a plan for a road from Ashbourne to Ardee. It is

submitted that the proposed development would be a material contravention of the

Development Plan in that the site of the road is not specifically identified.

__________________________________________________________________________________


Climate Change Issues

UK and Irish climate change policies are referred to with reference to the Irish policy

paper Smarter Travel and road policy in Northern Ireland. The A5 road would cost

€1.5bn. and result in unsustainable transport patterns. The traffic projections are

untenable and are a failed model, giving rise to an unsustainable level of car-

orientated development. This is a reactionary proposal arising from short-sighted

decisions on road projects; there would be three major roads in close proximity.

4.2 Objections to Compulsory Purchase Order

A total of 34 objections were made to the Compulsory Purchase Order by persons

having interests in lands proposed to be acquired for the purpose of constructing the

Slane Bypass. During the course of the oral hearing 26 of these objections were

withdrawn, leaving 8 outstanding objections. A brief summary of the substance of

those outstanding (as numbered in the An Bord Pleanála schedule) is set out below.

Rowan Collins (002)

Mr. Collins purchased his house in 1976 and reared his family there. He spent much

time developing the garden and, if the bypass were built, his idyllic setting would be

shattered by noise, artificial light and dust/fume pollution. The proposed new section

of the N51 would be higher so that the noise level would be higher and the house

overlooked. The views overlooking Stanley Hill would be intersected by the road and

a noise bund/barrier would further obstruct these views. The noise would be

intensified by vehicles changing gears and there would be a lot of disturbance during

the construction phase. The lighting proposed would bathe his home in ambient light.

Were the bypass to proceed, he would have to accept the CPO.

Mark Laird (006)

It is stated in the submission on behalf of Mr. Laird that he considers that the design

has features that are intrusive to his residential amenity and the running of his farm,

that the land-take is excessive, that the proposed attenuation pond and access road

could have been redesigned and that the introduction of a major road junction here

would increase the risk for traffic entering or leaving the farm. A resolution of the

objections of Mr. Laird was achieved in discussions between the parties and a revised

drawing (no. AW-102_104-SK001) of the access to Mr. Laird’s property and of the

layout of the neighbouring attenuation pond was submitted on Day 14 of the hearing.

It was indicated that Mr. Laird would have no further objection if a condition were

attached to a decision to approve the development incorporating the revisions

indicated on this drawing.

Susan McKeever (reps. of) (007)

The objection on behalf of the representatives of the late Ms. McKeever states that the

EIS is incomplete, that there is inadequate provision for continued access to land, that

details of boundary treatment are required and that there is inadequate provision for

the protection of watercourses in the area. There is a particular objection to the

proposal to provide a pedestrian link between the end of the cul-de-sac at Crewbane

and the bypass, thereby creating a shortcut for pedestrians to walk from Crewbane to

Slane. This objection was stated at the hearing to have been withdrawn on the basis

that Meath County Council undertook to remove the pedestrian link from the proposal

but I consider that it is necessary in the circumstances to refer to this objection as if it

__________________________________________________________________________________


were still standing, as the achievement of the removal of the footpath would require

the attachment of a condition in the event of a grant of approval for the development.

Inland Waterways Association of Ireland (Boyne Navigation Branch) (015)

The IWAI confirms that they are an occupier of Plots 113.1 and 112a.1 and are

working with An Taisce on the restoration of the Boyne Navigation. A possible

scenario is identified where the canal would be open for navigation by the

commencement of construction on the bypass and in any case the Association would

be carrying out works to the navigation. The Association has concerns with the CPO,

the scope of the EIS and the assessment of impacts on the Navigation and SAC, in

particular temporary construction impacts.

An Taisce-the National Trust for Ireland (016)

It is explained that An Taisce purchased the canal in 1969 with the intention of re-

using the canal as a navigable waterway, and also owns navigation rights on the river.

As the proposed road would not be laid on the canal and as it requires no works to the

canal or towpaths, it is submitted that no compulsory purchase is necessary. It is also

submitted that the County Council’s concerns can be addressed by a grant to the

Council of a “flying freehold” of the air space occupied by the bridge, a 999 year

lease of the airspace, rights to construct the bridge and rights of way for vehicles and

also by An Taisce waiving any entitlement to sue the Council for trespass in respect of

the bridge. It is further submitted that An Taisce needs to own the freehold of the

entire navigable stretch and that it would be absurd if barges were prevented from

travelling along the entire canal. In this situation it appears disproportionate to permit

the Council to purchase a section of the canal when their aims could be achieved

otherwise with less damage to An Taisce’s property rights.

Michael & Elaine Cully (020)

It is stated that Mr. and Ms. Cully recognise the need for the bypass but object to it on

the basis of a number of points, including those set out below. There is inadequate

information on noise mitigation measures. The proposed screening is inadequate.

Inadequate drainage details have been provided. There is insufficient detail regarding

artificial lighting. There is a lack of detail on access to the property and provision of

footpaths/cycle paths. In general the information supplied is incomplete.

Brendan & Teresa McDonnell (022)

It is stated that Mr. and Ms. McDonnell recognise the need for the bypass but object

to it on the basis of a number of points, including those set out below. There is

inadequate information on noise mitigation measures. The proposed screening is

inadequate. Inadequate drainage details have been provided. There is a lack of

provision of footpaths/cycle paths. In general the information supplied is incomplete.

Bernard Macken (035)

Mr. Macken is stated to support the principle of the development but has certain

concerns in relation to it. These include the difficulties arising from the closing of the

northernmost access to the land, the proximity of the southern access to the

roundabout, the desirability of a direct access off the roundabout and possible

deficiencies in the EIS. A resolution of the objections of Mr. Macken was achieved in

discussions between the parties and a revised drawing (No. 001 (D) Rev 001 Proposed

Access Location dated 14/02/2011) of the access to Mr. Macken’s property from the

roundabout was submitted on Day 17 of the hearing. It has been indicated that Mr.

__________________________________________________________________________________


Macken would have no further objection if a condition were attached to a decision to

approve the development incorporating the details shown on this drawing.

Mrs. Patricia Crinnion (030) submitted an objection to the CPO and, while she has

withdrawn this, she wishes that its substance should stand as an objection to the

development. Having regard to its substance, the issues raised in it are dealt with

under relevant headings in the assessment of the impacts of the development.

4.3 Preliminary Meeting

A preliminary meeting was held on the 2nd

February 2011 to prepare a draft agenda

for the oral hearing in order to facilitate the running of the hearing and the attendance

of parties by identifying the matters to be discussed on particular days. An outline

agenda envisaged that it would be likely to comprise discussion of the need for the

development during the first week, discussion of its archaeological and cultural

heritage implications, including effects on the World Heritage Site, during the second

week and the hearing of objections to the Compulsory Purchase Order during the third

week or later. Information submitted by parties in attendance on their representation,

technical/other experts, estimated time required and desire to cross examine witnesses

was used to prepare an agenda for the hearing, which was circulated.

4.4 Oral Hearing Proceedings

The proceedings of the oral hearing are summarised in Appendix VI and there is a list

of those who made submissions and presented evidence at the hearing in Appendix

IV. A full record of the proceedings will be made available but it is not practicable to

provide a brief summary of the proceedings in this part of the report. I would just

refer to the basic positions of those who attended. Mr. Dermot Flanagan, SC, led for

the Meath County Council, the promoting authority, and was supported by a number

of technical witnesses. The witnesses included Dr. Douglas Comer, who was engaged

to address the implications of the development for the Brú na Bóinne World Heritage

Site. Prescribed bodies who contributed to the hearing comprised the Department of

the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and An Taisce. The

representatives of the former included specialists in archaeology, architecture and

ecology. The representatives of the latter included the Heritage Officer, a

representative of the Meath Association and the Monuments and Antiquities Chair.

The Slane community made a presentation which included submissions of several

local organisations and individuals supporting the provision of the bypass. This

position was supported by several public representatives. Submissions were also

made by other residents of the Slane area, Mr. John Rogers and Lord Alexander

Mount Charles, that of the former supported by technical evidence opposing the

bypass. Submissions in opposition to the bypass were made by a number of

individuals and the representatives of several organisations, the latter including the

Meath Archaeological and Historical Society, ICOMOS, Save Newgrange, the

Alternative A5 Alliance and the Swans and Snails Limited.

__________________________________________________________________________________


5. FRAMEWORK OF CONSIDERATION

This part of the report deals with the role of the Board in this case, the nature and

extent of matters to be considered in the assessment of this development, the nature of

the environmental impact assessment process and certain other relevant matters.

5.1 Role of Board

There are two parallel processes involved in the oral hearing held in relation to this

project. These are the application for approval of the road development project and

the application for confirmation of the compulsory purchase order served on

landowners and occupiers (including the extinguishment of certain rights of way).

The determination of both rests with the Board, who must in their deliberations have

regard to relevant legislation and legislative guidance.

The Board are the competent authority in relation to the making of the decision on an

application for approval of a project of this type. Before making the decision, they are

obliged to carry out an environmental impact assessment of the application in

accordance with the terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 1985,

as amended, and the Regulations transposing that directive into Irish law. Following

consideration of the information, submissions and other relevant material made

available in the environmental impact assessment process, the Board have the power

to approve the project or to refuse to approve it and, in the case of the former, to

approve it with or without conditions. They may also, if considered appropriate, seek

additional information or seek specified alterations to the terms of the development,

subject to ensuring that any significant revisions to the development, significant

revisions to the Environment Impact Statement or significant additional information

are published and notified to the parties to the application.

In deciding an application for confirmation of a compulsory purchase order, they have

the power to confirm it, with or without modifications, or to refuse to confirm it. In

the current situation in which an application for approval for a road development has

been made and a CPO has been submitted for confirmation, the Roads Acts provide

that the person conducting a hearing in relation to the CPO is entitled to hear evidence

in relation to the likely effects on the environment of such a development and the

Board must make a decision on such an application and on the confirmation of the

CPO at the same time.

5.2 Matters for Consideration

The matters to be considered by the Board in an application for a road development

include information in relation to the likely effects on the environment of the

proposed road development and the likely consequences for proper planning and

sustainable development in the area in which it is proposed to situate the said

development. The Board, before approving a proposed road development, are obliged

in particular to consider the environmental impact statement submitted with the

application, any additional information submitted in response to a request by the

Board, any submissions made in relation to the likely effects on the environment of

the proposed development and the report and any recommendation of the person

conducting an oral hearing where evidence is heard in relation to the likely effects on

the environment of the proposed development.

__________________________________________________________________________________


It can be inferred that, in considering proper planning and sustainable development,

regard should be had inter alia to the development plan for the area and to any

European site in the area. The current development plan is the Meath County

Development Plan 2007-2013. This plan inter alia contains policies and objectives

relating to the provision of infrastructure (including roads), the protection of the

landscape and visual character of the County and the protection of archaeological sites

and monuments, including the Brú na Bóinne World Heritage Site. It continues in

force until 2013 but the process of preparing a new Draft Development Plan has been

initiated.

There is a plan for the village of Slane, the Slane Local Area Plan 2009-2015. This

plan refers to the expected delivery of the proposed bypass within this period but the

route of the bypass falls outside the settlement limit as defined. The County

Development Plan has an objective to prepare, in conjunction with Louth County

Council, a local area plan for the World Heritage Site and environs but no such plan

has so far been made. The River Boyne, in the location of the proposed development,

is included in the River Boyne candidate Special Area of Conservation (Code:

002299). This area also includes the adjoining disused canal and some adjoining land.

5.3 Public Participation

Environmental legislation, having regard to European Union directives and Irish

legislation, provides for environmental information to be made available to the public

and for public consultation at various stages in the design process of major projects.

This requirement is underlain by the Aarhus Convention made in 1998. Statutory

Instrument No. 133/07 comprises the transposition into Irish law of the directive on

access to information on the environment (2003/4/EC). Referring to public

participation in the current case, there has been an ongoing process which included

the Constraints Study Report 2002 and the Route Selection Report 2005. There is

evidence of publication of proposals, consultation and holding of public meetings

throughout the past decade. The selection process involved consideration of various

route and design options and the public were made aware of these options. Details of

the dates of several non-statutory meetings held over the years prior to the submission

of this application are set out in the EIS.

Referring to the current applications for approval of the development and

confirmation of the CPO, the first stage in this process was the submission to the

Board of the application. The accompanying documents included an environmental

impact statement prepared by the applicant, in accordance with legislative

requirements. The next stage was the publication of the applications with an

invitation to the public and prescribed bodies to make written observations and

submissions on the likely effects on the environment of the proposed development

and the likely consequences for proper planning and sustainable development in its

area. A substantial number of submissions were received in response. Following the

receipt of these submissions, the Board exercised their discretion to issue a request for

further information and the receipt of this gave rise to another invitation to make

submissions and to the receipt of a number of such. Significant issues in the written

submissions are summarised in Section 4.1 of this report and a list of those who made

submissions is set out in Appendix III.

__________________________________________________________________________________


The Board directed that an oral hearing of the applications be held and this comprised

the next stage of the process. The hearing continued over 18 sitting days and also

included a preliminary hearing, convened to draft a schedule to facilitate the

attendance of parties. The hearing provided an opportunity to interested parties to

make oral submissions, comment on aspects of the development, question expert

witnesses put forward by the applicant and respond to further information made

available to the hearing. It also provided an opportunity for clarification and

explanation of aspects of the project, for alternatives to be further examined, for

consideration of further potential mitigation measures and conditions and for the

rebuttal of arguments made in support of and in opposition to the project.

Finally an offer was made by the applicant to fly balloons over the site of the

proposed Boyne bridge in order to verify the extent of views of that bridge. This

operation was publicised and the hearing was adjourned and later reconvened to hear

submissions on this operation and to enable the proceedings to be brought to a close.

While acknowledging that this project comprises the construction of a major element

of infrastructure, I am satisfied that the opportunities given for public participation,

including the time allocated at the hearing for the expression of views and concerns,

were adequate.

5.4 Transboundary Implications

The environmental impact assessment legislation provides for notification of other

member states of the European Union in cases where a development in one member

state would be likely to have significant effects on the environment in another

member state. In this case the location of the project is not close to the boundary with

Northern Ireland, part of the member state which might be affected by the proposed

development, but this issue has been raised arising from the fact that the N2 National

Primary Road continues on past Monaghan to the boundary with Northern Ireland at

Moy Bridge. At that point it links in with the A5 road in Northern Ireland, which

continues on through Aughnacloy, Omagh and Strabane to Derry. Insofar as these

roads might be considered to be component parts of a single route, the implications of

the improvement/realignment of one part of this route for the totality of it need to be

considered. Consideration of cumulative effects is relevant in this regard. It is worth

noting that there is a proposal to replace the A5 in Northern Ireland with a new high

quality dual carriageway, the A5 Western Transport Corridor. This road is proposed

to run for a distance of 85 km from the village of New Buildings outside Derry to the

border south of Aughnacloy. It is of a standard described as a “Category 6 dual

carriageway,” roughly comparable to a Type 2 dual carriageway in the Republic of

Ireland, and would have some at-grade junctions. It underwent an inquiry process in

mid-2011. A commitment was given by the previous Irish Government to fund this

road to the extent of approximately £450 million.

The N2/A5 route comprises several distinct sections. From the N50 junction on the

outskirts of Dublin the first 20 km or so consists of a motorway (the M2) constructed

in 2006. The next section, from Ashbourne to Ardee, consists of a single carriageway

two-lane road of variable standard. Much of it is of a good standard for a road of this

type, having a good alignment and hard shoulders. Some parts were realigned in

recent decades, including sections north of Slane, but there are some sections of poor

quality. Those include the section through Slane and the section from Collon to

Ardee. Northward from Ardee the N2 has been realigned to a good standard to a

__________________________________________________________________________________


location south of Monaghan town and this includes a type 3 dual carriageway (2+1)

on the lengthy Castleblayney-Clontibret Bypass. The A5 in Northern Ireland is

generally of a good standard for a two-lane road and includes bypasses of some

smaller towns and inner relief roads through Omagh and Strabane.

The Ashbourne to Ardee section of this road is one of the remaining unrealigned or

substantially unrealigned sections in the Republic. A proposal for a motorway

scheme from Ashbourne to Ardee was mooted some years ago and this led in 2008 to

a proposal to design the Slane bypass to facilitate a motorway upgrade. The current

proposal is for a road of a distinctly lower standard, which could not readily be

converted to a motorway without significant modifications. This issue was addressed

in the further information and details of the measures to upgrade the proposed bypass

to motorway standard were provided. These include widening of the pavement,

alterations to the horizontal alignment and a reduction in the gradient on the

approaches to the bridge. A point of particular relevance is the incorporation into the

current scheme of three at-grade junctions, which would not be acceptable on a road

of motorway standard. The current position, on the basis of information made

available at the hearing, is that the Ashbourne to Ardee link has been stood down and

that no further work is being done on it.

Two questions arise. The first is whether the Slane bypass can be regarded as a

specific local solution to a local problem. The second is whether the construction of

the bypass would give rise to indirect/cumulative effects in relation to the A5 road

project. In relation to the first question, two points are clear. The first is that the

existing N2 across Slane Bridge and through Slane is seriously substandard in terms

of vertical and horizontal alignment and safety of road users; this point is generally

accepted. The second is that there have been persistent demands for the provision of a

bypass going back many years. I consider that it is reasonable to infer that the bypass

now proposed would achieve the primary objective of addressing the safety problem

on the existing N2 through Slane and that this would effectively be a local solution to

a local problem. That does not imply that there are not other solutions to the existing

problem, such as a ban on heavy goods vehicles, nor that the bypass needs to be of the

particular standard proposed.

In relation to the second question, the premise that there would be a cumulative effect

relies on the extent to which the N2/A5 route can be regarded as a single entity, such

that any upgrade on it would contribute to the upgrading of the overall route. There

are two aspects to this question. The first is that lengthy stretches of the N2 north of

Ardee have been upgraded. The main components of this are the Carrickmacross

bypass (standard single carriageway) and the Castleblayney bypass (type 3 dual

carriageway), which continues northward from the former, but these stretches, while

providing a high level of service, conform to standards below that of a type 2 dual

carriageway. Furthermore the Slane Bypass would not connect directly with any of

these upgraded sections. The second aspect is that there is effectively a break at

Ardee. A new road (the N33) has been constructed on the course of a former railway

line which, though a single carriageway road, provides a direct link of very good

standard between the N2 north of Ardee and the M1 at Junction 14. The M1

Motorway currently carries a high volume of traffic, in excess of 50,000 vehicles per

day at the Balbriggan Bypass, but it has sufficient spare capacity to accommodate

such further traffic as might reasonably be capable of being diverted from the N2. It

has experienced congestion close to Dublin but the section of the road northward to

__________________________________________________________________________________


Junction 3 (Swords) has been widened to a 3+3 layout and, while NRA projections

provide for a low rate of future traffic growth, the cross section of the M1 provides for

widening to a 3+3 layout should this be required.

As has been noted at the hearing, the N33/M1 route provides a higher level of service

for traffic from north of Ardee to Dublin than the N2/M2 and the superior standard of

the N33/M1 route means that any additional traffic generated by upgrades to the N2

north of Ardee or the A5 in Northern Ireland should be accommodated on it. The

N33/M1 route is signed at some junctions as the main route linking Dublin with Derry

but there is a significant degree of ambiguity in the signage in that the N2 is signed as

the main route at some junctions. The essential point is that the provision of the

Slane Bypass would not significantly affect the relative merits of the two alternative

routes linking Ardee with Dublin. I conclude therefore that this development would

not have significant transboundary effects.

__________________________________________________________________________________


6. ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT

This part of the report contains an assessment of material issues relevant to the

proposed development in the context of the legislative framework governing the

Board’s deliberations. This assessment is elaborated as needed and set out under

appropriate headings and subheadings.

The description of the development, which is set out in the environmental impact

statement, is referred to initially with regard to the works comprised in it and to the

scope of those works. The aims and objectives of the development are then described

taking account of local circumstances in Slane, the overall road network context and

the national and local policy context. The identification, description and assessment

of the effects of the development on the environment are addressed in this report in an

environmental impact assessment. This assessment draws on information contained

in the EIS, information derived from written submissions and information arising

from presentations and discussion at the oral hearing. Following this the development

is assessed by reference to the extent to which it would achieve its stated aims.

Alternatives are then examined, with particular regard to those discussed at the

hearing, for the purpose of determining whether the scheme would be the optimum to

achieve its stated aims at minimal environmental cost.

Assessments and recommendations on the cultural heritage and landscape and visual

impacts of the development are contained in a report by Mairead Kenny (Appendix I).

These assessments and recommendations form part of and contribute to this reporting

process and inform the assessment of these issues in the main report, in which all

issues are weighed up in the assessment and lead to the recommendation.

The objections of landowners to the proposed compulsory acquisition of land are

considered, together with proposals in some cases aimed at resolving the substance of

these objections in the context of the Compulsory Purchase Order being confirmed.

6.1 Extent of Development

A description of the project is an essential part of the environmental impact statement

and of the assessment process. The main components of the proposed development

are set out in Section 1.4 of this report. The composition of the main structural

components of the development is clear and the level of detail provided in relation to

the design of components of the development is commented on in Section 6.3.2 of this

report. The earthworks balance is estimated and this indicates that there would be a

surplus of excavated soil and rock materials. Most of this would be suitable for re-use

and there would be no requirement to import general fill material to the site. Details

of drainage and road lighting are described. Alternative farm accesses to severed or

affected land are to be provided where necessary.

The submission of further information provided clarification of some implications of

the development and of the analyses leading to the choice of significant components

of the development. This process occurred also at the hearing and, arising from

discussion at the hearing, a number of proposals were made which would have the

effect of modifying certain components of the development. These include the

elimination of the indicated 2-metre variation in the level of the Boyne Bridge, a

relocation of one of the bridge piers, a lengthening of the bridge span, the correction

__________________________________________________________________________________


of a discrepancy in the drawings regarding the access track to the attenuation pond on

the northern river bank, the elimination of the footpath proposed from Crewbane to

the bypass, the elimination of a footpath parallel to the N51 road, revised landscaping

details and variations to access arrangements to two landholdings located at the

proposed northern and southern roundabouts. It is reasonable to examine these

variations and, if they are assessed as benefitting the development or reducing adverse

effects, it is appropriate to consider whether, in the event of a decision to approve the

development, it would be possible to incorporate them into the development through

the attachment of conditions.

The development does not specifically include details of measures to control traffic in

Slane and across the existing bridge following construction, in the event of the

development being approved. This has been identified as a lacuna. The bypass would

obviously be a far more attractive route for most if not all north/south through traffic,

regardless of what, if any, controls were imposed on the road network in the area.

The bypass would not be relevant to east/west traffic but could be of benefit to some

extent to south/west and south/east traffic. In this regard the likely diversion of traffic

movements with the bypass in position has been estimated in the EIS, in the

presentation of Séamus Mac Gearailt and in the evidence of Julian Keenan. Such

estimates are relevant to the assessment of the effects of the development.

I do not consider however that it is necessary that post-bypass traffic control measures

be specified in detail. In this regard I see the development as being an enabling

development; it would create the circumstances in which appropriate traffic control

arrangements could be put in place. Control of traffic and signage come within the

everyday functions of local authorities and, in certain cases, the National Roads

Authority. Such controls obviously need to be adapted from time to time to address

changes in circumstances. Even though there are some divergences between the

estimates submitted of future traffic flows on the network, there can scarcely but be a

very substantial fall in traffic volumes through Slane in the post-bypass scenario.

That would, for example, facilitate modifications to the current safety regime on the

approaches to the bridge and resetting of the traffic signals at the N2/N51 crossroads,

with consideration given to the improvement of conditions for pedestrians. The

bypass might also allow for the removal of the gantries on Mill Hill, which have

attracted unfavourable comment on the basis of their obtrusiveness, though they

undoubtedly serve a useful purpose in current circumstances.

The position is less clear on the wider road network. The possibility of imposing a

ban on heavy goods vehicles was discussed at length at the hearing. If the numbers of

HGVs crossing Slane Bridge could be reduced to an acceptable level, then this would

effectively be an alternative meriting further consideration. This option is not

mentioned in the discussion of alternatives in the EIS but is referred to indirectly in

that the opening of the M1 route at Drogheda, together with the traffic management

and interim safety measures introduced at Slane Bridge, is stated to have dealt to some

extent with the traffic safety and congestion problems in Slane. I see further

consideration of the practicalities of the imposition of a ban on HGVs crossing Slane

Bridge as reasonable, as part of the process of informing the Board on all aspects of

the proposed development.

Other related matters which were discussed included recasting the road network in the

wider area and modifying the toll regime on the M1 south of Drogheda. The former

__________________________________________________________________________________


could involve reducing the status of the N2 to a regional or local road, making

changes to priorities at significant junctions and changing signage over the wider area.

Changes of this nature could not be effected without the cooperation of several

agencies/authorities, would require the involvement of communities/stakeholders in

the wider area and could cut across legal obligations. As I see it therefore, the

likelihood of such changes being implemented is outside the range of matters to be

considered by the Board. Modifying toll regimes would not be a realistic option as

existing toll regimes appear to be bound up in long-term contracts with the builders of

the roads, such that any such adjustment would be likely to have serious financial

implications.

6.2 Aims and Objectives of Development

These are set out in Chapter 2 in the Environmental Impact Statement. I consider it

reasonable to note and comment on them before assessing at a later stage to what

extent these aims and objectives are likely to be achieved by the proposed

development. The background derives from the location of Slane at a traditional

crossing point on the River Boyne. The strategic importance of this river is reflected

in Irish history and the river has had a significant effect as a barrier to movement

either by armies or, currently, by goods vehicles. The number of river crossings is

limited and many of these are over old bridges of limited capacity to carry modern

traffic. Notwithstanding the poor horizontal and vertical alignment of Slane Bridge,

the road from Dublin to Slane and on to Ardee has had a role as an arterial route at

least since the nineteenth century, in particular since the current Dublin-Slane road

was constructed to a good standard in or about 1807. This situation continued to the

end of the twentieth century, though increasing traffic volumes were putting a strain

on the network and safety in Slane became a significant issue. Proposals to address

this problem were undertaken from the mid-eighties, leading ultimately to the current

bypass proposal. In the interim the traffic management arrangements currently in

force were installed, with some success in reducing accidents and casualties.

There is also the issue that Slane is recognised as a heritage village, comprising an

estate town having many buildings and groups of buildings of value as well as having

Slane Hill, Slane Castle demesne and Brú na Bóinne in its surroundings. With the N2

road running right through the village and the N51 crossing the N2 in the village, the

effects of the increasing traffic volumes on the safety of road users and the

environment and fabric of the village, having regard in particular to the high

proportion of heavy trucks, were becoming progressively more severe.

The rapid expansion of the motorway network in the past decade has had significant

implications for Slane. The M1 motorway in particular has provided a high capacity

route relatively close to Slane and has taken a significant volume of traffic out of

Slane, though volumes have increased steadily since the initial fall. The provision of

the N33 link between Junction 14 on the M1 and Ardee has enhanced the value of the

M1 as an alternative to the N2. The case has been made by several persons that a

significant number of vehicles, including HGVs, are using the N2 to avoid the tolls on

the M1. The extent of this is difficult to quantify but it appears to be on a significant

scale. There is also a new Boyne crossing on the M3 motorway, though this is south

of Navan and of limited appeal for traffic on the N2 corridor.

__________________________________________________________________________________


Referring to that corridor, a section of the N2 road from Dublin to Ashbourne has

been duplicated by the construction of a new motorway, the M2, and further sections

to the north of Ardee have been improved to a good standard. As matters stand and

accepting that the replacement/improvement of the Ashbourne – Ardee section has

been stood down, the M2/N2 route is still an integral part of the arterial road network

in the north-eastern sector and, for the most part, is signed accordingly.

The stated primary objectives for the bypass, as set out in the EIS, are listed in Section

2.1 of this report. The emphasis in them is on the improvement of safety and

environmental conditions in Slane. In this regard the gantries erected on Mill Hill in

2002 appear to have reduced the accident rate but they were never perceived to be

other than an interim measure. There is also the inter-related objective of improving

the level of service on the N2 National Primary Route. Further objectives comprise

the achievement of the objectives of national and regional policies for the national

road network and the achievement of an objective of the Meath County Development

Plan 2007 – 2013

The achievement of the objectives set out above, including the policy objectives,

would appear to give rise to significant positive effects on the environment, though

the extent of such effects, and of any consequential effects, is to be further examined

in this report. Obviously there would also be negative effects on the environment and

these, along with the positive effects, have to be assessed as part of the environmental

impact assessment process, leading ultimately to the making of the decision.

6.3 Environmental Impact Assessment

6.3.1 Outline of Process

This process, as set out in this part of the report, requires the competent authority to

identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual

case and in accordance with Articles 4 to 11 of the EIA Directive, the direct and

indirect effects of the project in question on the factors set out in the four indents in

Article 3 of that Directive. The factors listed in this article are as follows:

- human beings, fauna and flora; - soil, water, air, climate and the landscape; - material assets and the cultural heritage; - the interaction between the factors mentioned in the first, second and third indents.

The process also requires consideration, where relevant, of indirect, secondary,

cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and

negative effects. These effects include effects arising during the construction phase,

which are essentially short-term and temporary, as distinct from the likely long-term

effects arising from the operational phase. Construction phase effects tend to be less

easy to quantify.

The relevance of secondary effects arises in particular in relation to the possibility of

the establishment of commercial developments at locations convenient to bypass

access points, highlighted by Dr. Douglas Comer as follow-on developments, or

possibly described as riparian developments. Such locations are attractive to

promoters of commercial developments, including retail and hotel developments, and

the evidence for this is visible in the vicinity of many major road junctions. There is

__________________________________________________________________________________


nothing in the Development Plan or Local Area Plan to indicate that riparian

commercial developments would be consistent with development plan policies,

though individuals are of course free to submit applications for such and might well

do so. The likelihood and implications of such are further considered in this

assessment.

Cumulative effects could arise in the context of the combination of this project with

other possible road proposals. New major road projects have been completed on the

M1 and M3 corridors but the current proposal to construct a high quality dual

carriageway from the border at Aughnacloy to Derry (the proposed A5 Western

Transport Corridor) is relevant in this regard. The implications of this are dealt with

in Section 5.4 of this report, referring to transboundary issues.

I would comment in general that this assessment is informed by the contents and

conclusions of the EIS, and also by information provided in the various stages of the

process in relation to the likely effects of this development on the environment and its

likely consequences for proper planning and sustainable development in the area in

which it is proposed to be situated. The assessment also has regard to potential

mitigation measures, including those indicated in the EIS, those proposed at the

hearing and any others which might appropriately be incorporated into a decision to

approve the development through the attachment of conditions. The process also

provides an opportunity for minor alterations to be made to the scheme, where such

alterations would help to mitigate likely adverse effects, and for minor errors in the

details of the scheme to be corrected. Consideration of such alterations/amendments

is of course subject to the publication of notices and the provision of opportunities to

the public to make submissions, in the event of any such alteration/amendment being

considered significant.

6.3.2 Adequacy of Environmental Impact Statement

The first stage in this process is the submission to the Board of the application and the

application documents must include an environmental impact statement. The

responsibility for the preparation of this document rests with the applicant and the

information to be contained in it is specified in Section 50 of the Roads Act 1993, as

amended. Subsection 2 lists five items which must be contained in the EIS. These

are a description of the development, a description of measures to address significant

adverse effects, the data required to assess the main effects, an outline of the main

alternatives studied and a non-technical summary. Subsection 3 lists further items

which should in addition be contained in the EIS to the extent that such information is

relevant to a given stage of the consent procedure and to the specific characteristics of

the proposed road development and of the type of environmental features likely to be

affected. These items include a description of the aspects of the environment likely to

be significantly affected by the development.

The Environmental Impact Statement is structured in such a way as to identify

components or aspects of the environment and, within each, to discuss the receiving

environment, likely effects, mitigation measures and residual effects. This is described

as the “grouped format structure” in the Guidelines on the Information to be contained

in Environmental Impact Statements published by the Environmental Protection

Agency and the headings in the EIS, as in this report, correspond broadly with the

items set out in the indents in Article 3 of the EIA Directive and Section 50(3)(b) of

__________________________________________________________________________________


the Roads Act 1993, as amended. The fourth indent refers to interactions. There is a

chapter in the EIS identifying environmental interactions but in this respect I consider

it appropriate to refer to interactions or inter-relationships as arising in the

consideration of the aspects of the environment dealt with under the subheadings set

out below. There are clearly overlaps between effects on some aspects of the

environment and these are referred to where appropriate.

The manner in which this information is presented in this case is to list the various

components or aspects of the environment, and in relation to each to discuss the

methodology, the receiving environment, potential impacts, mitigation measures and

residual impacts. Interactions are also dealt with along with a summary of

environmental commitments. I consider that this is an appropriate mechanism for

describing and assessing the effects on the environment of the proposed development

and I note that it is broadly in line with Advice Notes on Current Practice published

by the Environmental Protection Agency.

To refer to particular items of information, the development is described in the written

statement of the EIS and on the accompanying maps and drawings. It is noted that the

design of the scheme is described as a preliminary design, such that road levels, for

example, may be revised at detailed design stage. This arises from a practice whereby

contractors may be invited to tender on a design and build basis. I infer that the

National Roads Authority consider that it is beneficial to the implementation of

projects to leave a certain amount of discretion to the successful contractor in relation

to design and construction details. It would not be reasonable to expect that every last

construction detail be specified in fine detail and I infer that this approach has been

accepted in Court judgements. At the same time the approval process, incorporating

public consultation and participation, relates to the project as fully described in the

EIS and associated documentation. While the process allows for consideration of

minor corrections and revisions to enable perceived shortcomings to be addressed, the

implications of any such corrections or revisions must be assessed in the context of

the development as applied for, such that material amendments to the project might

require the invitation of further submissions and/or reopening of the hearing.

An outline of the main alternatives studied is included and in this case these include

alternative route options, revisions made to the road standard, development of the

preferred route and bridge height options. There is in practice no limit to the range of

alternatives which might be studied and the emphasis in this case has been on the

study of route options to the east of Slane. Route options to the west are referred to

briefly but, following an early examination of constraints, they were assessed as being

unlikely to compare favourably with those to the east. It is noted that further

examination of potential routes to the west of the village was undertaken in response

to one item in the Board’s request for further information.

The EIS includes a non-technical summary and in this case a revised version was

prepared and submitted as part of the further information requested by the Board. The

revised version contains a more complete set of drawings and maps and a visual

representation of the bridge.

I consider that the EIS complies in general with the relevant legislative criteria in that

it contains the information specified in a reasonable level of detail. In this regard I

consider that it can be taken to be adequate for the purposes of the environmental

__________________________________________________________________________________


impact assessment process. While the EIS is an essential part of the process, I would

comment that the acceptance of its adequacy does not necessarily oblige the Inspector

or the Board to accept any or all of the assessments of effects in it or the conclusions

reached in relation to the development in question.

6.3.3 Human Environment

Effects on human beings in this case are essentially related to effects of changes in

traffic flows and direct effects of the road and bridge structures. This development

differs from most road developments in that its primary function is the improvement

of safety and environmental conditions for one particular community rather than the

provision of a higher level of service for the wider travelling public, though that

would also be achieved. For the purposes of this assessment human beings are

comprised in three groups, residents and workers in the village, residents of the

village environs and the wider public. Particular effects include effects of noise and

dust (dealt with under separate subheadings), effects on residential amenities, lighting,

severance, recreational potential and construction effects. There are inter-

relationships between effects on the human environment and effects on other aspects

of the environment, material assets and some elements of the cultural heritage, for

example.

Traffic Effects

Referring initially to direct traffic effects and to the likely changes in traffic flows, the

Slane community would be significantly affected in several ways, mostly positive.

The first stated objective of the proposal is the improvement of traffic safety in Slane.

The removal of traffic, and in particular the removal of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs),

from Slane bridge would go a long way to dealing with the current hazardous

situation on the bridge and its approaches, though it is accepted that the current

stringent traffic control measures have already brought about a material improvement

in the situation. It would however be fair to comment that these measures were not

intended to be a permanent solution to the problem. I note also that other control

measures including the imposition of 30 km/h speed limit in the village have been

introduced and, while being of some benefit, they do not solve the basic safety and

traffic problems in Slane.

Figures of existing and projected traffic flows have been submitted, indicating the

degree of relief likely to accrue from the construction of the bypass. The figures

made available relate both to all traffic flows and to HGV flows, which are of

particular concern. The main sources of information are the EIS, the presentation at

the hearing by Séamus Mac Gearailt, the presentation by Julian Keenan, a paper

entitled HGV Diversion Assessment and other documentation submitted at the hearing.

In practice the main underlying sources are traffic surveys done in September 2009

and HGV traffic surveys done in June 2010. This information has been analysed and

presented in significantly different ways by Mr. Mac Gearailt and Mr. Keenan. It is

noted that Mr. Keenan relied on the information available and has commented that

data in the HGV Diversion Assessment appears inaccurate. Some anomalies have

also come to light at the hearing but the approach in this report is to examine the

figures critically, concentrate on the broad picture and highlight as clearly as possible

the main effects of the development.

__________________________________________________________________________________


Referring initially to general traffic flows, I consider it reasonable to take the survey

results in Mr. Mac Gearailt’s presentation as a base and use them to estimate the

likely diversion of traffic to the bypass. I consider also that daily figures are more

helpful than figures for peak or other periods during the day. These figures include

figures for turning movements, based on a number-plate recognition survey. The

broad picture for all traffic in Slane is presented in Table 1. The allocation of traffic

flows to the bypass depends on certain assumptions and the nature of these

assumptions varies in the presentations of Mr. Mac Gearailt and Mr. Keenan. The

main assumptions in this table are explained below.

Table 1. Effects of Bypass on Traffic Flows in Slane (All Traffic – Annual Average

Daily Traffic)

Road Daily Traffic

Flows on Existing

Network

Daily Traffic Flows

Assigned to Post-

Bypass Network

% Increase /

Decrease

N2 (North) 8,500 3,600 – 58

N2 (South) 8,300 300 – 97

N51(East) 5,000 6,300 + 26

N51(West) 8,400 8,400 no change

Bypass (North) ------- 4,900 n.a.

Bypass (South) ------- 8,000 n.a.

Total at N2/N51 Junction 15,100 9,300 – 38

The main assumptions made in this assessment are the assignment of all north / west

traffic to the northern leg of the existing N2, the assignment of all traffic away from

the southern leg of the N2 apart from a small component of terminating traffic (300)

and the assignment of the remainder (1,000) of the south terminating traffic to the

bypass. Otherwise the terminating traffic is not reassigned. In relation to the total

passing the N2/N51 Junction, I have assumed that half of the terminating movements

would pass the junction and that the remainder would stop short. I would comment in

general that the proportion of terminating traffic appears to be high.

It is clear from these figures and from those presented at the hearing, notwithstanding

some variations, that the proposed development would bring a very substantial degree

of relief to Slane but it is expedient at this stage to repeat the exercise for heavy goods

vehicles using the same assumption as above. The data for this has the same source as

for the figures for all traffic and the results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Effects of Bypass on Traffic Flows in Slane (HGV Traffic - AADT)

Road Daily Traffic

Flows on Existing

Network

Daily Traffic Flows

Assigned to Post-

Bypass Network

% Increase /

Decrease

N2 (North) 1,260 520 – 59

N2 (South) 1,460 70 – 95

N51(East) 410 980 + 139

N51(West) 1,170 1,170 no change

Bypass (North) ------- 740 n.a.

Bypass (South) ------- 1,390 n.a.

Total at N2/N51 Junction 2,150 1,370 – 36

__________________________________________________________________________________


The first comment I would make on the figures in Table 2 is that there is a similar

pattern in the extent of the likely effects of the bypass, with one significant exception.

That is on the eastern leg of the N51 where the increase in HGV flows would be

proportionally greater for HGVs than for all traffic. This is consistent with the

findings of Mr. Keenan, though in his case he assigned the north / west HGV

movements to the bypass and N51 in place of the northern leg of the N2. He still

came up with figures of +147% and +145% on that leg. He used the figures from the

HGV Diversion Assessment for one of his assessments but there are two problems

with these figures. The first is that there is a very complex system of identifying the

origins and destinations which lends itself to misinterpretation. As a result the figures

for the various turning movements have been interpreted in an inconsistent manner in

the HGV Diversion Assessment and in the presentation of Mr. Keenan. On the basis

of a careful perusal of the descriptions of the site locations it appears that neither is

correct.

The second and more material problem is that these figures incorporate a remarkably

high proportion of unmatched movements, interpreted as terminating movements.

Mr. Mac Gearailt has pointed out that there are significant generators of HGV traffic

in Slane and has submitted a list of commercial enterprises. This list does not however

include any quantification of traffic generation and the proportion of terminating

HGV movements estimated from the survey, considered in relation to the incidence of

commercial premises in Slane, has been queried by Mr. Keenan and by Ms. Carina

Mount Charles. I would concur with this position and indeed it appears from the map

of the survey points (Drawing No. OH-007) that some of the significant traffic

generators, Grassland Fertilisers and Roadstone, are outside the village control points.

Turning now to the 2009 survey figures, the reason for the apparent high assignment

of HGV traffic to the eastern leg of the N51 is that two of the streams assigned to this

leg, from the south terminating and from the south to the west, have particularly high

proportions of heavy vehicles and this distorts the outcome. In these circumstances I

consider that the safest approach is to rely on the figures for all traffic movements.

These include a high proportion of terminating movements but, with greater overall

numbers, this proportion seems more reasonable allowing for local car trips to shops,

school, etc. I note that the EIS and the presentation of Mr. Mac Gearailt have

estimated traffic flows in 2012 and 2027. These forecasts are based on NRA

guidelines but the projected growth rates have been revised downwards and in the

current economic climate I consider that it is a reasonable approach to use the actual

2009/2010 figures as a basis for estimating the traffic effects.

Referring to Table 1 above, it is clear that the bypass would remove a very high

volume of traffic from the village and particularly from the bridge and that there

would be substantial positive effects for the village in general. All of the N2 road

through the village would benefit from reduced traffic volumes and the local National

School is located alongside the N2 on the northern outskirts of the village; indeed

representatives of the school made a strong case for the bypass on safety grounds.

The reduction on the northern leg of the N2 would be 58% and the reduction in total

traffic through the crossroads would be 38%.

Most of the remaining traffic through the village would be along the N51. There

would effectively be no change in flows on the western leg but there would be an

increase of about 26% on the eastern leg of the N51. The effect of this would be

offset to some extent by the improvement of a portion of this road immediately to the

__________________________________________________________________________________


west of the proposed bypass junction. The extent of the increase could however be

greater if N2(north) – N51(west) HGV flows were diverted to the bypass off the

northern leg of the N2, as suggested by Mr. Keenan. There is a case for this,

particularly as the school is located alongside the N2, and I could see some benefit in

allowing the ascending N51(west) - N2(north) movements to use the N2 northbound

from the crossroads while requiring the descending N2(north) – N51(west)

movements to use the bypass southbound to the N51 junction and then into the

crossroads. Even without any such arrangement the northern leg of the N2 would

benefit from a greatly reduced traffic volume.

At this stage it would be appropriate to refer to possible alternatives to the N51 which

might take diverted traffic from it. The first is the proposed Leinster Orbital Route

which would shadow the N51 on the south side of the Boyne. A map showing a

corridor for this route has been submitted at the hearing but this must be regarded at

best as a very long-term proposal. The second possible alternative is the

R152/R150/R153 from Drogheda to Navan via Duleek and Kentstown. This is a road

of reasonable standard and has been improved in parts. It is probably used by some

Drogheda – Navan traffic but the N51 has the primary role. Its Slane – Drogheda

section is of a relalatively poor standard but it has undergone significant

improvements between Slane and Navan.

The basic position in relation to road safety is that the bypass would bring about an

overall significant positive effect for the community of Slane and its environs by

diverting traffic from the village and in particular by diverting HGV traffic. The

improvement would not benefit all parts of the village equally but the N2 road, which

runs right through the village from north to south, would experience a very substantial

reduction in traffic. The safety problems at the existing bridge and on its approaches

would therefore be resolved as the bridge would have no significant traffic function.

There would also be corresponding beneficial effects on the environment and

ambience of the village in general and on the approach roads to some extent. Heavy

flows of traffic are currently damaging the environmental quality of the village with

the constant passage of vehicles and the associated noise, fumes and obtrusive effect

of large trucks. Slane has significant value as a heritage village but the intrusive

effect of this traffic detracts from the quality of its environment for residents,

employees and visitors, the latter including customers of businesses and tourists.

I would refer at this stage to inter-relationships with effects on other aspects of the

environment. These are material assets, in that the poor quality of the environment

appears to be detrimental to local businesses, and cultural heritage, in that the passage

of heavy vehicles in particular appears to be affecting the fabric of the built heritage

of the village through structural damage and the emission of fumes.

Moving out to the wider population, the bypass would be of significant benefit to

existing users of the N2, in that it would eliminate a significant traffic hazard, would

provide a better level of service and reduce journey times. Aside from the time saving

from the improved route, there is also a severe capacity restraint caused by the

alternating traffic flows on Slane Bridge, with consequent delays and congestion.

Those benefitting would include persons travelling relatively long distances as well as

those with journeys commencing or terminating in the Meath / Louth area. The

benefits might also accrue to persons diverting to the N2 as a result of the higher level

__________________________________________________________________________________


of service. It must be presumed that many drivers plan their routes on the basis of

perceived time and cost factors. Avoiding the paying of tolls would come into this

equation, such that some diversion from the M1 to the N2 could occur as a result of

the development. Apart from the section through Slane, the M2/N2 road is of a fair

standard but such a diversion could have negative environmental effects in the village

of Collon and possibly also in Ardee.

Effects on Residents of Slane Environs

In the environs of the village there are clusters of houses on the N2 south of the

village, on the Rossnaree road, on the N51 east of the village and on the N2 north of

the bypass, all reasonably close to the route of the bypass. The amenities of these

residents would be potentially affected by the bypass, in particular through visual

obtrusion and noise. The former is addressed in the Landscape & Visual Analysis

section of the EIS and significant effects arise from proximity to the road and the

profile / level of the road. This assessment is based on residential houses / clusters

within 500m of the road alignment. There is a total of 56 habitable houses in this

band but, excluding those to be acquired, only ten are located within 250m of the

route. The magnitude, sensitivity and significance of effects on these are assessed.

The substance of the results is that 11 are stated to be likely to experience effects of

high magnitude and high significance and a further 11 to experience effects of

medium magnitude and high significance. Mitigation measures are recommended in

all cases and these mainly comprise the establishment of dense native and locally

common trees and hedgerow planting along the road corridor to provide screening. I

consider that these measures would be effective and would reduce the obtrusiveness

of the development in the majority of cases. Effects would in some cases be limited

by the location of much of the road in cutting.

Referring in more detail to residential properties close to the route corridor, the cluster

on the N2 north of the southern tie-in point would experience an improvement in their

amenities, arising mainly from the removal of traffic from the N2. The cluster further

south at McGruder’s cross would not benefit in the same way and some are assessed

as being likely to experience effects of high magnitude and high significance arising

from oblique / direct views towards road works. The cluster at Lynch’s Wood on

Rossnaree road would be between 250 and 400 meters from the bypass and the bridge

and embankments would be very intrusive features in this location. A long-term

impact significance of high & adverse is assessed in the submission of additional

information for a location to the rear of these houses. The houses to the east of the

bypass on the Rossnaree road would be between 250 and 300 metres from the bypass

and would be similarly affected, but to a somewhat lesser degree being on the far side

of the road. An increase in noise levels at properties on Rossnaree road would be

likely to occur. That would also be a factor at Crewbane where some houses would

be close to the road and some would have oblique views of the bridge. Noise effects

are further considered in the next section of the report.

Houses along the N51 road would not be affected to such a great degree by visual

obtrusion nor by noise, apart from those affected by compulsory acquisition, and the

realignment of that road would not have significant implications for the amenities of

houses on the roadside. The expected increase in traffic volumes would be offset to

some extent by improvements to the road alignment and provision of a footpath. I

note that the County Council are agreeable to the deletion of the footpath on the

redundant section of the N51 west of the junction in accordance with the wishes of the

__________________________________________________________________________________


residents. Noise would be a factor at a cluster north of the N51 where one house is

given an effect of high significance. It is noted that noise is expected to be reduced in

the vicinity of the houses near the northern tie-in point and it is not considered that

their amenities would be seriously affected.

Referring to certain other effects, there are essentially two sources of lighting,

vehicles using the road and fixed lighting at junctions. I consider that the impact of

lighting columns would be insignificant by day but might have some effects at night.

These effects would be positive for road users but might have some effects on

neighbouring residential properties. It is proposed however to use columns no higher

than 14 metres and I do not consider that the overall effect would be severe. I note

that the bridge would not be lit. The effects of lighting from vehicles would be

limited by the location of most of the road in cutting. Lighting from cars would also

be mitigated by landscape mitigation measures. Lighting from trucks would be more

significant, though the night-time volume of truck traffic is likely to be relatively low.

Lighting from vehicles crossing the bridge would however be more significant and

would tend to have some effect on properties on the Rossnaree road. Effects of

lighting are also relevant to other aspects of the environment, for example in relation

to effects on bats, considered in Section 6.3.5, and on the cultural heritage with regard

to the World Heritage Site, dealt with in Section 6.3.12.

New roads potentially have severing effects on rural and residential communities.

There would be no permanent road closures in this case so that this is not a material

consideration. There would be effects on access arrangements to some residential

properties, in particular along the N51 where portion of the existing N51 would

survive as a service access to some houses. I do not consider that the amenities of

these or other houses would be negatively affected in this way not that there would be

serious risks of unauthorised parking / dumping. There would also be changes to

access arrangements to farmland, dealt with under the material assets subheading

(Section 6.3.10) and in relation to compulsory acquisition, dealt with in Section 7.

Temporary road closures are referred to below in relation to construction effects.

The proposed development has the potential to enhance recreational facilities in the

area by providing facilities for use of the bridge by pedestrians and cyclists. The

bridge is designed for use by vehicles but its cross section incorporates space for a 2.5

metre shared footway / cycleway. I consider that a facility of this type would be of

significant amenity value to its users in opening up striking views of the river valley.

The submission of An Taisce / IWAI points to the potential amenity value of a link

from the Rossnaree road to the towpath. This would comprise a positive indirect

effect but is not part of the development as proposed. Proposed improvements along

the N51 would be of benefit to pedestrians and cyclists using that road.

Referring to effects arising during the construction phase, these effects are temporary

and short-term in nature but are potentially severe in particular locations.

Construction operations would take place mostly on the site, which consists

essentially of a greenfield site, much of it not close to roads or houses. Access for

construction traffic is proposed to be confined to the N2 and N51 roads, which would

help to limit adverse effects. There would however be disruption to road users at the

three tie-in locations on the road network, with temporary traffic control measures in

place during the construction phase. There would in particular be disruption to traffic

on the Rossnaree road, which would be closed for one year to allow for the

__________________________________________________________________________________


construction of the bridge carrying that road over the bypass. The canal towpath

would also be closed, though current use of this appears to be limited as it terminates

a short distance downstream. There is a proposal by An Taisce and the Inland

Waterways Association of Ireland to restore the canal but this is likely to take some

time and the implications of a situation in which the restoration was completed prior

to the construction of the bypass is discussed in Section 7 of this report in relation to

objections to the CPO.

Severe effects can arise from noise, blasting, dust generation and air pollution. These

issues are considered further on in this report but good practice in relation to

construction requires the implementation of an environmental operating plan which

would include a traffic management plan, as is proposed in the case of this

development. There is scope for mitigation arising from consultation with those

likely to be affected and through adherence to the Schedule of Environmental

Commitments and Mitigation Measures submitted at the oral hearing.

The earthworks balance is such that a net export of excavated materials is projected to

occur, in the region of 30,000 to 60,000 tonnes. This would be generated mostly from

south of the river and ideally transported to the south. In terms of traffic load it is

estimated in the EIS that this would amount to 15% of current heavy commercial

traffic, which would be a significant effect. The construction phase would however

have positive effects by reason of the employment created and the additional spending

on local services and supplies.

On the basis of the above analysis I am satisfied that this development would have

significant positive effects on the human environment, in particular in relation to the

safety and convenience of road users and members of the Slane community and in

relation to the quality of the living environment in Slane. It would have negative

effects, locally severe, mainly on the amenities of residents of houses close to the

proposed road corridor. These effects would include effects of visual obtrusion,

lighting, noise and air pollution, the last two dealt with under other subheadings.

Effects of visual obtrusion can be greatly mitigated by means of proposals for planting

and landscaping. There would however be significant residual effects in relation to

some houses and groups of houses. The bridge in particular would be a prominent

feature in its immediate environs. It would be close to the houses at Lynch’s Wood

and would have a significant effect on their amenities. I would point out in this regard

that the proposed route runs a short distance to the east of that originally selected

(Option B) and that this shift is of significant benefit to the amenities of these houses.

I consider however that the negative effects identified in the preceding paragraphs

would be greatly outweighed by the positive effects and that this development would

have significant net positive effects on the human environment.

6.3.4 Noise and Vibration

These effects fall within the range of those affecting human beings but also have

implications for other aspects of the environment, including the natural environment

and cultural heritage. They are considered separately in the EIS and, having regard to

their nature and significance, are considered under a separate subheading in this

report. One particular issue which has arisen is the possible effects of traffic noise on

the environment of the World Heritage Site. That is considered in the part of the

report dealing with the implications of the development for that Site.

__________________________________________________________________________________


A road development is likely to give rise to significant effects both in the construction

and operational phases but the nature of the effects in the respective phases and the

ways in which they are addressed differ greatly. Furthermore this project, while

comprising a new element of infrastructure, differs from many major road projects in

one particular respect. Other major projects attract traffic from existing main roads

and urban areas but the diverted traffic is drawn from a wide area, so that the

reduction in traffic volumes in any particular location would not be significant in

terms of noise generation. In contrast the main function of this project is to act as a

substitute for the existing N2 road through Slane, with the intended diversion to the

bypass of the vast majority of traffic movements from the existing road. This

diversion would therefore have significantly beneficial effects on the noise

environment in the village. These effects must of course be weighed against the

negative effects on the environment in the vicinity of the bypass.

The nature of operational noise is such that it is reasonably consistent and facilitates

numerical assessment. Noise effects along the route of the bypass have been assessed

by reference to the Guidelines for the Treatment of Noise and Vibration in National

Road Schemes published by the National Roads Authority. The procedure is

described in some detail in the EIS and in the submission of Damian Kelly at the

hearing. This comprised environmental noise surveys conducted at 12 locations,

mainly close to residential properties but extended later to include three locations in

the area of the World Heritage Site. This process led to the preparation of a prediction

model to quantify the traffic noise level associated with the operational phase of the

scheme. This model predicted noise levels for the opening year 2012 and design year

2027, with and without the scheme in place.

The Guidelines recommend the use of the unit, day-evening-night 60 dB(Lden) (free

field residential facade criterion) as the appropriate design goal for assessing noise in

the case of new schemes. Arising from this, three conditions are specified to

determine if mitigation measures are necessary. These relate to the relevant noise

level, the excess of this level over the expected noise level without the scheme in

place and the contribution to the increase in the relevant noise level from the scheme.

It is stated in the Guidelines that this criterion is considered to be more onerous than

that previously employed on national road schemes. The use of this criterion leads to

an assessment of the need for appropriate mitigation measures in particular locations.

I consider that this procedure is soundly based in general as a method of assessing

noise effects, subject to consideration of the circumstances of any particular location.

The model predicted noise levels for 32 locations, mostly in the vicinity of the bypass

route but also including locations on the existing N2, N51 and Rossnaree roads. The

predicted levels were shown to be higher in 2027 than in the Do Minimum scenario at

11 locations, generally close to the bypass route. The application of the criterion

identified two locations requiring mitigation. A further iteration incorporated the use

of a low-noise road surface across the entire scheme. In this scenario the predicted

levels were shown to be higher at 10 locations and indicated that mitigation would be

required at just one location, at the N51 junction. This would consist of a 60 metre

long, 2-metre high barrier on the eastern side of the bypass. While accepting that this

analysis was carried out thoroughly and in accordance with the NRA Guidelines, I

note that the model predicted significant increases in noise levels (in excess of 3

dB(Lden)) at four locations but these increases did not trigger the mitigation criterion.

These locations are along the Rossnaree road and at Crewbane. I infer that these are

__________________________________________________________________________________


rural locations enjoying a good quality noise environment and the significance of such

increases is not immaterial in the context of effects on human beings.

The 2027 levels predicted from the model were shown to be lower in 20 locations,

mostly close to the existing N2 but also including locations along the N51.

Reductions of 4 and 8 dB(Lden) are predicted in the centre of the village and near the

school respectively. It is of course clear even to the casual passer-by that the N2

corridor through Slane experiences a very high level of traffic noise, much of it

contributed to by heavy trucks climbing the hill in low gear. The removal of most of

the existing traffic from this road, and almost all of the heavy trucks crossing the

bridge, could scarcely but have a beneficial effect on the noise environment in the

village, as reflected in the model predictions. Taking all of the operational noise

effects in the Slane area into account, the proposed development would have a

significant net benefit on the human environment in the Slane area.

Construction noise is by its nature quite different. It can be quite severe and

impulsive but is also likely to be intermittent and short-term. There are many sources

of such noise, depending on the phase of construction, and these include excavation,

blasting, filling, earth moving, road surfacing and movements of vehicles. The last

includes on-site and off-site movements and, in relation to the latter, it is proposed

that access to the site by heavy vehicles would be restricted to the N2 and N51 roads,

which should limit the impact of such movements. While those impacts, separately or

in combination, have the potential to be severe, the nature of construction activities is

such that their noise levels are less amenable to measurement.

The approach in the Guidelines is to specify acceptable noise limits at the facades of

dwellings and to have regard to typical noise levels for construction plant as given in

BS 5228 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites. These are

referred to in the EIS. The approach to mitigation is to specify that the contractor will

be obliged to take specific noise abatement measures and comply with the

recommendations of BS 5228: Part 1 and the European Communities (Noise Emission

by Equipment for Use Outdoors) Regulations, 2001. I consider that this approach is

reasonable. Details of appropriate noise abatement measure are set out in paragraph

7.4.9 of the EIS. The submission of Damian Kelly at the hearing points to the need

for a Noise and Vibration Management Plan and Best Practical Means of noise

control as set out in BS 5228. The overall construction phase is likely to last eighteen

months but the effects are by their nature temporary and unlikely to last that long in

any particular location.

The potential for vibration at neighbouring sensitive locations during construction is

stated in the EIS to be limited to demolition, excavation works, rock-breaking

operations and lorry movements on uneven road surfaces. Excavation and rock-

breaking operations have the potential to impact on residential amenities. It is

proposed to limit vibration levels to values of peak participle velocity specified in the

NRA Guidelines in order to ensure that there is no potential for damage during

construction. Adverse effects can be limited by the exercise of good operating

practices, as set out above. Ground vibration from construction traffic is not

considered likely to cause damage to buildings or lead to disturbance of occupiers. It

is concluded that there is no likelihood of structural damage from construction works.

__________________________________________________________________________________


6.3.5 Flora and Fauna

There is considerable detail contained in the EIS and in material submitted to and

discussed at the hearing relating to habitats in the vicinity of the proposed bypass and

to plant and animal species present in the area, including the presence of protected

species. Walkover surveys were carried out over a period of seven years, the most

recent in September, 2009. These were supplemented by available aerial photography

and other information. The surveys noted the presence in particular of badgers, otters,

bats and several species of birds including whooper swans. Aquatic species of note

are Atlantic salmon and river lamprey.

The baseline environment is assessed in the EIS by reference to the incidence of

habitats in the survey area, with particular regard to those having conservation

designations. That of the most ecological interest is the River Boyne Valley including

the river, adjoining canal and adjoining land. The river valley in this area forms part

of the River Boyne and River Blackwater candidate Special Area of Conservation

(Ref. No. 002299). The valley is proposed to be crossed by the proposed bypass.

A detailed description of habitats is included in the EIS. These include improved

grassland which is the principal habitat along the route, patches of wet grassland,

stands of mixed broadleaved woodland, arable land, hedgerows, scrub and drainage

channels. The habitats in the river valley are identified and described. These

comprise the main river channel and island, the north bank of the river, the south bank

of the river, the Boyne Canal and the grasslands adjacent to the canal on the south

side. The Mooretown stream, a tributary of the Mattock river which flows into the

Boyne, is crossed by the route of the bypass.

The baseline surveys noted the presence of various species including common

species, such as rabbits, foxes, brown rats and grey squirrels. In the case of protected

species, a total of 12 badger setts were identified within the study area, of which 6

were considered to be active but none were within 50 metres of the land-take.

Evidence of otter activity was recorded along the river banks but no further evidence

of otters was found. Details of survey work by Bat Conservation Ireland are

described and a minimum of seven species were identified as active along the route.

Three trees, mature ash trees with heavy ivy growth, were identified as potential bat

roosts. The river corridor is stated to support a typical diversity of wetland bird

species, including kingfisher, listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive, mallard, mute

swan and grey heron. A wintering flock of whooper swans occurs in the Boyne

valley, apparently based at Newgrange. Regular sightings of them have been noted by

persons attending the hearing but their core area is stated by Dr Madden to be

Newgrange extending towards Crewbane. A small population of mute swans is stated

to occur mostly west of Slane bridge. Salmon and lamprey occur in the potentially

affected section of the river.

Construction impacts, while related to short-term activities, can have permanent

effects on habitats, effectively through the loss of land to the road. Most of the area to

be occupied by the road is currently in agricultural use and is not of particular

ecological interest. The loss of hedgerows could be considered an effect of minor

significance. Impacts on the river corridor would be of greater significance. The

bridge would have a clear span over the river and the revised layout submitted at the

hearing would increase the span somewhat. In any case the main construction activity

__________________________________________________________________________________


would be the construction of the two bridge piers, one located in the water meadow on

the south bank. The actual loss of habitat would not be great, stated in the EIS to

amount to a total of 252 m2, which includes an area of disturbance. Access for

construction equipment and vehicles has to be provided so that, subject to the details

of the construction programme, there would be a minor to moderate impact. The

river, central island and canal however ought not be affected. Likely effects on fauna

are discussed and there would be some effects in terms of loss of feeding areas,

interference with bat commuting routes and general disturbance. There would not be

fragmentation of this habitat.

Operational effects would clearly, having regard to the bridge profile, be less

significant. Referring again to the crossing of the river, the bridge would have a clear

span over the river and would not encroach on the banks. It would not impede

movement along the banks or towpath nor have any effect on the river, presuming that

surface water runoff was properly dealt with. Some concern was expressed about bat

fly-paths. This was perceived as a justification for rejecting the lowest height option

for the bridge but the evidence of Dr. Aughney indicated that the lowest height option

would be acceptable in this regard. Dr. Madden has stated that there is very little risk

of collision between swans and the proposed bridge. There are of course other

considerations involved in assessing the optimum bridge height.

I would refer at this stage to four issues raised in the submission of the Department of

the Environment Heritage and Local Government dated 17th

February, 2010. It has

been clarified that the vegetation on the central alluvial island under the bridge does

not comprise residual alluvial woodland. The percentage of habitat loss due to the

development would, it appears, be very small indeed and a figure of 0.001% has been

given. The bridge piers would be very narrow and are outside the main river channel

so that it is reasonable to infer that they would not have a material effect on river

flows during flood events. There are no other projects which are relevant from the

aspect of consideration of cumulative impacts.

The scope for mitigation is discussed in the EIS and appropriate measures are

described. These include strict control of the construction of the bridge, control of

discharges of silts/suspended solids to watercourses, minimising of removal of

hedgerows/trees and planting of road cuttings and verges. A detailed step-by-step

construction programme along with revisions to the bridge layout was submitted at

the hearing. This programme specifies the nature of the works in some detail and has

the purpose of limiting impacts on the navigation and on the riverside margins of the

SAC. It provides in particular for identifying exclusion zones to be fenced off during

construction, for ensuring that a 10 metre-wide riparian strip would form part of the

exclusion zone and for relocating the northern pier 6 metres further from the river.

Specific mitigation measures are proposed in the case of species of interest and these

include mammal underpasses, the avoidance of clearing vegetation during the

breeding season of birds and the avoidance of lighting on the bridge. A monitoring

programme is recommended to ensure implementation of mitigation measures.

While the road would be mostly routed across open land, these areas are not of

significant ecological interest and I do not consider that this development would have

a significant effect on the ecological value of these areas, subject to the incorporation

of certain mitigation measures. The same would apply to the Mooretown stream. The

Boyne valley however is an area of particular ecological interest, as recognised in its

__________________________________________________________________________________


inclusion in a candidate Special Area of Conservation. A development of this type

could have potentially severe effects on the ecology of this area but the circumstances

of this case are such as to limit such effects. Referring to the qualifying interests

underlying the designation of the area, the two Annex I habitats, alkaline fens and

alluvial forest, are not present in this area and the Annex II species, lamprey, salmon

and otter, are not expected, subject to appropriate mitigation measures and having

regard to the lack of obstruction to movement along the river channel, to experience

any negative impact. On this basis I consider that there would not be a significant

overall impact on the natural environment. I would refer also to the complaint of

Peter Sweetman that there are only draft objectives relating to this cSAC but this is

not something over which the Board have any control and the position is that the

development must be assessed on the basis of the information available. I would add

that indirect effects can occur through effects on air quality and river flow, effects to

be considered under further subheadings.

Appropriate Assessment

The EIS includes a Stage 1 Screening Report as part of an Article 6 Assessment in

accordance with European Commission guidance on the provisions of Articles 6(3)

and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive. Referring to the components of this, it is clear that

the development is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the

site. The development is described in the Screening Report in some detail and with

reference to those features likely to impact on areas of ecological interest. It is clear

that there is one particular Natura 2000 site which might be affected, this being the

River Boyne and River Blackwater candidate Special Area of Conservation. This site

is described with particular reference to the Annex I habitats and Annex II species

underlying the designation of the area. A Site Synopsis is attached. Likely direct,

indirect or secondary impacts on the Natura Site are described in relation to the

manner in which they might affect the Site. Particular works which have the potential

to impact on the Site are identified and it is explained why the effects of these are not

considered significant. The development must also be considered in combination

with other projects and plans. A number of watercourses crossed by the development

which flow into the Boyne are considered and reference is made to the Strategic

Environmental Assessment in the Meath County Development Plan and to the Slane

Local Area Plan. It is concluded that there are no projects or plans which need to be

considered in combination with the development in question. The restoration of the

Boyne Canal is also referred to and it is noted that full ecological assessments are

carried out prior to any works that may impact on the canal. It has been determined in

the Screening Report that there is no potential for the development to have a

significant impact on the SAC, effectively a finding of no significant effect, and

therefore that a Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment is not required. I accept that the

assessment in this report has been carried out in accordance with the relevant

guidance.

6.3.6 Geology and Soils

The area of the proposed route corridor is stated in the EIS to be an area of complex

geology. The strata comprise Carboniferous Limestones and older Lower Palaeozoic

metamorphosed sedimentary and volcanic rocks. The predominant rock type is stated

to be limestone with local variations. Geophysics surveying has indicated variability

in rock through which cuttings are proposed. The overburden varies in depth along

the route and contains clays and gravels. To the south it consists of clays and coarse

__________________________________________________________________________________


gravels up to 12 metres in depth. The average depth to rock is estimated to be 2 to 4

metres below ground level along the location of deepest cutting but the upper

weathered rock layers are between 4 and 13 metres thick along the southern section.

There is an outcrop of limestone north of the Rossnaree road and there are gravels up

to 20 metres in depth immediately north of the Boyne. The deepest proven

overburden (24m) was found north of Norris Hill. No items of geological heritage

have been identified but karstified aquifers are stated to be present on each side of the

river and north of the N51 roundabout.

I consider it reasonable to infer that there would not be a significant permanent effect

on soils and rock formations. Construction operations however have potentially

severe effects arising from the necessary excavation, filling, shifting and disposal of

material on-site and off-site. These effects give rise to direct and indirect effects on

other aspects of the environment, including human beings, fauna and flora, water, the

landscape, cultural heritage and material assets, the last including the permanent loss

to the road of land having productive potential. These effects are considered in the

following paragraphs and under other appropriate subheadings.

Excavation requires the removal of substantial quantities of soil and rock of varying

quality, with consequent emissions of noise and dust. It is indicated from borehole

information that mechanical excavation and breaking may be feasible in certain areas,

particularly in the case of the uppermost weathered rock, but it seems likely that

several rock zones are likely to require drilling and blasting to free up the more

competent rock materials for removal. Excavation effects are discussed in the EIS in

relation to noise effects and include the effects of drilling and blasting which, while

being potentially severe, are also temporary and susceptible to mitigation through the

implementation of appropriate methodologies and construction practices. Noise and

vibration effects are discussed in Section 6.3.4 of this report.

There is a degree of balance between cut and fill in that some of the excavated

material can be re-used on sections of the route where the foundation of the road

needs to be built up. It is clear however that this development would generate a net

surplus of material, in that the quantity to be excavated would exceed the fill

requirement. It is expected that much of the excavated material would be suitable for

re-use for various purposes. Allowing for this potential, it is estimated that there

would be a need for a net export of between 30,000 and 60,000 tonnes of material.

These figures are based on the use of relatively gentle side slopes of 1 vertical to 2

horizontal. While the use of steeper side slopes would reduce the quantity of material

to be exported, the quality of the bedrock would be unlikely to support the use of

steeper slopes, so that it is prudent to take the gentler slopes as a base for the

estimation of quantities. This material would be generated mostly from south of the

river, where the deepest cuttings are proposed. Ideally it would be transported to the

south for disposal, thereby avoiding the need for this traffic to cross the river. In

terms of the traffic load it is estimated in the EIS that this would amount to 15% of the

current HGV traffic load on the N2 south of Slane, which would be a significant

effect.

The stability of foundations is clearly a matter of particular concern at the bridge

location. A substantial number of boreholes have been drilled in the vicinity of the

river crossing and the information available has indicated that this is an area of very

complex geology, which has been extensively folded and faulted, and that there is a

__________________________________________________________________________________


substantial depth to bedrock in the river valley area. Lengthy discussion took place at

the hearing of the implications of establishing foundations for the bridge columns and

of the likelihood of encountering karstifed limestone in the area. There are

indications of the presence of Karst features in this area and there are karstified

features scattered around. The discussion at the hearing focussed on the likelihood of

the occurrence of cavities in the location of the northern bridge pier, which is

proposed to be relocated. The Site Investigation Drawings show a concentration of

boreholes in the river valley, though many are located a short distance west of the

actual route. This arose from the minor shift of the route to the east prior to the

submission of the current application but this shift appears to have had the beneficial

effect of locating the bridge in an area with greater solidity of rock. While the

northern pier is proposed to be relocated, its revised location is between the locations

of two boreholes and these encountered no cavities. I note that the test results from

the location of the southern pier, which is not proposed to be relocated, indicated the

presence of limestone at a relatively shallow depth. The pier foundations would in

any case have to be piled and, if it happened that significant cavities were

encountered, I consider it reasonable to infer from the evidence given that there are

adequate engineering technologies available to deal with such eventualities in

providing adequate foundations for the piers.

Much of the proposed road is in cuttings, particularly where the route cuts through

Cullen Hill. Cuttings by their nature have implications for the visual impact of major

roads and can be discordant elements in the landscape. In this case the cutting into

Cullen Hill would be quite deep, up to 8.5 metres in depth. Cullen Hill is a prominent

element in the landscape and appears in westward views from Knowth. The impact of

cuttings and embankments is susceptible to mitigation by appropriate landscaping and

planting, as indicated in the landscaping details submitted. These details are based on

side slopes of 1 vertical to 2 horizontal, as indicated above. The possibility of

steepening the side slopes is mentioned in the EIS and was discussed at the hearing on

the basis that this would reduce the quantity of material to be disposed of and might

reduce the visual impact of the cutting. Any benefit to be derived in the latter aspect

would be marginal and the information available on subsoils and bedrock indicates

that there are significant depths of weathered rock in the location of the deepest

cutting, such that it would not be practicable to steepen the side slopes except at the

very bottom of the cutting in beds of competent rock, as is proposed. In this context I

consider that the engineering design details proposed are satisfactory and see no

benefit to be derived from departing from them.

6.3.7 Waters

Effects on waters are of concern in relation to surface waters and groundwater. Such

effects are potentially related to effects on human beings, flora and fauna and material

assets, including water supplies and fisheries. Referring initially to surface water, the

main water body in this area is the River Boyne but the Mooretown stream and man-

made drains have also been noted. Records of flood events along the Boyne are

described in the EIS and these include several which have occurred in recent years

including one in the location of the proposed bridge crossing. Local knowledge has

indicated that the river has flooded in most years to a width of approximately 120

metres. Water quality results from the monitoring stations on the Boyne, one

upstream of Slane bridge and one downstream, indicate quality ratings of Q 3-4

(slightly polluted). It is noted that the river hosts Atlantic salmon and river lamprey.

__________________________________________________________________________________


Hydraulic impacts on surface water can occur in the construction phase but in this

case there are unlikely to be any temporary excavations or disturbance of the river

bed. It is noted in the EIS however that the floodplain on the Boyne is narrower in the

proposed bridge location than further upstream. The implications of this for flooding

have been addressed by designing a bridge with a clear span over the river and

floodplain and using columns with a slender profile. Surface water runoff from the

road would be greater than for a comparable area of unsurfaced ground but this effect

can be addressed by appropriate design of the road drainage system to attenuate

discharges to rates consistent with greenfield rates of discharge

Hydrochemical effects in the construction phase, including pollution by discharge of

suspended solids, hydrocarbons or other contaminated site runoff, are susceptible to

mitigation measures, details of which are outlined in the EIS. Their implementation is

effectively tied in with good construction practices. Similar impacts can occur in the

operational phase and surface water runoff is a potential source of pollution, likewise

accidental spillages. Appropriate pollution control measures are described in the EIS,

including treatment ponds with significant retention capacity and bypass interceptors

at the northern and southern boundaries of the River Boyne.

In relation to groundwater, the EIS gives details of bedrock aquifers and vulnerability.

The route is underlain almost entirely by locally important aquifers of varying

productivity. The vulnerability mapping indicates some areas of extreme vulnerability

in the area underlying the route. Wells in the area have been surveyed and 11 wells

have been identified within 1,000 meters of the route, 8 of which are in use. No

specific information is available on groundwater quality.

A preliminary well impact assessment has been provided in the EIS, based on distance

from road features, elevation, direction of groundwater flow, the extent of the zone of

contribution for the well and other relevant factors. The stripping of vegetation and

subsoils in the construction phase is likely to affect the recharge to the underlying

aquifer and in general groundwater is susceptible in this phase to effects from

accidental spillages, discharges of contaminated materials and local reduction of water

levels in cuttings. These risks are greatest in this phase but are essentially temporary.

The assessment in the EIS has indicated that the probability of hydraulic impact to

groundwater in the construction phase is in the range “none” to “low.” This does not

necessarily equate to a low risk of hydrochemical impact due to migration of waters in

the aquifer for longer distances than the zone of contribution to the wells. Preventive

mitigation measures and further risk evaluation are recommended in relevant sections.

In the operational phase some of the cuttings would go below the water table and it is

considered that there would be some permanent local lowering of the water table,

assessed as a direct small adverse permanent impact. A wide range of mitigation

measures are recommended in relation to impacts on surface water and groundwater.

These include a comprehensive well audit together with regular sampling, retention of

surface water in settlement ponds, bunding of refuelling tanks, use of constructed

wetlands/treatment ponds in sensitive locations and a drainage inspection programme

for the construction phase. The residual impacts comprise the lowering of the water

table and a very small permanent loss of natural catchment and sub-catchment areas.

__________________________________________________________________________________


6.3.8 Air and Climate

Effects on Air Quality

The assessment of air quality and climate impacts is stated to have been carried out

using guidance from the National Roads Authority and other appropriate sources. A

baseline air quality programme, comprising air quality measurements, an analysis of

representative Environmental Protection Agency data and comprehensive air

dispersion modelling of the road infrastructure, was carried out to assess existing

levels of significant traffic-derived pollutants, Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), fine

particulate matter less than 10 micrometers (PM10) and benzene. The levels of these

were approximately 44%, 8% and 30% respectively of the EU limit values, indicating

that this is a region of good air quality.

Construction phase impacts mainly comprise dust emissions and the appropriate

method of dealing with these is through a dust minimisation plan. Operational phase

impacts arise from emissions from vehicles. These have been assessed by means of

an air dispersion model with the aim of estimating concentrations of pollutants for

which ambient limit values have been set by Council Directive 2008/50/EC. It is

noted that this assessment of air quality is based on the traffic capacity of the road

type, which would be significantly higher than the actual projections. The results of

the modelling of pollutant concentrations in 2012 and 2027 are described in relation to

the proposed route, the existing route through Slane and sensitive ecosystems.

These results indicate that receptors along the bypass route in the Do Something

scenario would in general experience relatively minor changes in the case of carbon

monoxide (CO), benzene, PM10, PM2.5 and NO2 and that the concentrations of these

pollutants would be below their respective limit values. The results for Slane village

in the Do Something scenario indicate that there would be an improvement in air

quality by up to 17% of the limit values at the worst-case receptors, resulting in a

beneficial effect to the population and the fabric of heritage buildings. In the broader

area of Slane and its environs I consider that the development would have a net

positive effect arising from the improvement in air quality in the main populated area

of the village and the reduction in emissions per vehicle arising from the free-flow

conditions and gentler gradients on the bypass. The EIS also contains a regional air

quality assessment of the proposed road emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), having regard to the Gothenburg Protocol on

long range transboundary air pollution. The results indicate that the impact on

Ireland’s obligations under this protocol would be negligible.

A separate assessment of the effects of emissions on sensitive ecosystems, the River

Boyne cSAC in this case, was carried out in accordance with NRA guidelines as the

designated site is located within 200 metres of the road centreline and as there would

be a significant change to traffic flows. The impact of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from the

road was assessed in a screening assessment. The results of dispersion modelling and

prediction indicated that the annual average NOx would be below the limit value of

30µg/m3

in the Do Minimum scenario in both design years but that levels in the Do

Something scenario would be in excess of the limit value, 198% of the limit in 2012

and 117% in 2027. This has led, in line with NRA guidelines, to an assessment by the

project ecologist. The conclusions of this were that the habitats in the potentially

affected zone are not sensitive to air pollution and that modelled NO2 levels were not

excessively high and would not be expected to cause noticeable tissue damage to

__________________________________________________________________________________


plants in this location. In addition the calculated NO2 dry deposition would be well

below the critical load for inland and surface water habitats.

Climate Change Implications

CO2 emissions are relevant to climate change and are used as a means of assessing

performance in this respect. The background is that Ireland’s emissions are currently

in excess of Kyoto targets and that transport emissions, mainly from road transport,

increased by 176% between 1990 and 2008. Emissions fell in the following year,

presumably due to the economic downturn, but a future upturn could possibly reverse

that trend. The National Climate Change Strategy provides for measures to reduce

emissions from the various sectors in order to meeting the Kyoto target. These

measures include those put in place in 2006 and additional proposed measures.

Components of significance in the planning context are a reduction of 510,000 tonnes

CO2 equivalent arising from modal split and 83,000 tonnes from alignment of

transport investment with spatial planning. Looking further forward towards 2020,

the strategy indicates that new and more stringent targets are likely to be set with

further implications for the transport sector.

There is a calculation in the EIS, assuming higher traffic flows along a dual

carriageway operating at capacity, that the impact of the road would be to increase

CO2 emissions by at most 0.0080% of Ireland’s Kyoto target. In percentage terms that

is a negligible increase but it could reasonably be expected that any development of

this type ought to make some contribution, however small, to reducing national

emissions. Peter Sweetman has pointed to the discrepancy between claims that

particular projects would be beneficial in terms of emissions and the consistent annual

rise in transport emissions. Obviously the annual increases, until 2007, are part of a

broad national perspective and the EIS refers to factors such as improved motor

technology, tax rebalancing to favour fuel efficient vehicles and a driving awareness

campaign. These and other factors are likely to have some beneficial results but I

consider, in relation to the particular development now proposed, that it would be

more useful to compare the levels of emissions in the Do Minimum and Do Something

scenarios.

The essential component of this development is the diversion of a large volume of

traffic from the existing N2 through Slane to the proposed bypass. Assuming no

change in the volume of through traffic, it could reasonably be expected that there

would be a significant reduction in emissions per vehicle arising from the free-flow

conditions and much gentler gradients on the bypass. The relative lengths of the

existing N2 and the bypass do not differ significantly so that this would not be a factor

in this comparison. The likely reduction in emissions might however be offset to

some extent by diversion of traffic to the N2 arising from the improved level of

service, though on a regional scale such a diversion would be neutral in consideration

of the overall level of emissions.

Referring to relevant elements of the National Climate Change Strategy, it is

envisaged that Transport 21 will facilitate a switch to more sustainable modes of

transport such as public transport, cycling and walking. Slane however is not well

served by public transport and it is not realistic to expect that the bypass would

facilitate a significant switch to public transport. There is a railway line from

Drogheda to Navan which runs a few kilometres south of Slane but this is used

exclusively to serve Tara mines and provides no passenger services. The nearest

__________________________________________________________________________________


station, now disused, was in Beauparc. The main Bus Éireann service serving Slane

links the village with Drogheda and Navan. There are eight daily services in each

direction on weekdays. These would benefit to some extent from the bypass as the

route to Drogheda crosses the bridge to run via Duleek. The bypass could also

facilitate a switch from car use to walking within the village. This is difficult to

quantify but evidence was given at the hearing that many parents do not let their

children walk to school on safety grounds. In the case of savings from the alignment

of transport investment with spatial planning, it is difficult to envisage that the bypass

would have a material effect.

Referring to the contribution of the road construction to greenhouse gas emissions,

Mr, Sweetman has made the point that blacktop tarmac and stone crushing all create

greenhouse gases, which is correct, but I would not envisage that these emissions,

which would occur on a once-off basis, would be significant in the overall context and

I conclude that the overall effect of the development on greenhouse gas emissions

would be positive, though obviously small in the broad national context.

6.3.9 The Landscape

This section of the report relates to the likely effects of the development on the

landscape. The valley of the Boyne in this area has a scenic landscape shaped by a

very long period of human settlement and the Brú na Bóinne World Heritage Site is a

dominant feature in this landscape, such that effects on the landscape and on the

setting of the World Heritage Site are inter-related. Consideration of the landscape

context of the World Heritage Site is dealt with in more detail in Section 6.3.12 of the

report. The implications of the proposed development for the landscape in general are

dealt with in considerable detail in the report of Mairead Kenny (Appendix I) and it is

appropriate to draw on the substance and conclusions of that report in commenting on

the landscape implications of this development in this report.

Value of Landscape

The background in this case is that County Meath, notwithstanding a rapid rate of

urbanisation in recent decades, has a landscape essentially rural in character with most

of the land in productive agricultural use. Features of significant interest in this

landscape are upland areas mainly in the north of the county, the coastal strip south of

the Boyne estuary and the valleys of the Rivers Boyne and Blackwater. The area of

particular relevance in this case is the Boyne valley, in which the village of Slane is

located. The Boyne is a major feature in the Meath landscape, and the towns of Trim,

Navan and Drogheda are located on it. Its valley has significant scenic and amenity

values and has had a significant influence on the road network and settlement pattern

in the county. In particular there is an inter-relationship with cultural heritage in that

several important monuments, sites and estates, as noted by Ms. Kenny, are located in

the Boyne valley. The Brú na Bóinne World Heritage Site is of particular relevance

in this regard. Major rivers had significant strategic functions in centuries past as

evidenced by the Battle of the Boyne in 1690 and in particular by the crossing of the

Williamite forces at Rossnaree some distance to the east of the proposed bridge

location.

The integrity of the Boyne valley is recognised in its designation in the Meath County

Development Plan as a distinct Landscape Character Area extending from a point

upstream of Trim down to Drogheda. It is stated to be of exceptional value,

__________________________________________________________________________________


international importance and high sensitivity. It is one of only three landscape

character areas in the county to have these ratings. It is stated in relation to the Boyne

valley that it is an objective to protect, conserve and maximise the opportunities

associated with this valuable heritage and that a local area plan will be prepared for

the area. The area is stated to be highly sensitive to most categories of new

development, including masts or other tall structures. There are other goals, policies

and objectives relating generally to the preservation of the character of the landscape

in the county and Heritage Policy 112 states:

In determining an application, the Planning Authority shall have regard to the value of a landscape, its importance and sensitivity, such as to ensure the preservation of the uniqueness of a landscape character area, as it pertains to the proper planning and sustainable development.

While the Boyne valley is identified as a single entity, there are in reality several

distinctly different sub-areas within it. In the Slane area the part of the valley

downstream of Slane bridge is relatively open in character. The river meanders and it

is adjoined in some areas by lowlying riparian areas, for example at Crewbane and

Newgrange. In other parts the river is adjoined by steeply rising land. This part of the

valley is not wooded to a great extent though there are some groups of trees. The area

upstream of Slane bridge is characterised by a relatively narrow valley with steep side

slopes and a greater extent of woodland adjoining the river, though there is one large

field sloping down to the river from Slane Castle, which has been used for pop

concerts on an annual basis for some years.

While the river is a significant physical and geological feature, the historic

development of human settlement in the area, which dates back several millennia, and

the exploitation of the resources of the area have moulded its character in such a way

that its physical form is the product of human activity and cultural influences

exercised over the lengthy period of settlement. This point is emphasised in the report

of Ms. Kenny in comments about human actions and people’s perceptions of the

evidence of past human activities. Slane village and its surroundings are endowed

with a rich archaeological and architectural heritage dating from different periods,

from the Neolithic to the recent past. Many of the heritage items are located in

prominent positions in the landscape, deriving essentially from their function, and

many are associated directly or indirectly with the river and its function, in particular

the bridge, canal and mill.

This area is of course the place of residence and of work of a living community and

has been subject to ongoing change over a long period to accommodate the

requirements of this community and the population of the wider area. The village of

Slane has expanded steadily since the mid-1990s. Much of the new development has

been assimilated into the village structure but one residential development in

particular, Ledwidge Hall, occupies an elevated site and is quite prominent in views

approaching Slane from the west along the N51 and in views from Slane Hill.

The rural area around Slane has a dispersed settlement pattern and, while the density

of population in this area is moderate, small groups of new houses occur throughout

the area, some them being quite prominent. The use of the land for agriculture is

reflected in the presence of a patchwork of generally large fields, hedgerows and farm

buildings. There have been significant infrastructural developments in the area,

__________________________________________________________________________________


including realigned sections of roads and high tension electricity lines, one of which

crosses the Boyne between the route of the bypass and the World Heritage Site.

Characteristics of Development

I see this development as comprising essentially four components, the approach road

from the south, the bridge across the Boyne, the road up to the N51 junction and the

road to the north of that junction. The capacity of the landscape in the vicinity of

these components to absorb a new road varies considerably and the relationship of the

road profile to the contours is a relevant factor in this. Taking these components in

order, the approach road from the south cuts very sharply into Cullen Hill and this

cutting, 600 metres in length and 8.5 metres deep at its deepest, would appear as a

significant notch in views from the east and northeast. It is noted in the EIS that it

would be directly aligned with the Knowth viewpoint for approximately 500 metres.

There is scope for mitigation consisting of soft landscaping, including hedgerow and

tree planting, woodland planting and native shrub planting.

The bridge would clearly be a significant feature in the landscape. Referring to

significant features of its design, the chosen height is the second lowest of the four

height options examined. The design of the bridge is simple in form, having the aim

of being a low-key element in the river valley. It incorporates a reasonably slim steel

deck with light aluminium railings and two sets of concrete piers set back from the

river bank. The design details are further discussed in the report of Mairead Kenny. I

would refer at this stage to some minor modifications which arose from the discovery

of discrepancies in drawings and detailed consideration of construction practicalities.

The resolution of these particular problems provided for the further setting back from

the northern bank of the northern pier and abutment, mainly to protect a riparian strip

along the river and to provide space for the access track to the nearby attenuation

pond. Arising from these modifications the overall length of the bridge would be set at

216 metres exactly, not 200 metres minimum as indicated in the EIS. A further modification, strictly speaking a clarification, was to fix the level of the deck at the lower

end of the range originally provided for (30m OD rather than 30-32m OD), though

with a construction tolerance of 200 mm. I consider that these modifications, though

relatively minor, would be of material benefit in a number of respects and would

reduce the obtrusiveness of the northern abutment. They might therefore be

incorporated in conditions in the event of a decision to approve the development. In

particular the setting back of the northern pier further from the river would minimise

disruption during the construction phase and limit impacts on the Special Area of

Conservation.

The section of road from the bridge to the N51 junction would rise steeply with the

rise in ground levels. There would be a substantial embankment immediately north of

the river but most of this section would be in cutting, 7.4 metres deep at one point,

and would coincide approximately with a townland boundary. The remaining section

from the N51 junction to the northern tie-in point would be more level but would have

some embankments and cuttings. The embankment at its midpoint would be 8.1

metres high.

Methodology of Assessment

The impact of the development on the landscape has been assessed in the EIS in

accordance with relevant guidelines including the Guidelines on the Information to be

Contained in an Environmental Impact Statement published by the Environmental

__________________________________________________________________________________


Protection Agency in 2002 and the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact

Assessment published by the UK Landscape Institute in 2002. Particular reliance has

been placed on the use of the latter and this has led to a question raised by Mr.

Hastings about the appropriateness of the use of these guidelines, on the basis that the

former are the guidelines appropriate for use in Ireland. The terms used to describe

effects vary between the respective guidelines and a significant component of the

question raised by Mr. Hastings is that a significant impact under the EPA Guidelines

is extremely unlikely to be characterised as being neutral in quality. In effect, where

an impact alters a sensitive aspect of the environment, it is likely to affect the quality

of the environment and would not therefore be neutral in character. Mr. O’Leary has

acknowledged that the EIS is required to have regard to the EPA Guidelines but that

the glossary of impacts in the EPA document comprises generic impacts which are

less useful than guidelines in a document dealing specifically with landscape issues,

which itself was prepared under the same European Union directive for environmental

impact assessment. Ms. Kenny has expressed the view that the use of the Landscape

Institute guidance is acceptable and common practice in Ireland but the essential point

is that any assessment depends on an objective interpretation of the terminology being

used. She has also noted that people’s perception is an important consideration in

determining landscape values.

I take the view that guidelines are what they are stated to be, that they are not intended

to be rigidly prescriptive and that their purpose is to produce a reasonable assessment

of impacts by using descriptive terms readily intelligible to lay persons. The

achievement of this aim is more important in my opinion than the nature of the

terminology used. I note in any case that the EPA Guidelines describe impacts by

reference to their character, magnitude, duration and consequences. It seems quite

conceivable that an impact could have a high magnitude and a neutral, or even

positive, character. I would take the position that the conclusions in relation to any

particular impact should be based on a thorough assessment of the implications of that

impact, expressed in clear language.

Impact of Development

Having regard to the methodology of the assessment as discussed above, the

landscape has been assessed in the EIS by reference to the landscape impact and the

visual impact. The former relates to alterations to the character of the landscape and

how it is experienced. The latter relates to changes in the composition of views and

the response of people to these changes. These impacts do not necessarily coincide

but it is stated that in a receiving environment of this quality they are closely inter-

related. The approach in the EIS was to identify key and representative viewpoints

within the visual envelope of the site and to assess the predicted impact on each

viewpoint. Thirteen viewpoints were assessed in the EIS for this purpose and

assessments from two additional viewpoints were sought by the Board (ground level

at Knowth and a location on the canal towpath, also a broadening of the view from

Rossnaree road).

I consider that it is an appropriate approach to assess impacts from a range of

significant viewpoints which are likely to afford clear views of the proposed

development and which are readily accessible to the public. The impacts from the

viewpoints have been assessed under headings of magnitude of change and impact

significance and also under subheadings related to the term of the impact. The

significance of the short, medium and long terms in this case is that the planting and

__________________________________________________________________________________


landscaping operations take some years to be established with the result that the

degree and significance of impacts would tend to reduce progressively as the

landscaping became established. The assessments were reviewed in the submission of

additional information and following the balloon tests, leading to revisions in a few

cases.

These assessments were aided by the submission of photomontages illustrating the

impact of the bridge and road in several viewpoints. These were included in the EIS,

in the submission of further information and in submissions on behalf of parties at the

hearing. There is no doubt that the various montages submitted, the animations, the

balloon test and the assessment of the ZVI (zone of visual influence), as revised based

on the LIDAR (Light detection and ranging) data, contribute to the assessment of the

visual impact of the development and that these montages and surveys were carried

out to high professional standards and comprise a thorough visual analysis of the

proposed development. I would comment on the implications for the montages of

some discrepancies in the drawings and the modifications proposed to address these

discrepancies.

A feature of the montages deserving of comment is the degree of divergence between

the representation of the northern bridge abutment in the montages prepared by ARC

Consultants and by Cunnane Stratton Reynolds. This abutment could be an intrusive

element in the riverside landscape and its apparent mass appears much greater in the

montage prepared by the former. This degree of divergence appears to have arisen

mainly from the discrepancies in the drawings referred to above. The modifications

described above would address the underlying cause of these differences and would in

particular reduce the visual mass of the northern abutment. The implications of these

modifications in themselves have been queried in relation to the data put into the

construction of the various montages by Meath County Council’s consultants. I do

not consider that the extent of the variations in these amendments would be significant

in relation to the accuracy of the features represented on the montages, aside from

those referred to above, and would comment in general that the purpose of a montage

is to convey a reasonably good impression of what a particular feature would look

like, rather than to produce a type of drawing from which dimensions could be scaled.

The montages and animations submitted are undoubtedly an aid to the assessment of

the likely impacts of the development but not a substitute for the exercise of

judgement of these impacts.

The extent of the development appearing in different views depends on the location of

the viewpoint and the portion of the landscape in view from the respective viewpoint.

Different sections of the route would appear in different viewpoints but the most

significant component in this regard would be the bridge and its immediate

approaches. The bridge would be a substantial structure in the river valley. Rivers

are crossed as a matter of course by bridges so that, while a new bridge in a sensitive

location such as this would tend to have a significant effect on its surroundings, its

effect would not necessarily be negative in that bridges are accepted components of

river valley landscapes. The design of the bridge is relevant to its impact. The design

is described in the EIS as a simple, proportional, elegant and logical structure and the

aesthetic principles of its design, as described in the submission of Declan O’Leary at

the hearing, emphasise slenderness and minimal structural mass. The design is

discussed in more detail in the report of Mairead Kenny and, aside from the particular

issue of the actual location of the bridge, she concurs with the general thrust of the

__________________________________________________________________________________


approach undertaken in terms of the design. In this respect the written submission of

the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government stated that a

simple engineering design expressing the functionality of the bridge structure should

be appropriate in terms of its visual appearance. This submission also recommended

that the final design should be agreed with those having a direct interest in the

process. Other sections of the route would appear in views from particular locations,

depending on the viewpoint. The deep cutting at Cullen hill and the embankment

north of the bridge are features of particular relevance in this regard. The impacts of

these sections of the route, in contrast to the bridge, are susceptible to mitigation by

means of appropriate planting and landscaping, as is proposed. The Cullen hill

cutting would be in an elevated position and would appear as a type of notch in some

views, depending on the angle of view. Side slopes of 1 vertical to 2 horizontal, based

on information from geological investigations, would be conducive to satisfactory

landscaping.

Impacts in Particular Locations

Referring to the conclusions of the visual impact assessment as revised in the

submission of further information, these indicate impacts of high & adverse

significance at eight locations in the short term reducing to two locations in the long

term. Clearly there is significant scope for mitigation in the form of an appropriate

planting programme, allowing for impacts to become less severe over time. In this

respect the length of the initial period of greatest impacts is not very long and the

magnitude of impacts will reduce progressively. In addition to the above there are

long-term impacts described as being of high & neutral significance in two locations

and medium & neutral in nine locations.

I would refer, having regard to the content of Ms. Kenny’s report, to those views in

which there would be the greatest impacts. Views from the World Heritage Site are

of particular value and sensitivity and the implications of these are dealt with in detail

in Section 6.3.12 of this report. I would refer to a number of other viewpoints of

particular significance. The bridge would cross the Boyne Navigation and would be

a very substantial structure in this location. Ms. Kenny has noted that views from the

Boyne Navigation would be limited due to screening by vegetation. The height of the

bridge is intended to allow the river and canal to flow underneath in an uninterrupted

manner. There is some merit in this aspect of the design but the bridge would appear

as a major element in views along the canal, as shown in montages from two

viewpoints. The magnitude of change is rated in the visual impact assessment as high

and the impact significance as high & adverse through to the long term. Ms. Kenny

has suggested that a well designed bridge might not be viewed as incompatible in

character and I would rate the long-term impact significance as high & neutral, except

in the environs of the bridge where it would appear as a dominating structure. It

would also appear as a large object in westward views across the river from Rossnaree

Road but I consider that it could be assimilated to a degree in the landscape such as to

give a long-term impact significance of high & neutral.

The view downstream from Slane bridge is of particular value and there is a

somewhat similar view from Jebb’s Mill. The proposed bridge would appear clearly

from Slane bridge but not from Jebb’s Mill, though the southern approaches would

appear from the latter. The significance of Jebb’s Mill lies in its inclusion in the Slane

__________________________________________________________________________________


Mill Architectural Conservation Area. I would agree with the assessment of medium

& neutral for the significance of the long-term impact on Jebb’s Mill but an impact

significance of high & neutral might be an appropriate rating for the impact on Slane

bridge in all terms. These ratings reflect the fact that a bridge of appropriate design is

generally perceived as an acceptable feature in a river valley. A further consideration

is that enjoyment of views from Slane bridge is currently impaired by traffic

conditions.

The Hill of Slane, with its group of ecclesiastical monuments, is a heritage feature of

considerable value. It is prominent in the landscape and affords panoramic views of

the countryside to the south and east. The bridge would be visible in some views

from the Hill of Slane but the extent of its visibility depends on the actual viewpoint,

given that the hill is effectively a large rounded plateau. The balloon test has

provided some clarity to the extent of visibility of the bridge from Slane Hill. Ms.

Kenny has commented on the composition of views from different parts of the hill,

noting that the bridge would be visible from the graveyard, though not from the EIS

viewpoint. While the bridge would be clearly visible in the former, it would be quite

a distant object (being some 2.3 km from the Hill) and a very low feature in the

landscape. Other parts of the route would also be visible from the hill. These include

the Cullen hill portion of the route, the Ledwidge Hall housing estate along with an

untidy fringe possibly having been used for building operations, and part of the

northern portion of the route. Having regard to the distance to some of these sections

of the bypass and the scope for landscaping, I would accept the long-term impact

significance rating of medium & neutral in the visual impact assessment. The broader

issue of the separation of the World Heritage Site from the Hill of Slane has been

raised at the hearing and discussed in Ms. Kenny’s report. While the development

would result in the insertion of a substantial man-made artefact into the river valley a

short distance downstream from Slane, I do not consider, having regard to the relative

locations of the significant heritage items and the proposed development, that this

artefact would be a significant factor in the inter-visibility between the Hill of Slane

and the World Heritage Site.

There are excellent panoramic views of the river valley available from the Rossnaree

road and views from two viewpoints, Fennor crossroads and Rossnaree road east of

the crossing point, are featured in the submission of further information. The bridge

and northern abutment would appear as significant elements in these views. The long-

term impact significance of the development is rated as medium & neutral in the

former and high & neutral in the latter. These ratings are generally reasonable but the

latter view is available from a length of the road and the nature of the impact might be

considered negative in closer views. I consider that the long-term neutral rating

reflects the relatively simple and unobtrusive design of the bridge. The monuments at

Knowth and Newgrange appear in view from some locations south of Slane but they

are quite distant features in the landscape. Ms. Kenny and others at the hearing have

noted that members of the public would not readily recognise them. The proposed

bridge would not in general be a particularly prominent feature in the clearest views of

these monuments.

Referring to other locations, the balloon test indicated that the bridge would appear in

some views from the N51 road. These views occur mainly in gaps in hedges and

between houses and vary in their composition. Impact significance would be likely to

be low to medium and neutral. The landscape implications of the Battle of the Boyne

__________________________________________________________________________________


site and the buffer zone are referred to in the report of Mairead Kenny. There are

inter-relationships between their landscape and cultural heritage implications. From

the landscape aspect the location of the crossing of the river by the Williamite forces is

not precisely known and it has therefore no visible expression. The buffer zone does

have precise boundaries but exists as a landscape feature essentially in respect of its

relationship with the core area of the World Heritage Site. Effects on these features

are dealt with under further subheadings.

Overall Impact on Landscape

This development comprises the insertion of a substantial man-made artefact into a

visually sensitive and culturally significant river valley landscape, where it would

appear in many views. The magnitude of change would be high in views from a

number of locations. The road development includes cuttings, embankments and

junctions and the bridge across the Boyne. The earthworks would be readily

susceptible to mitigation through appropriate planting and landscaping, which would

reduce their impact in the longer term, but the bridge would appear clearly as a

prominent feature in the river valley. At the same time bridges occur as a matter of

course in river valleys and in this case the impact would be offset to a significant

extent by the simple structural form of the bridge and the nature of its clear span over

the canal and river. The short-term impact of the development would be high &

adverse in several viewpoints but this would reduce to medium & neutral in most of

these viewpoints in the long term, the greater long-term impacts occurring in

viewpoints close to the bridge. I consider that the overall residual impact of the

development on the landscape would be medium & neutral, or moderate & neutral

using the EPA Guidelines terminology. The impact on the World Heritage Site is

further considered in the section of the report dealing with the implications of the

development for that Site. Finally, in one particular respect the bridge and approaches

would contribute to public appreciation of the landscape by opening up attractive and

interesting views from locations where such are not now available. There is not a

comparable assessment in the report of Mairead Kenny but, referring to the

assessments in particular locations, there are inconsistencies in the two reports in

relation to the significance of effects in the cases of Slane Bridge, Jebb’s Mill and

Rossnaree road. These inconsistencies are essentially related to the extent to which a

new bridge in a river valley, in this case a structure of appropriate design, can be

regarded as a characteristic element in such a location.

6.3.10 Material Assets

Material assets essentially comprise, in addition to the architectural and

archaeological heritage which are dealt with under other subheadings, natural

resources of economic value, built structures, property, businesses and infrastructures.

There are inter-relationships with other aspects of the environment to which I would

refer briefly. The human environment effectively includes dwellinghouses and

businesses, which are also material assets. Landscape in some instances is a natural

resource of economic value but is also a component of the environment. Agricultural

land is a material asset but associated employment is part of the human environment.

The roads infrastructure is a material asset and the proposed development would have

a positive effect on parts of the existing road network by improving operating

conditions, this also being a positive effect on the human environment. Effects on

material assets are dealt with in this part of the report in relation to agricultural

__________________________________________________________________________________


enterprises, residential and commercial property, and natural resources and

infrastructure.

Agricultural Enterprises

Effects on farms include land-take, severance and other disturbance. The loss of land

is not significant in macro terms though the land in the affected area is generally of

good quality. The pattern of agricultural activity in County Meath and in the three

District Electoral Divisions of Slane, Mellifont and Painestown (essentially the wider

Slane area) is discussed in the EIS. It is indicated that grassland based livestock

farming is particularly important in Meath and there is a similar pattern in the Slane

area. Cereals and other arable crops are also significant enterprises in Meath. Farm

sizes are generally larger in the Slane area than nationally.

A total of 16 farms would be affected by the proposed development. In terms of

overall impact one would be severely affected and eight would be moderately

affected. In terms of severance five would be moderately affected. There is some

scope for mitigation, particularly in relation to new access arrangements, but the

overall pattern of residual impacts is not estimated to differ greatly from the initial

assessment. Potential disturbance could occur on farms close to the road, including

those not directly affected, in cases where livestock might be sensitive to road noise.

On the basis that a steady noise is not disruptive to livestock and that animals

habituate to it, I do not consider that there would be serious effects of this type. I

would refer here to the fact that persons whose property is to be partly or wholly

acquired are eligible for financial compensation for loss of land, severance and

injurious affection. The farm which would be severely affected would be subject to

the compulsory acquisition of a substantial portion of the property. Compulsory

acquisition issues are considered in Section 7 of this report.

Construction impacts are dealt with in the EIS and include noise, dust, restrictions on

access, disturbance of field drainage works and disturbance of services. The nature of

these impacts is such that they are susceptible to mitigation involving good

communication between the contractor and the farmers and the provision of minor

temporary works. These are of necessity temporary impacts.

Residential and Commercial Property

Impacts on residential and commercial property, with particular regard to property in

Slane village, are inter-related with impacts on human beings, considered in Section

6.3.3, in that the diversion of traffic from the village would have a significant positive

effect on the environment of the village in general, including residential and

commercial property. The improved environment would be likely to have significant

positive effects on businesses in the area. These effects might be offset to some

extent by the reduction in passing traffic but I consider that there would be a

significant net positive benefit. The improved environment is also likely to encourage

the development of businesses exploiting the scenic and heritage value of the village.

There would be negative impacts on residential properties which are to be acquired,

on properties which are to have small portions of land acquired on a temporary or

permanent basis and on some properties close to the route but not subject to

acquisition of land. The impacts in the first group would be severe, though the

owners / occupiers of properties affected by acquisition are eligible for financial

compensation for the losses involved. The impacts in the second group would be

__________________________________________________________________________________


much less severe and boundaries and accesses would be replaced / reinstated as

needed. Impacts on residential property close to the route run effectively in parallel

with impacts on the human environment, commented on in Section 6.3.3 of the report.

The EIS points to positive impacts for land values, in effect through the increased

attractiveness of the village as a location for development, and for development of

lands zoned for residential and industrial use. The likelihood of the road encouraging

the establishment of commercial developments at locations convenient to bypass

access points, a particular issue raised by Dr. Comer in his report, is dealt with in

Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.12 of this report in relation to secondary effects. It is

reasonable in my opinion to assess the increased attractiveness of zoned land for

development as an enhancement of a material asset but I consider that any likely

enhancement of the value of unzoned lands, including lands close to bypass access

points, should be considered as a negative effect, given that any development of such

lands would essentially be speculative, inconsistent with planning policies and likely

to erode the carrying capacity of the road.

Natural Resources And Infrastructure

It is assessed that the development would have no significant impact on mineral

resources in its vicinity, which is reasonable. Infrastructural components described in

the EIS are water supply and foul water systems, transport networks, electricity lines,

telecommunications facilities and gas pipelines. It is assessed that there would be no

direct impact on the River Boyne, the Boyne Canal and wells in the area. Details of

the projected construction programme for the bridge, which have been developed to

minimise disruption to the river and canal, were submitted at the hearing and I

consider that these are satisfactory. The disposal of surface water runoff has been

addressed in the part of the report dealing with waters.

Direct effects on roads would be limited by the use solely of the N2 and N51 roads as

construction access roads. I infer that any damage to them would be made good and

that the improvements and alterations to the N51 and Rossnaree road would likewise

be finished to a proper standard. Moreover the standard of portion of the N51 road

would be materially improved. I would point out in this context that the toll facility

on the M1 motorway, which is part of that element of infrastructure, is in itself a

material asset of some value. If the Slane bypass resulted in the diversion of traffic

from the M1 to the bypass, that diversion, depending on its extent, would be a

negative effect. The other infrastructural components referred to above would be

unlikely to be adversely affected by the proposed development.

6.3.11 Cultural Heritage

The architectural heritage and archaeological heritage comprise the main components

of the cultural heritage in this case. These are commented on in this section of the

report. The archaeological heritage of the Boyne valley includes in particular the Brú

na Bóinne World Heritage Site, located a short distance downstream of the proposed

development, and, in view of the importance of this Site, the implications of the

development for it are commented on separately in the next section of the report. The

likely effects of the development on the cultural heritage are dealt with in detail in the

report of Mairead Kenny (Appendix I) and it is appropriate to draw on the substance

and conclusions of her report in commenting on these effects.

__________________________________________________________________________________


Archaeological Heritage

It has been pointed out that this area has had a long record of continuous settlement

going back as far as c.4000 BC and this record is described in some detail in the EIS.

The archaeological heritage in this area includes not only the megalithic monuments

of Brú na Bóinne but also monastic settlements, earthworks, souterrains, weirs,

houses, old roads and townland boundaries. Many significant elements of the

archaeological heritage are identified in the Record of Monuments and Places

maintained by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

but the archaeological and cultural heritage embraces a broader range of features. The

investigations carried out in connection with the EIS have led to the compilation of an

inventory of archaeological and cultural heritage sites within c.500 metres of the

proposed route. Ms. Kenny has concluded that the archaeological investigation of the

route was generally satisfactory and that the level of assessment exceeded normal

practice and NRA guidance.

This inventory identifies 44 archaeological and cultural heritage constraints along the

route. The assessment of impacts on these sites indicates that eight of these would be

impacted directly, two would be impacted indirectly and 34 would not be impacted.

One of the sites assessed as experiencing a slight indirect impact is the Brú na Bóinne

World Heritage Site, which is discussed in Section 6.3.12 of this report. Ms. Kenny

has noted that four additional sites have been on the Record of Monuments and Places

and has identified and described six sites at which significant or potentially significant

negative impacts arise. These are as follows.

Heritage Constraint 86 – Early Medieval Rectangular Enclosure

This and Site HC87 were uncovered through geophysical testing and have been

subject to test excavation. The applicant describes the direct impact as significant,

negative but positive after full excavation.

HC87 – Potential Archaeological Site

The results for this site are inconclusive. The impacts are assessed as the same as in

the case of HC86.

HC91 – Site of Archaeological Potential

This site comprises four fields which will be traversed by the proposed bypass and the

concentration of lithics recorded is high in an Irish context. The impact is described as

potentially significant negative but positive after full excavation.

HC82 – Flint Spread

This is an area to the north of the river where during field walking by the project team

lithics were noted. No impact is predicted.

HC 88 – River Boyne & Flood Plain

This is recognised as being of archaeological potential. There is a potential for a

significant negative impact.

HC95 – Potential Archaeological Sites

This is an area of archaeological potential identified through geophysical surveying.

There is a potentially significant negative impact.

Two of the sites directly affected, HC86 and HC87, were uncovered through

geophysical testing and avoidance is stated to be unviable. The approach in the EIS to

those sites directly affected is to assess the residual impact as positive, on the basis of

excavation and recording of archaeological features. Ms. Kenny had pointed out that

this approach was not accepted by a number of observers, including Dr. Mark Clinton,

who argued in favour of preservation in situ. Ms. O’Carroll, engaged by the

__________________________________________________________________________________


applicant, accepts however that the preferred strategy is avoidance, though that point

is made in the context of several other points. I would infer that, while avoidance is

the preferred strategy, the situation in practice, in the context of development

proposals, is not necessarily clear cut and may depend on the circumstances of the

particular sites and on what is known of them.

The crossing point of the river at Rossnaree by the Williamite forces during the Battle

of the Boyne in 1690 is noted in the EIS (Heritage Constraint 125). The precise

location is not known but Ms. O’Carroll has expressed the opinion that it is likely to

be some distance to the east of the location shown on Fig.10.1 in the EIS and thereby

further from the site of the bridge, so that there would be no direct impact on it. Ms.

Kenny agrees with the assessment in the EIS that there would not be a direct impact

but considers that there would be an indirect impact. It seems unlikely that any more

definite information on this location will emerge in the near future and, having regard

to the available evidence, it seems reasonable to conclude that any indirect impact

would be slight.

I note the conclusion of Ms. Kenny that the proposed development would give rise to

significant negative impacts but she accepts nevertheless that the archaeological

investigation of the route was generally satisfactory and that the procedure undertaken

was supported by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local

Government. Referring to her comments on the route selection, she notes that there is

a high density of archaeological sites in the wider area and that the early stage

decision-making succeeded in routing the scheme through the apparently least

sensitive area in terms of direct impact. This view is qualified by her opinion that

route options might have been reconsidered with the emergence of more evidence. A

particular factor in this regard is the likely indirect effect on the World Heritage Site,

dealt with in the next section of the report I would comment that consideration of any

route alteration is of necessity constrained by potential effects on other aspects of the

environment. That issue is considered in Section 6.6 of this report.

The potential for further significant discoveries is discussed in her report and this

situation is influenced by the circumstances of the Lismullin site discovered during

the construction of the M3 road. I consider that the archaeological investigation has

been thoroughly carried out and that the effects of the development have been

adequately assessed. At the same time it is accepted by the parties in this case that

uncertainty in archaeological investigation will remain pending full investigation,

though the possibility of discovery of previous undetected archaeology is considered

unlikely in this case. Ms. Kenny has recommended that certain further investigations

suggested by Ms. O’Carroll be undertaken. I would comment in general, having

regard to the thoroughness of the investigations carried out, that the net effect of the

development on the archaeological heritage (balancing the destruction of some sites

with the information discovered from excavation and excluding the indirect effects on

the World Heritage Site) could be assessed as neutral.

Architectural Heritage

The background is described in the EIS with particular reference to the influence of

the Conyngham estate and the industrial exploitation of the Boyne. An inventory of

architectural sites within c.500m of the bypass route contains 21 sites. It is assessed

that two of these would experience negative direct impacts, that five would experience

negative indirect impacts, that one (Slane village) would experience a positive indirect

__________________________________________________________________________________


impact and that 13 would not experience any impact. The direct impacts would affect

a gate and gate lodge at Janeville, which I consider to be of very limited architectural

interest. Many of the indirect impacts would be relatively minor and the structures in

question are of limited interest. The presentation of Aislinn Collins at the hearing

identified and described a further nine structures. Five of these would be directly

impacted but the effects in those cases were assessed as neutral.

Three impacts of most relevance are identified in the report of Mairead Kenny and

these are Slane Village including the bridge and mills, the pillbox together with

Fennor House and the Ledwidge Cottage. There is little doubt that there would be a

significant positive effect on the environment and heritage of Slane village arising

from the removal of traffic from the bridge and the main road through the village.

Ms. Kenny has identified some shortcomings, in particular the continued use of the

N51 road through the village. I accept that this axis would remain as a main traffic

route and that most of the local businesses are located on it but I consider nevertheless

that there would be a substantial net positive effect, having regard to the improvement

in general of the environmental quality of the village, the improvement in air quality

and the reduction in vibrations on buildings and structures. Slane castle and demesne

would not be directly affected by the bypass but the removal of heavy traffic from

Mill Hill would enable the main entrance to the demesne to be reopened.

Ms. Kenny has referred to adverse effects on the Mill Architectural Conservation

Area. The proposed bridge would appear as an element in views from the existing

bridge, and to a lesser extent, from the mill surrounds. As a bridge crossing a river

valley, it would have an impact in this location, though this would be to some extent

acceptable in this context. On the other hand the removal of vehicles from the

existing bridge would greatly enhance the ambience of the bridge, and indeed remove

the current hazardous conditions for pedestrians. I accept that the mill complex has a

significant tourist potential but I consider that the negative effects of the bypass would

be substantially offset by the removal of traffic from the bridge and southern approach

to Slane.

Fennor House is stated by Ms. Kenny to be of local architectural interest and there are

a number of features associated with it. One of these is a culvert which is considered

to be of regional interest. Fennor House has been closed up and appears to be in poor

condition, though its main structural components are substantially intact. Its

restoration to habitable use appears unlikely, regardless of whether the road were built

or not. The pillbox is in a separate location and is a structure of some interest. The

structures in this location would be indirectly affected by the proposed development

and I would agree with Ms. Kenny’s conclusions that the impacts of the development

on these structures, though negative, are acceptable. The indirect impact on Janeville

Cottage, a substantial house broadly comparable to Fennor House but in an advanced

state of decay, is also described as acceptable. The loss of the associated lodge would

not be significant.

Ledwidge Cottage is a protected structure and a feature of some interest, having

regard to its associations and architectural character. The effect on it is assessed in

the EIS as slight negative but the proposed realignment of the N51 in this location

would leave some additional space along the frontage of the cottage and provide for a

footpath connection to the village. Though there would be changes to the setting of

the cottage, I would assess the net impact as neutral.

__________________________________________________________________________________


6.3.12 Implications for World Heritage Site

Status and Value of Site

The Brú na Bóinne World Heritage Site stands out as a heritage feature of particular

importance due to the presence in it of megalithic sites of great value and a landscape

rich in features of archaeological interest. The outstanding sites are the passage tombs

of Newgrange, Knowth and Dowth. These are located in prominent positions in the

landscape but much of this area is elevated and in a commanding position relative to

the river valley, which skirts it to the south. The archaeological significance of this

area is recognised in its protection under the National Monuments Acts and in

particular in its inscription by UNESCO as a world heritage site, one of just three in

all of Ireland. For this inscription the site had to possess outstanding universal value,

a property derived from the occurrence of one or more of six specific criteria, against

which cultural nominated properties are compared. In this case the site was adjudged

to satisfy the following three criteria:

i. To represent a masterpiece of human creative genius.

iii. To bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a

civilisation which is living or which has disappeared.

iv. To be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or

technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates a significant stage

(significant stages) in human history.

For the purposes of this inscription the site is defined as comprising a core area and a

buffer zone. The core area encompasses the immediate environs of the monuments

named above, with the river Boyne forming its southern boundary. It area is stated to

be 780 hectares. The buffer zone comprises a wider surrounding area on both sides of

the river, having an area stated to be 3,300 hectares. The value of this Site lies not

just in the assembly of monuments within it but also in the integrity of the landscape

in the surrounding area. Dr. Douglas Comer has pointed out that the landscape within

the site is as impressive as that of any of the premier World Heritage Sites and has

stressed that the outstanding universal value attached to Brú na Bóinne is largely

attributable to the ambience there (page 5 in his submission). This landscape,

basically aligned along the river, for the most part comprises land in productive

agricultural use and is a living landscape providing homes for its community and

places of work for those engaged in agriculture and related activities. At the same

time it has experienced development but this has not been on a large scale, rather has

it been a gradual and incremental process of change and adaptation over the centuries.

In this way it contributes to the setting of the World Heritage Site and the monuments

located therein.

The significance of the World Heritage Site is acknowledged in the Meath County

Development Plan. Heritage Policy 66 relates to the preservation of Brú na Bóinne

and is follows:

To protect the vulnerable archaeological and cultural landscape and to enhance views within and adjacent to the World Heritage Site.

Heritage Objective 11 is to prepare a local area plan in conjunction with Louth

County Council for the World Heritage Site and environs. This plan has not so far

been made. Pending the preparation of that plan, Heritage Policy 67 states that it shall

be the express policy to permit individual houses only to those involved locally in

__________________________________________________________________________________


full-time agriculture and who do not own land outside the World Heritage Site.

Criteria are set out in relation to the detailed assessment of applications for the limited

categories of development which may be considered acceptable. The policies and

objectives of the development plan are relevant in particular to consideration of the

likelihood of development being stimulated by the proposed development, an issue

raised by Dr. Comer and referred to later in this and other parts of this report.

The setting of the World Heritage Site is of course dependent on the pattern of

development in its vicinity and in areas within its viewshed. The purpose of the

buffer zone is to protect the setting and views within, into and from the core area and

to facilitate the proper conservation of the Site. There has been some discussion at the

hearing of the adequacy of the buffer zone and of a possible review of its boundaries,

with reference in particular to recent findings at Crewbane, referred to by Ms. Kenny.

There appears to be a case for reviewing the boundary of the buffer zone in this and

other areas, but that is a separate matter and the assessment in this case is not

dependent on the boundary details of the buffer zone.

The pattern of development in the hinterland of the World Heritage Site, effectively

the area within its viewshed and extending beyond the buffer zone, is as described

above but in the broader adjoining area, along the lower proportion of the Boyne

Valley and extending to the east coast, a very substantial amount of development has

taken place in recent decades and settlements in this area, including the towns of

Drogheda and Navan and the smaller towns/villages of Slane, Donore and Duleek,

have expanded steadily. The implications of this are that there are prominent man-

made structures on the periphery of the World Heritage Site, which tend to intrude

into its setting. These include the cement factory at Platin with its high chimneys, the

incinerator in the same area, a reservoir on Donore Hill, a high tension electricity line

between the bypass route and the buffer zone, a retail warehouse development on the

outskirts of Drogheda and the new bridge on the M1 motorway. Of these the

incinerator and the M1 motorway attracted the attention of a UNESCO-ICOMOS

reactive monitoring mission. In addition parts of the existing N2 and N51 roads are

not in themselves prominent in views from the surrounds of Knowth but moving

vehicles on them are clearly visible. The elements described above are clearly not all

visible from all parts of the World Heritage Site. The larger items are located to the

east such that they do not intrude into views from Knowth but do intrude to a

significant extent into other parts of the Site.

Nature of Effects on World Heritage Site

Referring to these effects, there would not be any direct effects on the archaeological

heritage sites in the World Heritage Site insofar as the development would not

impinge on any part of the core area of the site or buffer zone. There would however

be effects, which might be regarded as indirect effects, on the World Heritage Site in

that the bypass would intrude to a certain extent into the ambience and viewshed of

two of the tombs, Knowth and Newgrange, and might affect their noise environment.

The buffer zone is of relevance in this regard but, leaving aside the issue of the review

of its boundaries, I consider in practice that the correct approach is not to regard the

buffer zone as an outer limit of influence, but rather to take note of any significant

developments in the viewshed / environs of the World Heritage Site which might

impact on it, regardless of location inside or outside the buffer zone.

__________________________________________________________________________________


The implications of new developments in the surrounding area for the outstanding

universal value of the World Heritage Site are referred to in the report of Mairead

Kenny. In this regard the inscription documents did not focus on matters of ambience

or setting but on the actual monuments and the evidence for continuity of settlement.

At the same time Dr. Comer emphasised the contribution of the ambience to the

outstanding universal value of the site and the aim of the UNESCO mission in 2004

was to evaluate the impact of an incinerator, outside the core area and buffer zone, on

this value.

Cumulative and secondary effects are also of potential relevance. The implications of

cumulative effects are dealt with in Section 5.4 of this report, essentially with respect

to further possible road developments on the N2/A5 corridor. The implications of

secondary effects arise in particular from the emphasis given by Dr. Comer to the

likelihood of new construction or follow-on development, as described by him, being

stimulated by the bypass and consideration of these effects are further dealt with in

this section of the report.

Visual Impact

The impact of the proposed development on the ambience of the Brú na Bóinne site

and in the landscape in this area is analysed in the report of Mairead Kenny and this

development would be a significant new man-made feature in the Boyne Valley in a

location a short distance upstream of the World Heritage Site. The significance of this

impact is further considered in the following paragraphs. In this regard views into and

out from the World Heritage Site are relevant but Ms. Kenny does not consider that

there would be likely to be consequences for the outstanding universal value in terms

of views from outside towards the core area. In effect the views of particular

relevance to the ambience of the World Heritage Site are those out from the core area.

Extent of Impact: This has been assessed in the LIDAR survey presented at the

hearing and relates to an issue raised by Dr. Comer concerning the extent of this area

from which the proposed bridge, the most significant element of the development,

could be seen. The zone of visual influence (ZVI), as based on the LIDAR data, takes

in only very small parts of the World Heritage Site. These parts are however

significant due to their location. They include the very top of the monument at

Newgrange, a small area on the site and part of an adjoining field. The extent of

visibility from Newgrange was clarified by the balloon test. A point of relevance is

that the top and flanking portions of that monument are never open to public access.

Of greater interest is an area in the vicinity of the monument at Knowth. The clearest

views would be those from the top of the monument, which is open to public access

during tours, but the bridge would also be visible from much of the area of the

monument at ground level, and indeed from parts of several adjoining fields,

particularly those located along the river valley. The extent of the ZVI in this area

reflects the elevation of this area in relation to the river valley upstream. The ZVI

does not appear however to include any of the local roads in the World Heritage Site.

The viewpoint sensitivity at Knowth is high. There would also be some views of the

bridge from the buffer zone, mainly from private land, but the function of the buffer

zone is bound up with its relationship to the core area of the World Heritage Site and

views from the buffer zone out into the wider landscape are not necessarily of

particular interest.

__________________________________________________________________________________


Magnitude and Character of Impact: The view to the west from Knowth is a view of

a scenic and relatively unspoilt rural landscape. It is listed for protection in Table 27

of the Development Plan as View VP3(a) and its location is shown on Map 8.6 in

Variation No. 13 of the Development Plan. Of necessity there are man-made objects

in view from Knowth but these are generally on a small scale and in keeping with the

character of the landscape. They include a number of electricity pylons some 1,6

kilometres to the west, which, though large structures, are not that obtrusive. The

proposed development would introduce two additional man-made elements into views

from Knowth. The bridge would appear without obstruction in these views, but at a

considerable distance (2.3 km) and in a low position against a broad backdrop. The

design of the bridge is simple in form and it would not appear as a large object.

Moreover it is horizontal and would be generally in alignment with features of the

landscape and certainly not as jarring as, for example, a high chimney. As a bridge it

would tend to read as a type of feature which would be broadly compatible with a

river valley landscape.

Moving vehicles would however tend to catch the eye and draw attention to the

bridge. Animations were presented to the hearing to illustrate this effect. They

showed the effect of the larger high-sided vehicles but there is a risk of putting too

much emphasis on these. Mr. Mac Gearailt has estimated from the traffic flow figures

that one such vehicle would pass by every 2¼ minutes based on a typical average

Hourly flow during the day. This estimate allows for the fact that the larger high-

sided vehicles would comprise only 20% of the vehicles classed as HGVs. That

seems a particularly low percentage and I consider that a more conservative

assumption would be appropriate, in effect that the proportion of larger vehicles

would be in the region of 50%. That would equate to larger vehicles passing at a rate

of one per minute. In any case the visual impact of such vehicles would not in reality

be all that great. The incidence of such vehicles currently passing through Slane is

possibly more noticeable due to the bunching effect caused by the traffic control

measures. Movements of cars and light goods vehicles would also be observed but

the effects of these would be much less, having regard to their size and the distance

involved. The absence of lighting on the bridge would be a helpful factor in limiting

its impact but lighting from vehicles could be an intrusive factor at certain times,

perhaps towards evening in the Autumn. In practice the monument at Knowth is open

only in daylight hours so that such an effect is unlikely to be significant. Furthermore

there would be other sources of light at such times, including lighting from vehicles

on existing roads. These roads include the N2 and N51 on which moving vehicles are

clearly visible from the monument. The respective distances to these roads are 2.9 km

and 1.1 km respectively.

The course of the road through Cullen hill would appear clearly in views from

Knowth, mainly as an additional line of trees/hedges across the landscape but also as a

notch on the skyline. A small part of the road between Cullen hill and the river would

be raised slightly above ground level but the cutting would be the main feature in this

area. This cutting would be up to 8.5 metres deep in parts but its impact would be

greatly mitigated by the landscaping proposed, a combination of soft landscaping,

woodland planting and native shrub planting. One implication of landscaping is that,

due to the length of the period of its establishment, the magnitude and significance of

the impact will reduce progressively from the short term to the long term. In this

regard I consider that the long-term impact is of greatest significance.

__________________________________________________________________________________


A length of Rossnaree road is proposed to be raised to enable it to be bridged over the

bypass. The applicant has noted that, while this road is to be realigned (in the vertical

plane), no part of it would exceed the level of the existing road and it would be

effectively tunnelled by hedgerows. Ms. Kenny has concluded that this is not a major

consideration in the context of the larger bridge over the Boyne. Unlike the main

bridge, the approaches to the Rosnaree bridge are to be lit, as is the existing N2. The

World Heritage Site is not open at night-time and Ms. Kenny considers that this is not

a significant issue. Taking all of the above considerations into account, I consider that

the long-term magnitude of change would be low in the case of the area at ground

level at Knowth and medium in the case of the top of the monument. The magnitude

of change at Newgrange, notwithstanding the reassessment arising from the balloon

test, would remain as negligible.

I would refer to one particular aspect of the landscape with implications for the

quality of views generally, which is dealt with in Ms. Kenny’s report. This is the

contribution of hedges and trees to the overall visual quality of the landscape and to

the screening of elements of the development in some views. This issue arose in

relation to one particular hedge near Newgrange, which would help to screen views of

the bridge from the environs of Newgrange. The relevance of this is that there is no

protection for this or other hedges in the area. It is not so much the case that there are

imminent threats to hedges and trees in the area, or that the loss of that hedge would

have a major impact on the view of the development from Newgrange, but that it

would be desirable that this issue be addressed in relation to the World Heritage Site

in general, possibly in the proposed local area plan, regardless of whether the bypass

went ahead or not.

Significance of Impact: The approach to the assessment of the significance of the

impact of the development on the World Heritage Site is similar to that taken in

relation to the impact on the landscape in general. The different methodologies, those

published by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2002 and those published by

the UK Landscape Institute in 2002, are discussed in Section 6.3.9 of the report.

Regard is required to be had to the former in Ireland but Ms. Kenny has expressed the

view that the use of the Landscape Institute guidance is common practice in Ireland. I

take the view that the purpose of guidelines is to produce a reasonable assessment of

impacts by using descriptive terms readily intelligible to lay persons, and to have

regard to relevant and appropriate guidelines as needed.

Assessments of impact significance have been made in the EIS and submission of

additional information on three significant viewpoints, Newgrange, Knowth (top) and

Knowth (ground level). A further viewpoint (a path at Knowth) was assessed during

the course of the hearing. The assessment of the significance of the impact on

Newgrange (for all terms) is low & neutral, which I consider to be reasonable in the

light of the barely perceptible nature of the development in views from there. The

assessments of the long-term significance of the impacts on Knowth are medium &

neutral for the top of the monument and the path and low & neutral for the original

ground level location. I would dissent from these assessments in that I consider that

any material effects arising from the addition of further man-made objects to this

landscape would by their nature be negative rather than neutral. These assessments

must also be considered in the context of those published by ICOMOS, dealt with

further on in the section of the report.

__________________________________________________________________________________


Noise Impact

The noise environment in the World Heritage Site and its sensitivity to noise from the

proposed road is a consideration of relevance, which was discussed at some length at

the hearing. The noise assessment in the EIS was orientated to the vicinity of the

route of the road and to Slane village, and in general to residential receptors. The

model predicted future operational noise levels in specified locations in accordance

with the NRA guidelines, with the noise levels expressed in dB(Lden). This procedure

identified locations requiring mitigation. Further assessments were carried out in the

vicinity of the World Heritage Site at the request of the Board. These did not identify

a requirement for mitigation but NRA guidance is quoted with regard to the difficulty

of assessing noise at locations away from the influence of regular traffic flows.

This situation is dealt with in the submission of further information in which an

assessment is made of predicted changes in relative noise levels. The results of this

assessment, simplifying them slightly, are that there would be an increase of about 1

dB(Lden) at Knowth, an increase of about 3 dB at a point close to the western limit of

the buffer zone and no change at Newgrange. The increase of 1 dB at Knowth would

not be perceptible and it is concluded that the impact of the development at Knowth

and Newgrange would be imperceptible. Mr. Searson measured noise beside Knowth

and recorded a one-hour LA.EQ of 42 dB(A). He made the point that an arrival of noise

from a new source at that sound level would lead to an increase of 3 dB(A), which

would have a significant impact. This one-hour reading is not inconsistent with those

of Mr. Kelly, which indicated a great deal of variation during the day and night. The

latter has made an estimate of the effect of the development based on different noise

assessments but his essential point is that the relative increase would be of the order of

1 dB(Lden), regardless of the actual figures used. In this regard it is worthwhile to note

the effects of the road on receptors somewhat distant from main roads, as indicated in

the EIS. These receptors are located along the Rossnaree road, at Crewbane and north

of the N51. The predictions show increases of 7 dB in two locations approximately

200 meters from the route and increases of 3 to 4 dB in two locations approximately

300 metres from the route. In the case of Knowth the distance from the proposed

bridge is 2,300 metres, so that an increase of 3 dB here would appear to be most

unlikely.

These numerical estimates appear to be robust but the outstanding point relates to the

experience of noise in quiet country areas. The perception of noise in such areas

depends also on the quality and pitch of the noise, the incidence of noise generating

activities in the immediate area and atmospheric conditions. It is likely that noise

from the proposed road could carry across the intervening valley and could be

identified at certain times. At the same time it would be masked by several other

sources, including noise from agricultural machinery, grass cutting, local traffic,

construction activities and visitors to the site. The landscape in this area is a living

environment and such activities are an integral part of it. While noise from the

proposed road is capable of carrying as far as Knowth, the perception of such noise is

likely to be limited by atmospheric conditions, the steady nature of road noise and the

incidence of other sources. I consider that its impact, using the EPA scale of

significance, would be imperceptible.

Secondary Effects

Particular emphasis is given in Dr. Comer’s report to the likelihood of new

construction or follow-on developments in the vicinity of the World Heritage Site

__________________________________________________________________________________


being stimulated by the bypass. The likelihood of secondary effects is also

commented on in Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.10 of this report. Secondary effects of this

nature are a matter of concern, particularly in a developing area, and it is appropriate

to have regard to them. The Boyne valley area extending downstream to Drogheda

has experienced rapid growth in recent decades. There have been significant

development pressures in this area, and, while these have greatly eased in the past few

years, they may well increase again in the future regardless of whether the bypass is

built or not.

I consider that there are two possible opportunities for follow-on developments. The

first is in the vicinity of the road junctions. Major junctions on the national motorway

network have proved in recent years to be attractive locations for such developments.

In this case the northern tie-in point would possibly be the most attractive location for

such a development, on the basis of convenient access from the village and hinterland,

though projected traffic flows are likely to be on the low side to sustain a development

of this type. Development in this location or at the southern tie-in point would in any

case be well outside the field of view from the World Heritage Site. Development at

the N51 junction would be closer but the geometry of this junction would less readily

facilitate riparian developments, though the vicinity of this junction is not open to

view from Knowth. A relevant consideration is that the bypass would not be part of

any access route to the Brú na Bóinne visitor centre and would have no function in

facilitating access to it. Notwithstanding the incidence of developments at major road

junctions, I consider that such developments in this case would be inconsistent with

likely future policies for the development of Slane and I note that there is a policy in

the Development Plan (INF POL 29) to safeguard the capacity and safety of the

national road network by restricting further access on to national roads outside of

restricted speed limits.

The second opportunity is in Slane itself, which Dr. Comer considers would become

more attractive as a place of residence. Such developments could indeed occur and

have occurred during the last decade or so – the population of the village increased

from 688 in 1996 to 1,099 in 2006 and the preliminary census results from 2011

indicate a further increase of about 200 since then. There is land zoned for

development in Slane and any development of that land stimulated by the proposed

bypass would be in accordance with planning policy and would not have material

implications for the World Heritage Site. Otherwise it is clear from the Regional

Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Region 2010 - 2022 that further

expansion in smaller towns and villages, such as Slane, is to be limited in line with

natural increase, the capacity of local services and the quality and capacity of

available public transport.

I would comment in general that there is an inherent tension in the planning system

between pressures for development and the need for conservation of the natural and

built heritages. The responsibility for controlling development pressures rests with

planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála and there is no alternative to relying on

these bodies to implement appropriate development policies. I would comment also

that the Meath County Development Plan contains strong landscape and heritage

policies and objectives, though some shortcomings have been identified in these

including the lack of a local area plan for the World Heritage Site. This issue is

further discussed in Section 6.5 of the report. Ms. Kenny has pointed to the need for a

robust long-term planning policy framework to protect the viewsheds and setting of

__________________________________________________________________________________


the monuments but, aside from the quality of the planning framework, the

conservation of the environment of the World Heritage Site also depends on the

implementation of planning policies and objectives and the day-to-day operation of

development management. These in turn depend on local public support, a

consideration acknowledged in the report of Mairead Kenny and the submission of

Gerry Browner. In this regard some concern was expressed by residents about the

very strict planning controls in the Brú na Bóinne area. Ms. Kenny has also suggested

that the Board might consider the imposition of a ban on use of roundabouts for

general access or the making of sterilisation agreements under Section 47 of the 2000

Planning Act to curtail developments adjacent to the roundabouts. It is not clear how

such a ban could be enforced and, while sterilisation agreements have a role in the

planning process, in this case I doubt their value on the basis that they would be

cumbersome, might not be necessary and could complicate the process of compulsory

acquisition of land in the vicinity of these junctions. I conclude that the planning

framework is satisfactory in the context of curtailing potential follow-on development.

Overall Impact on World Heritage Site

I would refer in particular to the Heritage Impact Assessment submitted by Dr.

Douglas Comer, who was engaged by Meath County Council as an expert on world

heritage issues. This assessment was prepared in accordance with Guidance on

Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties published by

ICOMOS in 2011. The implications of this development for the status of the World

Heritage Site are dealt with in detail in this assessment and elaborated in the report of

Mairead Kenny. I would refer in particular to the substance of the paragraph 8.d. in

the Heritage Impact Assessment, entitled Scale and Severity of Impact and the

Significance of Effect or Overall Impact, which is based on ICOMOS guidance.

There is an assessment of effects in this paragraph but this is conditional on a number

of premises. One is that satisfactory assurances should be made that the bypass will

not stimulate new construction, an issue examined in previous paragraphs. A number

of lacunae are also identified. These include a recommendation that a balloon test be

carried out. Such a test has indeed been carried out with the results discussed and

analysed at the resumed sessions of the hearing, though in the absence of Dr. Comer.

The other lacunae relate mainly to traffic issues, discussed further on in this report.

Taking it that any pressures for new construction can be curtailed and, referring to the

assessment in paragraph 8.d of Dr. Comer’s report, the substance of this is that, if the

bypass were visible only from the top of Knowth, the development would constitute a

minor change in the scale and severity of change/impact and thus a moderate/large

adverse effect but, if the bypass were visible from several locations within the World

Heritage Site, then the development would constitute a moderate change and

therefore a large/very large adverse impact. The position is not clear in my opinion.

The development would be visible from the top of the monument at Knowth and to a

lesser extent from parts of the adjoining area at ground level. The extent of the area

from which it would be visible has been assessed using the zone of visual influence

based on the LIDAR data and this area includes parts of fields adjacent to the

monument, these being areas not open to public access. It also includes the top of the

monument at Newgrange, also not open to public access, and a very small area at

ground level. The description of the impact from Newgrange has been revised

slightly but the assessment of the impact significance remains as low & neutral, a

point accepted by Ms. Kenny. Aside from the very limited visibility from Newgrange

__________________________________________________________________________________


and some areas of private/ inaccessible land, the additional area providing views of

the development comprises some areas at ground level at Knowth. The development

would be a much less noticeable feature in views from these areas than from the top

of the monument and it would not be visible at all from practically the whole of the

core area of the World Heritage Site.

I consider therefore that it would be reasonable to conclude that the development

would constitute a minor change in the scale and severity of change/impact, in

accordance with the ICOMOS assessment guidance. The translation of a minor

change to a moderate/large effect derives from the very high heritage attributes of this

World Heritage Site, as emphasised by Dr. Comer. Appendix 3B of the ICOMOS

guidelines describes a moderate change to the setting of a heritage asset

(archaeological attributes) in the following terms: considerable changes to setting that

affect the character of the asset. I do not take it that the magnitude of the impact

would exceed that description. I consider that an assessment of the significance of the

impact in this case as moderate and adverse would be reasonable in the circumstances

of the case. This reflects the fact that the road would add a further substantial man-

made object to this sensitive landscape. This assessment is clearly not consistent with

that in the report of Mairead Kenny and it is appropriate at this stage to draw attention

to significant factors in the assessment in this report. It is clear that the bridge would

be visible from parts of the Knowth site at ground level but the range of many of these

views is curtailed by objects in the foreground, such that the view from the top is the

outstanding panoramic view of greatest interest to visitors. The distance of the bridge

from Knowth (2.3 km) is a significant mitigating factor and would greatly reduce its

impact. In this regard there is a line of electricity masts or pylons crossing the valley

just short of the bridge location. These are substantial steel lattice structures which

are inherently ugly, yet they are absorbed into the landscape and not easy to pick out

in views from Knowth. The relatively unobtrusive position of the bridge in the

landscape, together with the lightness of its structural members and the likely

perception of a road and bridge as normal components of a living rural landscape, are

further factors which would limit its impact. I note finally the proposals for

landscaping of the development.

There has been some discussion of the consequences of the construction of the bypass

for the status of this Site and this likelihood has been acknowledged in the EIS.

Accepting that the making of the decision rests with the Board, it is probable, in the

event of a decision to approve the bypass, that a reactive monitoring mission would be

sent by UNESCO to review the status of the World Heritage Site. It is not possible to

determine what the outcome of such a review might be or what matters might be taken

into account. It would be likely to comprise several stages, involving consultation and

discussion with relevant parties, and would not necessarily lead to de-inscription of

the site. It appears that such a mission would have regard to the broad planning

context of a development of this nature, including the need for it and the existence or

otherwise of alternative solutions to the traffic problems in Slane. I note the comment

of Dr. Comer that a mission would consider a development proposal but would also

consider that development as completed, allowing for the possibility that the outcome

might vary from that projected, whether the effects would be greater or less than

projected.

__________________________________________________________________________________


6.3.13 Summary (Environmental Impact Assessment)

The likely direct and indirect effects of the proposed development on the environment

have been identified, described and assessed in this part of the report. This

development comprises a major construction project which could not but have

significant effects on the environment in many respects, both positive and negative.

The main residual effects, having regard where appropriate to practicable mitigation

measures, are referred to in this section.

Human Beings

The proposed development, through the diversion to the bypass of the bulk of the

current traffic movements in Slane, would give rise to major positive effects for the

residents of Slane and for those working in the village and having business there.

These effects would include the enhancement of the safety of the population and road

users and an improvement in the ambience of the village. Users of the N2 road

corridor would also benefit from the bypass. These benefits would be offset to a

certain extent by effects on residents living close to the road corridor, mainly through

noise, construction activities, lighting and visual intrusion.

Fauna and Flora

The feature of particular sensitivity in this regard is the Boyne valley candidate

Special Area of Conservation. While the bridge would cross the river valley, it would

clear the river, would intrude to a limited degree into the valley and would have a

construction programme designed to greatly limit adverse effects. The Stage One

Screening Assessment arrived at a finding of no significant effect.

Soils and Geology

The development would involve substantial cuttings, particularly into Cullen Hill, and

would generate a surplus of material. It would not have a significant effect on soils

and bedrock. The information available indicates that satisfactory foundations for the

bridge piers could be constructed and that side slopes of 1 vertical to 2 horizontal

could be provided in the cuttings.

Water

The main water resource in the area is the river Boyne and, as with possible effects on

the natural environment, the bridge would intrude to a very slight degree into the

valley, such that there would be no significant effect on river flows, even allowing for

flood events. Otherwise the road drainage system would ensure that discharges from

the road would not significantly affect natural drainage and wells in the area.

Air and Climate

There would not be a significant net overall effect on air quality; the improvement in

air quality in the village would be offset by a disimprovement along the road corridor.

Improved operating conditions would be likely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

but there is no realistic potential for a switch from private to public transport.

The Landscape

This development, comprising the insertion of a substantial man-made artefact into a

sensitive river valley landscape, would give rise to a high magnitude of change in

many views. The impact of the development would be mitigated through

landscaping, which would greatly reduce its long-term impact. The bridge would be

__________________________________________________________________________________


prominent in some views, though its impact would be offset by its simple structural

form. I consider that the overall residual impact of the development would be

moderate and neutral, with the exception of negative impacts in some viewpoints

close to the bridge. The bridge would open up new views of the landscape.

Material Assets

As with effects on human beings, the development would give rise to major positive

effects for business in Slane, the local economy and property values. There would

however be some negative but local effects on agricultural enterprises and residential

properties close to the route.

Cultural Heritage

The Boyne valley has a particularly rich archaeological and architectural heritage, the

product of many centuries of continuous settlement. While the route selection process

sought to avoid features of archaeological and architectural interest, there would be

direct effects on a small number of archaeological sites and potential archaeological

sites but these effects, though negative, would be limited and compensated to some

extent by information derived from excavations.

The village of Slane has a rich architectural heritage which would benefit significantly

from the removal of through traffic. The proposed bridge would give rise to long-

term effects on the Slane Mill and Slane bridge area, assessed as being of high &

neutral significance in the case of the bridge, but the ambience of this area would be

enhanced by the removal of traffic from the existing bridge, currently hazardous for

pedestrians. There would be minor adverse effects on features close to Fennor House

but the impact on the setting of the Ledwidge Cottage would be neutral.

The Brú na Bóinne World Heritage Site is an archaeological heritage feature of

outstanding value located downstream from the bypass route. The bypass would not

directly affect this Site but would have effects on its setting, particularly in relation to

its intrusion into the field of view from the monument at Knowth. There are man-

made objects in these views but the overall experience is of a relatively unspoilt rural

landscape. The development would introduce a further man-made object into this

setting but I consider, having regard to its distance from that Site, the limited extent of

that Site from which it would be visible and its relatively unobtrusive position in the

landscape, that its impact would be a moderate negative impact.

Interactions

The main interactions would arise from the expected improvement in traffic

conditions in Slane. This would be of significant benefit to the architectural heritage

of the village, to material assets in Slane and to an improvement in air quality with a

net reduction in CO2 emissions from vehicles. There is an interaction between

excavations and the visual impact of the road but negative visual effects can be offset

to a certain extent by effective landscaping. There is also an interaction between

effects on air and the natural environment and it has been assessed that this would not

result in significant effects on the latter. Interactions between effects on the landscape

and on the cultural heritage are interwoven, particularly in relation to the World

Heritage Site in that this site derives significant value from its landscape setting.

__________________________________________________________________________________


Conclusions

Referring to the main effects, the most significant positive effects would be on the

human environment, in particular the Slane community, and also on the heritage value

and local economy of Slane. These would be offset by negative effects in the area of

the road corridor and on the Boyne valley landscape, in which Brú na Bóinne is a

significant element.

6.4 Achievement of Objectives of Development

It is appropriate at this stage to assess, having regard to the assessment of effects, to

what extent this development would achieve the objectives set for it in the EIS. Five

objectives are listed. I propose to comment on these in order and to comment further

on the issue of compliance with the Development Plan, in Section 6.5.

Improvement of Traffic Safety in Slane

Regarding the severe traffic safety problem in Slane, the nature of the shortcomings

with the N2 road is well documented, with particular reference to the bridge and its

approaches. Details of the accident history of this road and of the involvement of

heavy goods vehicles in such accidents have been submitted and, while the current

traffic management measures appear to have had some success since their

introduction, they were intended as an interim measure and the basic deficiencies in

the road alignment, together with the hazard potential of this road, remain. I consider

it reasonable to take it that the bypass would remove the vast majority of the existing

traffic flows from the N2 road through Slane. The removal of the HGVs would be

particularly beneficial. These effects are discussed in Section 6.3.1 of this report. I

accept that there would be residual problems in that traffic on the N51 and traffic

linking the N2 (south) with the N51 (west) would continue to flow through the village

but I consider that there would be a substantial benefit in terms of traffic safety. I

conclude that this objective would be achieved.

Improvement of the Environment of Slane village

This is clearly related to the first in that the achievement of this objective also relies

on the removal of traffic from the village. The basic position is that Slane, taking into

account the village itself, its riverside location, the bridge, the Hill of Slane and Slane

Castle Demesne, has an outstanding architectural heritage. This is recognised in the

relevant policies and objectives of the Development Plan, and particularly in the

number of items on the Record of Protected Structures and the designation in the

surrounds of the village of three architectural conservation areas. In addition this

heritage value has been illustrated at the hearing in the presentation on behalf of the

Slane community by Prof. Philip Geoghegan. The extent to which the environment

and ambience of the village is being damaged is discussed in Section 6.3 of this

report. This damage also has consequences for the local economy. I conclude that

this objective would also be achieved.

Improved Level of Service for a National Primary Road

The basic position is that the N2 has retained its status, though its function as a

through route has effectively been diminished by the opening of the N33 road which

links with the M1 motorway. The status of the Ashbourne-Ardee improvement

scheme and the transboundary implications of the current proposal are addressed in

Section 5.4 of this report. The Ashbourne-Ardee road remains in its current position

as a main road of good standard carrying a significant volume of traffic. I have

__________________________________________________________________________________


described its standard in Section 3.4 of this report and in general it has satisfactory

horizontal and vertical alignments and a satisfactory cross sectional standard offering

reasonable overtaking opportunities along much of its length. The portion of it

running through Slane clearly falls far short of the standard expected for a road of this

type. The slopes and bends are disruptive to free flow and the alternating one-way

system across the bridge, essential for safety reasons, obviously imposes significant

additional traffic delays and congestion. These problems would be overcome by the

bypass and in this regard I consider that this objective would be achieved.

Achievement of National and Regional Policy Objectives for the National Road Network

The national policies referred to in the EIS are the National Spatial Strategy 2002-

2020, the National Development Plan and Transport 21. The National Spatial

Strategy emphasises the implementation of the road investment programme under the

National Development Plan but does not include the N2 south of Ardee in the North

Western Strategic Radial Corridor. The National Development Plan 2007-2013

provides for the investment of some €13.3 bn. in national roads and has objectives for

the completion of the major inter-urban routes by 2010, the improvement of road links

between the main NSS gateways and the continued upgrading of road links to

Northern Ireland. Transport 21 indicates that the NRA strategy for the N2 is to

provide a two-lane single carriageway road from the border to Ardee, then linking

with the N33 road to join the M1. The existing N2 south of Ardee does not form part

of this project. The Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2010-

2022 recognise that the road network will continue to be critical to transport

management and the efficient movement of buses, people, goods and other services in

the GDA and beyond. I note that it is national policy that the carrying capacity and

efficient operation of the strategic road network within the GDA, which includes the

N2/M2, is safeguarded to ensure that the investment in the road network returns value

for money and longevity of the infrastructure provided. I consider that the bypass

would be broadly in line with national and regional policies and that this objective

would be achieved.

Achievement of an Objective of the County Development Plan

The fifth stated objective in the EIS is the achievement of an objective of the County

Development Plan. I infer that the objective in question is Infrastructure Objective

(INF OBJ) 15, which is as follows:

To support major road improvements and proposed national road schemes by reserving the corridors of any such proposed routes free of developments, which would interfere with the provision of such proposals.

Taking this as an objective to construct the bypass, I consider that it would be

achieved but this must be further examined in the broader context of compliance with

the Development Plan, a matter discussed in some detail below. I would comment

that, while the development should achieve the objectives set for it, its acceptability

also depends on the assessment of its effects on the environment and its implications

for proper planning and sustainable development in the area.

__________________________________________________________________________________


6.5 Compliance with Meath County Development Plan

The issues of compliance with the Development Plan, and possible material

contravention of the Plan, is relevant to this as to any other development and has

arisen at the hearing. Section 178 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, in

particular, states that a planning authority shall not effect development in its

functional area which contravenes materially the Development Plan. This underlines

the central role of the Development Plan as an environmental contract between the

planning authority and the community, as described in the judgement in the case of

McGarry v. Sligo County Council (the Carrowmore Passage Grave case).

The objective set out above (INF OBJ 15) has been scrutinised in a number of

respects in the submission of Ms. Amy Hastings to the hearing. The first point made

is that it merely obliges the Council to reserve a corridor free of development, not to

implement the actual project. This wording is not as explicit as it might be but,

having regard to the principle that the development plan should be interpreted as it

would be understood by a reasonably intelligent person having no particular expertise

in law or town planning, I consider that the intent is clear, in effect that the reservation

of the corridor would facilitate the provision of the project. I note that the other

project listed in connection with the objective has been completed. The second point

is that the policy for the construction of the bypass is based on the sole grounds of

benefit to the urban environment. There is indeed such a statement, which refers to

Slane and other towns, but I take this to be a reasonable aspiration, not a statement of

the sole purpose for the construction of the bypasses. The third point is that the

location of the bypass is not indicated in the Development Plan. The relevant map

(map 4.1) has circular symbols placed close to the towns to be bypassed. In the case

of Slane the symbol is placed to the east of the village but, as an indication of an

eastern route for the bypass, the manner of presentation lacks clarity. On the other

hand this project was the subject of a constraints study and route selection study done

over a number of years and it was abundantly clear from these studies that the

proposal was for an eastern bypass. In that context I consider that any interested

member of the public would have inferred that the objective in the Development Plan

related to the construction of a bypass to the east of the village on a route similar to

that now proposed.

The issue of material contravention has also been examined from the perspective of

policies and objectives in the Development Plan relating to cultural, heritage and

landscape protection. There are, as stated by Ms. Kenny, a number of very worthy

and appropriate policy objectives relating to landscape protection. These include

policies to maintain the visual sensitivity of exceptional landscape areas and policies

to protect views and vistas. Heritage Policy 86 is as follows:

To maintain scenic vistas and panoramic views from key vantage points and towards key landmarks and features within the landscape.

Heritage Policy 113 is as follows:

To protect from inappropriate development the views identified on the Landscape Character Map 05: Visual Amenity, and the views and prospects as indicated on Map 8.6 (listed table on next two pages).

__________________________________________________________________________________


There was a significant shortcoming in that Map 8.6 was not included in the

Development Plan, due apparently to an oversight in the preparation for publication of

the Plan. This shortcoming has been made good in that this map has been

incorporated into the Development Plan by Variation No. 13 adopted on the 7th

November 2011. The proposed development would clearly appear in views from

Knowth and the implications of this have been assessed in some detail in Section

6.3.12 of the report. The reality is that there are man-made objects in views from

Knowth and, while the proposed development would introduce a further man-made

element into these views, their main component is the bridge, which would be simple

in form, would be quite distant from Knowth and would appear as a compatible

feature in a river valley landscape. The impact of this development is likely to be

negative but, having regard to the factors outlined above and the assessments of

significance set out in Section 6.3.12, I do not consider that the integrity of the view,

which is inter-related with the effect of the development on the World Heritage Site,

would be seriously affected nor that this impact would amount to a material

contravention of the Development Plan.

There are also policies and objectives relating to the protection of the archaeological

park at Brú na Bóinne. Heritage Policy 66 in particular is as follows:

To protect the vulnerable archaeological and cultural landscape and to enhance views within and adjacent to the World Heritage Site.

I note the statement in the Development Plan that Meath County Council are

committed to the conservation of Brú na Bóinne and I would observe that the policies

and objectives relating to this are inter-related to those applicable to the landscape in

general. While views are referred to in relation to the World Heritage Site, the

locations of such views, other than that commented on above, are not specified. One

particular provision relevant to the protection of the landscape of the World Heritage

Site has been scrutinised at the hearing. This is the Development Assessment Criteria

set out in Paragraph 8.3.3.2 of the Plan, which includes the following statement:

There should be no inter-visibility between the development sites and the National Monuments of Newgrange, Knowth and Dowth, up to and including apex of roof level, and minimisation of inter-visibility between the development site and the other National Monuments sites.

There clearly would be some inter-visibility between the proposed development and

the site at Knowth in particular. This statement has been analysed in the report of

Mairead Kenny and she has concluded that it relates only to development proposed

within the World Heritage Site. A further relevant consideration is that the wording of

this statement, if read in context with other paragraphs under the heading,

Development Assessment Criteria, implies that it is orientated towards assessment of

planning applications for residential and agricultural developments of modest scale,

though not necessarily to private developments only. I infer therefore that different

criteria are applicable to infrastructure developments, as is now proposed.

Referring to the landscape and World Heritage Site policies in general, it is clear that

the bypass would introduce a substantial man-made artefact into this sensitive

landscape. This however is a landscape that has been shaped by and accommodates

human activity. It has some capacity to absorb further development and Development

Plan policies allow for such, subject to appropriate constraints. The assessments of

__________________________________________________________________________________


impacts are detailed in Section 6.3 of the report and, having regard to the details of the

proposed development and to measures to limit its impact, I consider that this

development could be satisfactorily assimilated into this landscape, accepting that

there would be locally significant impacts. These would not necessarily be negative,

having regard to the compatible nature of a bridge in a river valley landscape.

Significant direct effects on the cultural heritage would be limited but there would be

significant indirect effects. These would be positive in the case of Slane village and,

while the location of the development in the viewshed of Knowth would give rise to

some negative effects, these would be limited in the context of the totality of the

World Heritage Site. I consider in this regard that the extent of the impacts referred to

above would not seriously affect the visual integrity of the landscape and would not

amount to a material contravention of the Development Plan.

A shortcoming in the planning framework is the failure to have made a local area plan

in line with Heritage Objective 11 of the Development Plan. This objective is as

follows:

To prepare a Local Area Plan (LAP) in conjunction with Louth County Council for the Brú na Bóinne World Heritage Site and environs. This LAP would establish a planning framework in which development proposals, including rural housing and intensive agriculture, would be assessed against. The preparation of the LAP would give effect to some of the objectives contained in the existing Brú na Bóinne World Heritage Site Management Plan and the Boyne Valley Integrated Development Plan.

This local area plan has not been made and is not likely to be made in advance of the

preparation of the next County Development Plan. Such a plan would be helpful in

assessing development proposals in the area of the World Heritage Site and its

environs but, having regard to its absence and the uncertainty as to when it might be

made, I consider that the correct approach is to rely on the relevant policies and

objectives of the Development Plan. Even if a local area plan were available, I

consider that its main function would be to guide development in the local area and

that strategic issues relating to the main road network would still come within the

remit of the County Development Plan. There is a local area plan for Slane but this is

orientated to the development of the village. An easterly view from the vicinity of the

mill complex in Slane is identified and this corresponds to one of the views featured

in the EIS and referred to this report.

I note that a number of shortcomings in the Development Plan framework have been

identified, though the omission of Map 8.6 has been made good. The position, as I

see it, is that the Development Plan underwent the appropriate procedures in 2007 and

was not apparently challenged. I infer therefore that it should be taken as it stands and

that it would not be reasonable to refuse approval or permission for a development

solely on the basis of shortcomings in this Plan.

The issue of compliance with the Development Plan is relevant in the context of the

totality of the policies and objectives of that Plan relating to various aspects of the

Council’s responsibilities and to the implications of the proposed development for the

achievement of these policies and objectives. The policies and objectives of particular

relevance in this case are those relating to the provision of infrastructure, the

protection of the landscape, the protection of views and the protection of the

archaeological and cultural landscape of the World Heritage Site. It is in the nature of

the planning system that the implementation of a particular objective or project might

__________________________________________________________________________________


have implications for the achievement of other objectives and that conflicts are likely

to arise between the achievement of different objectives. Issues of this nature must be

addressed by reference to the circumstances of particular cases and an evaluation of

the extent to which the achievement of apparently conflicting objectives can be

reconciled.

Particular regard has to be paid, in the implementation of any particular objective or

project, to its locational requirements. The Slane bypass has the very specific purpose

of addressing the very evident traffic problems in Slane so that its location must

enable this purpose to be achieved. It must therefore skirt the village and link in with

the N2 road on either side of Slane. Of necessity it must incorporate a new bridge

across the Boyne. Having regard to the sensitivity and amenity value of the river

valley, it cannot but have a material impact on that valley, as discussed above. The

question has arisen as to whether it could be rerouted to the west of Slane. This

would of course be feasible and is further discussed in the consideration of

alternatives. It would have little impact on the World Heritage Site but would

nevertheless result in a significant intrusion into a sensitive landscape. The essential

point is that the Slane bypass objective cannot be achieved without resulting in effects

of some significance on the landscape and cultural heritage.

Locational constraints also apply to other development types. Wind turbines and

telecommunications masts, for example, need to be located in relatively elevated

locations to achieve their purpose and in this regard two permissions have been

recently granted for masts in Stalleen near Donore in the buffer zone. Residential

developments in this area are assessed by reference to the rural settlement strategy,

which is orientated in general towards satisfying the housing requirements of persons

who are an intrinsic part of the rural community. It has been argued at the hearing

that the planning authority have acted inconsistently in refusing permission for many

minor developments on grounds related to possible impacts on the World Heritage

Site, while at the same time seeking approval for a development which would have a

much larger impact on that Site. A sample of planning applications in the World

Heritage Site and surrounding area, including many which were refused permission,

were scrutinised. One particular application for housing development in Donore (An

Bord Pleanála Ref: PL17.237779), which was permitted on appeal, was referred to.

The outcome in this case was that 21 out of the 25 houses proposed were refused on

grounds related to encroachment on to high ground and thereby on the amenity and

character of the World Heritage Site. This is an example of the pressures in this area.

It appears that Meath County Council have been applying the relevant development

assessment criteria in a reasonably consistent manner and have refused permission for

many small-scale developments, including single houses. This inference is supported

by the population figures for the district electoral divisions of Slane, Painestown and

Mellifont, comprising an area around Slane including the core area of the World

Heritage Site. The population of this area, excluding the village of Slane, increased

from 1,991 in 1996 to 2,129 in 2006. The preliminary results for 2011 indicate a

further modest increase to about 2,250.

__________________________________________________________________________________


6.6 Development in Context of Alternatives

An outline of the main alternatives studied by the respective authority and an

indication of the main reasons for its choice is one of the specified items of

information which is required to be included in an environment impact statement.

The EIS in this case includes an outline of alternatives comprising a description of a

number of alternative routes studied in the course of the development of this project to

the point when it was submitted for approval. I note the reference by Mr. Flanagan to

the judgement of Mr. Justice McMahon in the Klohn case, to the effect that the

development consent procedure does not require the Board to carry out an

environmental impact assessment of the possible alternatives (either as to location or

design and operation of the possible development). The consideration of alternatives

is nevertheless an integral part of the environmental impact assessment process and

formed a significant component of the discussion at the hearing. The nature of the

alternatives considered is a function of the circumstances of any particular case. I

would comment that consideration of alternatives contributes to the understanding of

the extent to which the development in question would fulfil its stated need in a

satisfactory manner with minimal adverse impacts.

6.6.1 Alternatives Relevant to Slane Bypass

Alternatives can take different forms and the Guidelines of the Environmental

Protection Agency on the information to be contained in Environmental Impact

Statements indicate that alternatives can be described at three levels: alternative

locations, alternative designs and alternative processes. The nature of the relevant

alternatives in any particular case depends on the development type and on the aims

and purposes of that development. Put another way, any alternative considered

should be orientated to achieving these aims and purposes and the decision-maker

needs to be satisfied that practicable alternatives have been adequately considered.

I infer that the primary consideration in this case is to deal with the existing traffic

situation in Slane, which is characterised by heavy flows of traffic through the village,

together with a high proportion of heavy goods vehicles within these flows, by the

particularly poor standard of the N2 road through the village and by the consequences

of this situation for the safety of road users and pedestrians and for the fabric and

ambience of the village. The N2 road is a national primary road and, while it has not

got the strategic function of the M1 and M3 road corridors, it remains part of an

arterial corridor and part of the national road network.

This situation is proposed to be dealt with by the construction of a bypass around

Slane, including the construction of a new bridge across the River Boyne. This

bypass would have the function of tying in with the existing N2 road immediately to

the north and the south of Slane and attracting to it the vast majority of the traffic

movements currently travelling through Slane on the existing N2. Such a bypass

would achieve the aims of the proposed development. On the basis of acceptance of

the need for a bypass, the relevant alternatives comprise road standard and junction

options, route options and bridge design options. These are considered in varying

levels of detail in the EIS against the background of the evolution of the project over a

number of years.

__________________________________________________________________________________


The option of on-line widening was rejected at an early stage on the basis that it

would not resolve the traffic problems in the village. Road types considered included

a single carriageway road, a motorway and the current Type 2 Dual Carriageway

proposal. There are significant constraints on route selection in this area, having

regard to the sloping valley topography, areas of high landscape value and areas of

significant natural and built heritage. At the macro level there are two options, to run

either to the west or east of Slane. The western option was rejected at an early stage

but has been reviewed in the submission of additional information requested by the

Board. At the micro level there are various options with particular reference to the

location of the river crossing. There are further options related to the height and

design of the bridge together with the intensity of the gradients leading down to the

bridge. The various options are further discussed in this part of the report.

Alternatives not involving the construction of a new bridge across the Boyne are also

relevant to the consideration of this application and have been raised in written

submissions and at the hearing. The underlying basis of these is that the main

component of the existing problem in Slane is the use of the N2 road by an excessive

number of heavy goods vehicles and the potential for diversion of a large proportion

of this traffic on to the M1 motorway and, in the case of traffic on the northwest

corridor, on to a combination of the M1, N33 link road and N2 north of Ardee. This

situation has arisen from the completion of the M1 Motorway together with the

opening in 2004 of the N33 link road immediately to the north of Ardee. The case for

this is supported by the widely held perception that a significant proportion of the

HGV traffic currently using the N2 is doing so in order to avoid the toll on the Boyne

crossing on the M1 Motorway. Alternatives to the bypass effectively comprise the

imposition of a ban on HGV traffic on the bridge in Slane. Whether this would be a

total or partial ban would need to be worked out but further consideration of these

alternatives is merited in this report.

I would refer briefly at this stage to possible alternatives based on the use of public

transport. Slane is served by a local bus service referred to above but, though the

Drogheda-Navan (Tara Mines) railway line runs nearby, it has no existing or likely

future function in providing passenger services. The position therefore is that there is

no realistic public transport alternative to the proposed development.

6.6.2 Road Design Standard Alternatives

As noted above, different road standards were proposed at various times during the

evolution of this proposal. The first point to be noted is that the construction of the

bypass to motorway standard is no longer under consideration. That would have

made sense in the event of the Ashbourne to Ardee section of the N2 being upgraded

as part of a comprehensive M2/N2 route. The construction of the Slane Bypass to

motorway standards would not therefore make sense as a stand-alone project.

The reality is that the projected traffic volumes on the Slane Bypass in the EIS are on

the margin between those appropriate to a single carriageway road and those

appropriate to a type 2 dual carriageway. The traffic growth projections give a

highest daily traffic volume of 12,200 vehicles per day (AADT) in 2027 on the bypass

south of Slane, just above the capacity figure of 11,600 for a standard single

carriageway. There must be a great degree of uncertainty about future traffic growth

given the economic downturn, the climate change implications and other

__________________________________________________________________________________


uncertainties. The NRA have recently revised projected traffic growth rates, though

these would not greatly change the figures in the EIS. Accepting the Ashbourne to

Ardee section of the N2 as a single carriageway road of generally good standard, it

would appear to be a sound approach to provide the Slane bypass to the same

standard, in line with the case made at the hearing by Mr. Clarke of An Taisce.

A reduction in standard to a single carriageway would however be complicated by the

steep gradients on the approach roads to the bridge. In the absence of the provision of

a very high level bridge, which I believe would be totally unacceptable on visual and

landscape grounds, the reality of the valley topography is that there is a fall of some

40 metres down to the bridge on each side. The development as submitted provides

for gradients of 5% on the approaches. Such gradients are consistent with the

desirable maximum gradient for single carriageway roads without relaxation as

provided for in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Climbing lanes are

however required for gradients in excess of 2% in slope and 500 metres in length. In

this case there are long gradients down to the bridge so that climbing lanes would

have to be provided on the greater part of the road length from the southern tie-in

point to the N51 junction.

Such an approach might well be justified in the case of the realignment of an existing

road, essentially a retrofit, but, while a dual carriageway would not be strictly

necessary to carry the projected traffic volumes, I consider in the circumstances of

this case that the upgrading of this road to dual status would be justified in order to

reduce the likelihood of accidents caused by vehicles going out of control on the

down slopes and crossing over into the paths of oncoming vehicles. Having regard to

the length of climbing lanes required, this upgrading would provide a higher standard

of safety and a higher level of service at relatively modest additional cost. Referring

to one example of a national primary road with long steep gradients (the N25 east and

west of Dungarvan), one section of this road (the Pike) has been identified as a high

accident location and there is a proposal to replace this road with a dual carriageway.

A section of this road to the west of Dungarvan is approximately 1,000 metres in

length and has a gradient of at least 5%. I would add that the desirable maximum

gradient for a Type 2 Dual Carriageway is 4% but that a gradient of 5% is permitted

as a relaxation in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.

This consideration would not however apply to the portion of the route north of the

N51 junction where the projected volumes are much less and where climbing lanes

would not be needed. A single carriageway road here would be consistent with the

standard of the existing N2 north of Slane. That road is of a good standard and much

of it has been realigned. I consider that it provides reasonable opportunities for

overtaking and do not consider that the increased overtaking opportunities provided

by a dual carriageway on the northern section of the bypass would be sufficient reason

for that section of the bypass to be dualled.

Referring to some other aspects of the design, I consider that the design speed of 100

km/h as proposed is correct in the circumstances of the case. This is the design speed

normally applied to rural single carriageway sections of national routes and would

apply in general to the N2. A lower figure of 85 km/h would be acceptable for a road

with a primarily urban function but this road would be in a mainly rural environment

and the flexibility to be derived from using tighter radii would be unlikely to limit its

__________________________________________________________________________________


impacts significantly. I do not see that any benefit would be derived in this case from

a higher or lower design speed.

The junctions proposed on this road consist of roundabouts. Possible alternatives are

at-grade priority and grade separated junctions. The latter would only be appropriate

to a category of road higher than what is proposed in this case and would in my

opinion be disproportionate to the standard and level of service of the road as

currently proposed. Priority junctions at the terminal points could be of benefit in

encouraging traffic to stay on the bypass but I consider that roundabouts would be

satisfactory in that they would have a restraining effect on traffic speeds and would be

appropriate in a situation where the standard of the road changes. A further effect of

some significance arising from the use of roundabouts is that it enables the overall

length of the route to be shortened, reduces the extent of land to be acquired and

avoids the survival of parts of the existing road as residential access cul-de-sacs. The

reason for this is that the use of priority junctions would require a gradual

convergence of the bypass route with the existing road, whereas roundabouts can

accommodate a sharper change of direction. There remains the question of the

detailed layout design such that the arms leading into the village should if possible be

made more difficult to negotiate. I would add that the provision of a connection with

the N51 is an essential component of the project.

6.6.3 Alternative Routes - Western Corridor

Alternative routes can be considered at two levels. At the macro level the basic

options in bypassing Slane are to route the bypass to the west of the village or to the

east of the village. The western corridor option is referred to in the chapter on

alternatives in the EIS in so far as western route options were rejected at an early

stage on the basis of likely unfavourable comparisons with eastern routes on

environmental, engineering and economic terms. A number of environmental factors

are listed. Following the submission of the application, the Board requested Meath

County Council, in the interest of further consideration of the implications of the

western corridor alternative, to examine a western route option and submit the results

as part of a submission of further information. A study of this option was based on a

desk study and walk-over surveys. Four possible route options were initially selected

and, from a preliminary examination of likely impacts, it was decided to select Option

4 as the preferred option. This is the longest route option and the only one which

skirts Slane Castle to the west; it is surely the case, even on a cursory examination,

that any route between Slane Castle and the village would have a much more severe

impact on the amenities and heritage value of Slane village and environs.

.

It is necessary to bear in mind that this study does not comprise an environmental

impact assessment of the western route but it is useful in providing further

information on the relative merits of the western and eastern corridors in the situation

in which the decision-maker needs to be satisfied that the case for the eastern route

has been adequately substantiated, having regard to the severity of the potential

impact of the eastern route on the archaeological heritage of the Boyne Valley.

I would comment briefly on the details of the identified western route. Given the

choice of a route to the west of Slane Castle, this route has to cross the river between

Slane Castle demesne and Beauparc demesne and cut through one or both. Slane

Castle demesne is designated as an architectural conservation area in the Development

__________________________________________________________________________________


Plan. The route runs rather close to Slane Castle and I consider that it would be

preferable to move it somewhat further upstream, about halfway between Slane Castle

and Beauparc House. That would create a problem in that the route would encroach

further into the high ground at Carrickdexter Hill. I consider however that it could be

turned to avoid the main part of the hill. Otherwise I consider that a reasonable effort

has been made to keep clear of the significant constraints. The route runs well to the

north of the Hill of Slane and keeps reasonably close to lower ground. It also runs to

the north of the wood at Littlewood and rejoins the N2 well to the north of the actual

junction proposed.

The submission contains a review of the potential impacts of this route option and a

comparison with the impacts of the proposed route. Referring to these in some detail,

I would not take issue with the conclusions that there would be no significant

differences in terms of impacts on agricultural and aquatic ecology. The eastern route

is claimed to be preferable in relation to the impact on terrestrial ecology but the

entire river valley is part of a candidate Special Area of Conservation and the

comparison of impacts might depend on the structure and construction details of the

bridge required on the western route.

Referring to other likely significant environmental impacts, it can be taken that any

bypass of Slane would have positive benefits for the human environment and material

assets in terms of safety, the environment of the village, the level of service for road

users and the local economy. There would however be some differences in the extent

of these impacts. The western bypass, either on the chosen route or the minor

variation of it described above, would be approximately twice as long as the eastern

route. This would greatly diminish its benefit in terms of time saving for motorists.

In such a situation there would be a temptation for motorists to use the existing route

in the absence of strict controls, which in themselves might be difficult to enforce.

Mr. Mac Gearailt referred to the situation at Enfield where the greater length of the

relief road is a significant disincentive to its use. The circumstances are not the same

in Enfield and there is no outstanding hazard there, only a busy village street

susceptible to congestion. Furthermore the recently constructed M4 Motorway

bypasses the village as well as the relief road. At the same time the situation at

Enfield is an illustration of the possible consequences of a bypass greatly exceeding

the length of the bypassed route. The additional length of the western route would

also be likely to offset the reduction in CO2 emissions projected for the eastern route.

Allied to this factor is the likely greater construction cost of the western option, which

would be likely to be something less than double the cost of the eastern option,

allowing for the doubling of the length of road but approximately similar bridge

construction costs. A further possible effect is that the noise impact might be greater

for the western option on the basis of the greater length of the route corridor. I would

refer however to one small but not insignificant compensating impact. This is that the

western option would facilitate the bypassing of the village by N2 (north) – N51

(west) movements, the largest component of the turning movements at the crossroads

in the centre of Slane.

There are significant landscape and cultural heritage constraints to the west of Slane,

as there are to the east. The landscape in this area is linked to the cultural heritage in

the demesne of Slane Castle, prominently located upstream of Slane village, embodies

a riverside landscape of high scenic quality on which is overlaid the buildings of

__________________________________________________________________________________


Slane Castle and ancillary developments. Upstream of Slane castle the river valley is

constrained by steep bluffs on either side. It is of particularly high scenic quality and,

being effectively cut off from the adjoining land, has a quiet and peaceful quality.

The Maiden Rock is a feature of interest in this area and the route would cross the

river in this area. The bridge ideally would cross the river on a clear span but,

regardless of the details of its construction, it would have a severe impact on the

landscape in this area, rather more in my opinion than in the case of the eastern route.

This is the most sensitive part of the western route, though other parts of the route

would have impacts on the landscape.

As with landscape quality, there is a significant number of cultural heritage

constraints in the area west of Slane. These are itemised in the submission of

additional information and include several items of archaeological and architectural

interest. Slane Castle together with its associated buildings, grounds and riverside

setting is a feature of particular value, which is recognised in its inclusion on the

record of protected structures and the designation of the demesne as an Architectural

Conservation Area. The route option, even if moved some distance upstream, would

have a severe impact on the demesne and the setting of the castle, and thereby on the

economic value of this property along with its potential for further economic

development. Noise levels would also be a significant factor in this.

A further significant constraint is Slane Hill with its ecclesiastical remains. The road

would however give it a reasonably wide berth, though there might be a minor to

moderate impact. In terms of the number of items likely to be affected, it appears that

the number of such items would be greater in the case of the western route option but

Mr. Moore has made the point that the statistical comparison of heritage sites

indirectly affected along the western and eastern routes gives preferential

consideration to the latter. I would agree that a comparison on a numerical basis is

likely to be unreliable and that any comparison of the two route corridors should be

carried out on a broader basis.

It is clear that the western route option would have the significant benefit of not

having any effect on the World Heritage Site. It would not be visible from the

surroundings of Knowth and, in terms of man-made intrusions, the village of Slane

would occupy a position between the Site and this route option. The fundamental

balance is between an indirect intrusion into a site of outstanding international

importance, recognised in its designation as a world heritage site, and a direct

intrusion into an area of outstanding architectural and landscape quality, recognised in

its designation as an architectural conservation area, having regard to the presence in

it of buildings and structures of significant architectural and cultural interest. It is

difficult to balance these impacts but one aspect of this situation is that any bypass of

Slane is likely to have serious effects on the cultural heritage of the area and that the

imposition of such effects must be justified on the basis of compelling traffic and

public safety requirements.

Leaving aside for the moment the determination of the balance between the likely

impact of the bypass on cultural heritage constraints east and west of Slane, the

broader perspective relates to the overall assessment of the effectiveness of the

alternative routings of the project in the context of its likely impacts on the

environment The fundamental problem with the western option in my opinion is that

the bypass on this route would provide a level of performance well below that

__________________________________________________________________________________


expected in the aims and purposes of the project and, having regard to cost factors, a

poor return on the investment in the project. This must be seen in the context that it is

far from clear that the environment impacts of the western route would be

significantly less severe than those of the eastern route. I concede that it is extremely

difficult to quantify impacts on cultural heritage assets but, even if the impacts were

less severe in the case of the western route option, that would still not overcome its

likely poor performance.

6.6.4 Alternative Routes - Eastern Corridor (Bridge Location)

In the eastern corridor a number of route and design options have been examined in

detail as part of the process of developing an optimum route. There are three essential

components in this, arising from the nature of the constraints in this corridor. These

are the location of the bridge, the height and design of the bridge and details of other

sections of the route. These aspects of the project are examined in order.

Given the sensitivity of the river valley and the necessity for a new bridge crossing,

the most critical part of this route corridor is the location of the crossing point. This

has been examined during the development of the project in the context of the various

physical, cultural heritage and other constraints. There is a high density of

archaeological sites in the wider area but this route corridor has been stated by Ms.

O’Carroll to traverse an area having a relatively low density of known or confirmed

monuments. The main constraints are Slane bridge and the World Heritage Site. The

development would impact to some extent on both and the primary aim is to seek to

balance these impacts. The ecology of the river valley is to some extent a constraint

but does not have such a great influence on the bridge location in that the river valley

SAC has to be crossed regardless of the actual bridge location.

Referring to the visual impact of the bridge, it would inevitably comprise a prominent

man-made feature in the river valley. It would likewise be seen from Slane Bridge

and there is a case for locating it as far as practicable from that bridge. It would also

be a prominent feature in the valley itself, regardless of its actual location. It would in

particular appear in view from parts of the World Heritage Site, particularly from

Knowth and its surroundings, though the distance would be greater than that from

Slane Bridge. The proposed bridge location would be in the region of 2.3 km from

Knowth. This distance would limit its visual impact in views from Knowth though

the development would nevertheless add to the incidence of man-made artefacts in the

field of view upstream from the World Heritage Site. The impact of the bridge would

also include the effects of moving vehicles on the bridge and a possible but limited

perception of distant airborne noise in a very quiet environment.

Referring to the options examined in the Route Selection Report, the easternmost

route option (Option A and E) was initially eliminated from further consideration on

the basis of unnecessary proximity to the World Heritage Site. The central corridors

(Options B/B1/B2) are somewhat further from the World Heritage Site and are to

some extent around a bend in the river. The westernmost corridors (Options C/C1 and

D) would have a significantly greater impact on Slane bridge and the Jebb’s Mill area.

In addition there are other shortcomings with the C and D route options. To the north

of the river Option D would run very close by the Ledwidge Cottage and Option C

would run much closer to the village and between the Ledwidge Cottage and the

village. To the south of the river, where Options C and D coincide, this route would

__________________________________________________________________________________


have greater impacts on the residential environment. It would pass right beside the

cluster of houses on Rossnaree road (known as Lynch’s Wood) and would impact on

the cluster on the N2 north of Johnstown. That cluster would be bypassed by the

route now proposed but Options C/D would feed into the N2 at this point or possibly

join the N2 north of these houses. A further problem would arise from levels at the

river crossing point. There is a gentler slope down to the crossing point on the

southern approach in this location where the canal diverges somewhat from the river.

It appears therefore that a greater bridge span and a larger and more prominent

southern abutment would be required and that the road and bridge would

consequently have a greater visual impact, particularly in relation to the Slane bridge

area.

A further relevant point, discussed at the hearing, is that the preferred route has been

moved a short distance east of Options B/B1/B2 as originally selected. One apparent

reason for this is the routing of the road to the east of Fennor House which avoids

severing the driveway into that house. That is not a particularly important

consideration in my opinion but a second and more material reason relates to the

possible impact of the development on the cluster of houses at Lynch’s Wood, which

are a significant constraint. There is no proposal to create a junction with the

Rossnaree road and the bypass needs to cross under or over that road. This is

achieved in the proposed location by raising the Rossnaree road and running the

bypass under it. The realigned (in the vertical plane) section of the Rossnaree road

would commence just east of the houses. If the original B route option were retained,

the bypass would be at roughly the same level as the Rossnaree road, which slopes up

from west to east in this location. That would create much greater difficulties in

bridging one road over the other and, apart from the negative effects of the greater

proximity of the road to the houses, any conceivable engineering solution would

almost certainly have a very severe impact on them. One further benefit, perhaps of

somewhat less significance, is that the revised bridge location appears to have better

quality foundations.

Having regard to the considerations discussed above, I consider that the C/D route

options, crossing the river to the west of the Rossnaree houses would have a

significant adverse impact on the amenities of Slane. The currently proposed route

crosses the river a short distance downstream of the original B route crossing point. I

accept that it would be that bit closer to the World Heritage Site and to the original

A/E route, which was rejected. The current position however is that any shift to the

west would have a severe impact on the nearby houses, as discussed, but would only

have a minimal benefit on the ambience of the World Heritage Site. The details now

available indicate that a shift back to the original B route corridor would not

significantly alter the view of the bridge from Knowth. The ZVI map based on the

LIDAR data does indeed show significant areas to the west of the scheme where there

is no visibility from Knowth but the relocation of the route to the B corridor would

not bring it into these areas. I would add that the current application includes fully

detailed drawings, whereas the Route Selection Report was based on horizontal

alignments with some details of river crossings. I consider therefore that the selected

bridge crossing location is the optimum location.

__________________________________________________________________________________


6.6.5 Bridge Height and Design

The height of the bridge is a particularly important factor in the assessment of its

impacts and this is recognised in the request by the Board to include further visual

representations in the submission of additional information. These impacts depend

not just on the height of the bridge deck but also on the gradients of the slopes on the

approaches. Four height options were examined in the EIS. These were assessed on

the basis of a simple ranking process which assigned scores to the various options

under different headings. The two higher options would require massive bridge

structures with upward projecting elements. It is clear that these options would give

rise to a very high degree of obtrusiveness and thereby a very significant impact in the

landscape and on the setting of the World Heritage Site.

That leaves the two lower options, which were the subject of the balloon tests. It

would appear that the lowest option would have the least visual impact but reasons for

its rejection included a greater degree of intrusion into its immediate surroundings and

the need for steeper slopes on its approaches together with the need for a greater

extent of excavation. The resulting deeper cuttings would in themselves be a

discordant feature in the landscape and I have commented on the visual impact of

cuttings into Cullen hill in views from the World Heritage Site. There would also be a

difficulty in gaining the necessary height on the upward slope from the bridge up to

the N51 junction. The gradient needed for the chosen bridge height (5%) is at the

practical limit for a road of this type and a steeper gradient would be inconsistent with

good practice (see Section 6.6.2). Possible interference with bat flight routes was

considered to be an issue with the lowest route but Dr. Aughney has clarified that this

would not be the case. I consider that the second lowest option would be the best,

essentially on the basis that the additional excavation for the lower option would have

severe effects and that the reduction in height would not materially affect the impact

of the bridge from the World Heritage Site, a point confirmed by Ms. Kenny.

The stated approach to the design has been to avoid a structure that would make a

bold statement and to seek a simple and elegant structure emphasising slenderness and

minimal mass. It should not be a bridge that people would recognise instantly in a

photograph taken out of context. The design is considered by Ms. Kenny to be

broadly appropriate to its location and appears to be consistent with the

recommendation in the written submission of the Department of the Environment,

Heritage and Local Government. On this basis any question of alternatives arises

only in the context of design details. In this regard I have noted the recommendation

in that submission that the final design should be agreed with those having a direct

interest in the process.

6.6.6 Alternative Routes – Eastern Corridor (Remainder of Route)

Referring to other sections of the route, I consider, taking the bridge location as a

starting point, that the route selected is for the most part satisfactory. To the north of

the bridge the route follows townland boundaries closely, which limits its impact on

farm holdings, and avoids residential properties and heritage sites to a large extent,

except in the vicinity of the N51 junction where there is a small concentration of

residential property. North of that junction there is an area of elevated land, Norris

Hill, which is a significant constraint such that the route skirts it to the east. At the

__________________________________________________________________________________


northern tie-in point the route skirts the premises of Grassland Fertilisers and then

joins the existing N2 road.

The route, to the south of the bridge, skirts Fennor House and then cuts into the side

of Cullen Hill to join the N2 at a point to the south of some houses. The point at

which it crosses under the Rossnaree road is effectively determined by the bridge

location, discussed above in some detail, but to the south of that I have a particular

concern about the extent of the cutting into the side of Cullen Hill. The problem with

this, apart from engineering problems and the large quantity of material to be

removed, is that Cullen Hill appears prominently in views from the Knowth area and

that the large cutting into this hill would in itself be a visually significant feature in

the landscape. The side slopes would be planted to mitigate the visual impact of the

cutting but I consider that a rerouting of the road in this area could be readily achieved

and would greatly reduce the visual impact of this cutting. This would be achieved by

shifting the route by a distance of between 75 and 100 metres to the northwest at the

midpoint of this section of the route. Having regard to the steady fall in levels to the

northwest/north in this area, this would allow the road to cut into Cullen Hill at a

significantly lower level, in the region of five metres. The consequent reduction in

the quantity of material to be excavated and disposed of would also be of benefit.

In terms of road design parameters, this would allow an easing of the bend in this

location, with an increase in the radius from the minimum figure of 720 metres, would

not have significant implications for the design of the tie-in roundabout and could

ease the constraints on the vertical alignment in this location, though the main purpose

of the relocation is to reduce the extent of cutting into Cullen Hill. The main likely

significant negative effect arising from this rerouting is that the road would run closer

by Fennor House. This structure is not on the record of protected structures but is

identified in the EIS as a heritage constraint of regional importance. The rerouting

might marginally increase the effect of the development on the setting of this house,

which is in poor condition. I do not consider therefore that this marginal increase in

the effect on the setting of Fennor House would be an obstacle to the rerouting

described above.

The possibility of amending the design in order to avoid or reduce identified impacts,

as stressed in NRA Guidance, has been referred to by Ms. Kenny. This possibility

arose at the hearing in connection with Heritage Constraints 86 and 87, north of the

N51 junction, but it seems clear that the satisfactory avoidance of these constraints

could not be achieved without an unfeasible extent of rerouting.

6.7 Alternatives without Bypass Construction

The alternatives discussed above are all orientated to the construction of a bypass

around Slane, whether it be to the west or east of the village. It would be fair to state

that there is a consensus that the current traffic situation is intolerable so that the Do

Nothing or Do Minimum scenarios are not acceptable. Insofar as there might be an

alternative not involving the construction of a bypass, this essentially would comprise

the retention of the existing bridge for limited use, together with the diversion of most

or all of the heavy goods traffic from the bridge to other routes, expressed as a HGV

ban. Having regard to the need to outline alternatives considered as part of the

environmental impact assessment process, it is appropriate as part of this assessment

that alternatives other than those incorporating the construction of a bypass ought to

__________________________________________________________________________________


be examined in some detail, essentially with regard to their feasibility and their likely

effectiveness in solving the traffic problems in Slane. If these problems could be

solved without necessitating the construction of a new element of infrastructure, then

the consideration of such alternatives is clearly relevant to this assessment.

The feasibility of imposing such a ban was the subject of extensive discussions and

reports involving the members of Meath County Council, the officials of Meath

County Council, the National Roads Authority and the Joint Oireachtas Committee on

Transport. Details of these discussions and reports were made available in material

submitted during the course of the hearing and it is clear that the officials of the

Council came to the conclusion that the imposition of a HGV ban on the bridge would

not have been a satisfactory solution to the safety and traffic problems in Slane. Two

particular questions arise from this material, which are relevant to the consideration of

alternatives in the current case.

The first question is whether the practicalities or logistics of the imposition of such a

ban have been fully examined by the Council. The initiative for the ban appears to

have arisen from a resolution of the members on 6th

April, 2009. Some investigations

were then carried out and contact was made with the National Roads Authority. Two

particular reports were submitted to the Council. The first report by Eugene

Cummins, Director of Infrastructure, dated 6th

July, 2009, dealt with a ban along with

several other control measures, such as traffic calming and a 30 km/h speed limit on

part of the N2. I would comment at this stage that some of these measures have been

implemented but that, while having had some effect, they are not regarded as adequate

in dealing with the basic safety and traffic problems in Slane. In relation to the ban,

this report drew attention to the practical problems of implementing a ban and its

implications for road users in general. Following further correspondence the NRA

indicated that they would contribute €10,000 to a study to give effect to the ban. No

such study was carried out, though a further report by Maura Daly, Executive

Engineer, submitted to the Council on 31st August, 2009, analysed the implications of

various types of ban but acknowledged that no origin/destination survey had been

done.

The purpose of outlining this sequence of events in some detail is not to criticise the

council in the discharge of their functions, which is not a matter for the Board, but to

assess allegations that the possibility of resolving the problems in Slane by means of

the imposition of a ban was not fully investigated. Accepting that the imposition of

such a ban would have implications for road users in various locations, there appears

to be some substance in these allegations and the information provided by a thorough

study of the implications of a HGV ban would be relevant to the assessment of effects

in other locations on the road network. The Council have sought since then to remedy

this deficiency and an origin/destination study involving number-plate matching was

subsequently carried out, with the results submitted at the hearing. The details of this

are discussed under further subheadings.

The second question, which has a degree of inter-relationship with the first, is whether

the ban as proposed was intended as a permanent or interim solution to the safety and

traffic problems in Slane. Referring to the resolution passed on 6th

April, 2009, I infer

that this resolution arose from concerns of residents of Slane and that those residents

sought at all stages to advance the construction of the bypass as a permanent solution

to the problems in Slane. At the same time an estimate was given of the period of

__________________________________________________________________________________


time likely to be taken up in the approval procedure, the provision of funding and the

actual construction of the bypass. It was clear that this process would take several

years at least, whereas the ban was perceived as an effective interim measure which

could have been implemented immediately. The case against the bypass relies in

contrast on the provision of a permanent HGV ban on Slane bridge, which could have

more lasting effects and more significant implications for the broader road network

and road users in general than that proposed in 2009. Further consideration of the

alternative of a permanent HGV ban is in any case relevant to this assessment.

6.7.1 Forms of Heavy Goods Vehicle Ban

Various options were discussed and it is necessary to clarify exactly what traffic

movements should and could be banned from using the N2 road through Slane. It is

then necessary to assess the extent to which a ban could achieve its objectives, the

likely effects of a ban on other parts of the road network, whether it could be

implemented in a satisfactory manner and how this outcome could be achieved in the

Board’s decision in this case. It is also necessary to clarify exactly what the term

heavy goods vehicle is taken to refer to in normal usage. Commercial vehicles vary in

weight, number of axles and body type (rigid/articulated) and Mr. Mac Gearailt has

explained in this regard that all those in excess of 3.5 tonnes are taken in legal and

engineering terms to be HGVs.

The most radical form of ban would involve the closure of the bridge to all traffic

except pedestrian traffic. The bridge links the parts of the community and parish of

Slane on either side of the river and such a closure would have a most disruptive

effect, particularly as local traffic movements would probably be diverted to

Stackallen bridge, the nearest bridge to Slane which itself is of a poor standard. Such

a solution needs no further consideration.

The next option would be to close the bridge to all HGV traffic and this relates to the

perception, not necessarily unreasonable and based on experience of a number of

particularly severe accidents involving heavy vehicles, that the safety problems in

Slane are mainly due to the high number of HGVs using the N2 road through Slane.

A ban on all HGV traffic would have a much less disruptive effect on the local

community than a ban on all vehicles and could be implemented by installing physical

barriers on the approaches to the bridge; an advance warning system would however

need to be provided. There would still be problems with this option. There are a

number of enterprises in or near Slane which generate HGV traffic. Some of these

have been listed in material submitted at the hearing and they include Grassland

Fertilisers at the northern end of the village, the Roadstone quarry at Carrickdexter,

enterprises in Slane Industrial Estate and waste recovery enterprises close to the N2

south of Slane. The closure of the N2 to HGVs would have serious effects on the

operation of these enterprises and would involve lengthy detours, as Stackallen bridge

is unsuitable for use by heavy vehicles and might also need to have traffic restrictions

imposed on it. In addition there are movements of goods vehicles involved in

deliveries to and from businesses in Slane. A total HGV ban would clearly be an

unsatisfactory solution and would have a detrimental effect on the local economy. No

further consideration need be given to it.

A further option, raised in the report of Maura Daly to Meath County Council, is the

diversion of north/south HGV movements to other roads while allowing south/north

__________________________________________________________________________________


movements to continue using the bridge. That would at least remove the hazard of

trucks going out of control on the hill down to the bridge but would not solve the

problem of HGVs diverting to unsuitable alternative routes.

That leaves consideration of a solution in which the longer distance through

movements of HGVs would be banned, with limited exceptions allowed for traffic

movements having an origin or destination in or near Slane and for which a diversion

would be particularly onerous. Details of the implications and effects of such a

scheme are further considered under the following subheadings. A basic component

of any HGV ban is that the longer distance traffic would be obliged to use the M1

motorway in substitution for the N2. It is suggested in the letter of 26th

August, 2009

to the NRA from Eugene Cummins, Director of Infrastructure, Meath County

Council, that the availability of a non-tolled alternative for HGVs is an issue

associated with a ban. It appears as a matter of practice that tolled roads in general

have non-tolled alternatives but, apart from the fact that the N2 is not a satisfactory

alternative to the M1 for HGV traffic, it is clear in this case that no other satisfactory

alternative for such traffic exists.

6.7.2 Analysis of Traffic Movements through Slane

The current position is that Slane experiences a very high volume of through traffic

together with a very high (c.15%) proportion of heavy goods vehicles. The current

daily traffic volume is 9,207 south of Slane according to figures in the EIS. This is

effectively operating at capacity due to the alternating traffic flow regime across the

bridge, with the consequent likelihood of delays at peak times. There is a widely held

perception that these figures include a high proportion of HGVs travelling along the

N2 for the sole purpose of avoiding the toll on the M1 at Drogheda. This perception

appears to be shared by all parties, though the extent of the diversion is not clear. The

vehicles in question are comprised in three main components. There are those

travelling between East Ulster, including Dundalk, and the Dublin area. Those should

use the M1 but some, travelling in a southbound direction, turn off the M1 at Junction

12 near Dunleer on to the R169, which in turn feeds in to the N2 north of Collon. It

has been claimed by Mr. Sweetman and others that a substantial number of vehicles

use this route. The second component comprises vehicles travelling between West /

South Ulster (Donegal, Derry, Tyrone and Monaghan) and Dublin. Traffic on this

route, the A5 (in Northern Ireland) / N2, might reasonably follow the signed through

route south of Ardee, though the N33 / M1 connection from Ardee provides a better

level of service and in particular avoids Ardee, Collon and Slane. In this regard the

signage is ambiguous but this could be remedied. The third component comprises

traffic between West / South Ulster and the Ashbourne area. This traffic might

reasonably use the N2 as any alternative would involve use of regional roads of

variable quality.

The record of traffic flows on the N2 over the past decade sheds some light on this

pattern of movement. Following the opening of the M1 in 2003 there was a dramatic

fall in traffic flows on the N2 but in the subsequent years there has been a significant

compensating rise in flows, greater than that on the road network in general. The

implications of this are that a large proportion of the HGV traffic crossing Slane

bridge could be diverted on to the M1 and that this could go some way towards

solving the traffic problems in Slane.

__________________________________________________________________________________


There is information available on traffic flows through Slane and throughout the

greater N2 corridor but this information is not complete in respect of all movements in

this corridor, though significant further results of surveys were submitted at the

hearing. Details of traffic flows through Slane are set out and analysed in Section

6.3.3 of this report. It is clear that a substantial volume of traffic could be diverted to

the proposed bypass, though the results of two surveys indicate a proportion of

terminating traffic higher than would be expected in relation to the pattern of uses in

Slane. The HGV number-plate matching survey done in 2010 also included control

points along the longer N2 corridor from Ashbourne to Ardee. As with the inner

cordon, the figures include a particularly high proportion of unmatched vehicles. It is

not possible to verify the technology used and the credibility of this survey has been

queried, as noted in Section 6.3.3. There certainly appears to be a significant degree

of leakage in this process, based on the low level of matching and the apparent high

volume of terminating traffic.

The figures nevertheless deserve perusal subject to the reservations expressed above.

Table 3 below gives a broad indication of the pattern of through movements.

Table 3. Heavy Goods Vehicle Flows on N2 Corridor

Route South-North

HGV flows per

day (0700-

1900)

North-South

HGV flows per

day

Total HGV

Flows per

day (both

directions)

Ashbourne-Kingscourt(R165) 1 1 2

Ashbourne-Ardee (N2) 63 85 148

Ashbourne-Dunleer(R169) 40 34 74

North-South through traffic 104 120 224

Other Routes (R163, N51East) 21 9 30

Terminating flows (S-S, N-N) 146 107 253

Total matched 271 236 507

Unmatched 663 319 982

The terminating flows comprise vehicles from the south entering the cordon at

Ashbourne and exiting at the same location and vehicles from the north entering at

either of the three locations indicated and exiting at either of these. As pointed out

above, the high proportion of unmatched movements obscures the overall pattern but

some points might be made. There is clearly a significant degree of leakage,

particularly in the case of traffic from Ashbourne presumably turning off to Duleek ,

Kentstown and Navan. This would appear, in the case of Navan, to include a

significant component of toll avoidance. The second observation is that, of the

through movements, the proportion using the Ashbourne – Dunleer route is

remarkably high in relation to the proportion using the Ashbourne – Ardee route.

This is consistent with the claims made at the hearing about the extensive use of this

route by Dundalk – Dublin traffic, facilitated by the convenient location of Junction

12 on the M1 and the availability of a direct link to Collon via the R169.

I have little doubt that a substantial proportion of HGV flows could be diverted from

the N2 to the M1 without resulting in an unreasonable degree of inconvenience or

additional journey time for those affected. These figures are not helpful in

determining what that proportion would be and, even with the diversion of a

__________________________________________________________________________________


substantial proportion of HGV traffic from the N2, there is a likelihood that this

proportion would fall short of what might be expected and that a significant residual

volume of HGV traffic would continue to flow through Slane. This volume would

possibly include a substantial number of vehicles in the lower end of the range of

vehicle weights, these being used to a greater extent for local transport / deliveries.

This question can also be looked at from the perspective of a review of the incidence

of enterprises in or near Slane which generate HGV traffic, as referred to above. A

list of local businesses is included in the document entitled HGV Diversion

Assessment submitted at the hearing by Meath County Council. This list is quite long

but contains no estimate of traffic generation, nor any indication of how active these

enterprises might be. At the same time there appear be to be several that would have

significant HGV traffic generation potential and some of these, for example the Panda

and Greenstar waste enterprises south of Slane and the Roadstone quarry west of

Slane, are of significant size and would be likely to be seriously inconvenienced if

they lacked access to Slane bridge. The list also includes enterprises in other

locations including Kentstown, Collon and Ashbourne on the N2 corridor and many

of these enterprises are likely to generate HGV traffic along the N2.

The existence of these enterprises is in certain respects a consequence of the status of

the N2 as a national primary road. Such roads have the function of catering for trunk

traffic movements so that ready access to them would be a factor in location decisions

and in decisions on land use patterns and zoning. There is therefore a dependence,

which has developed over the years, on the use of the N2 by operators, customers and

employees of businesses and this has implications for any proposal to divert traffic off

the N2 on to other sections of the road network. Similar considerations apply to

traffic movements involved in deliveries to shops and businesses in which case such

activities might involve journeys between Slane and places such as Donore and

Duleek. If Slane bridge were closed to such movements, that could involve lengthy

detours and possibly payment of the M1 toll, which is the same for a vehicle

travelling from Slane to Duleek as for a vehicle travelling from Dublin to Belfast. In

this way local traffic obliged to use the M1 in place of the N2 would be excessively

penalised.

Taking a broader view, there has been criticism of the manner in which the road

network has developed in the northern and north-western corridors, as expressed in

the point that no fewer than four major road corridors cross through County Meath.

This is factually correct though the M4 runs very much along the Meath – Kildare

boundary. The implication is that the M1 and M3 corridors should have adequate

capacity to accommodate all trunk traffic movements between the Greater Dublin area

and the north/northwest. In the case of the M1 it is clear that, if used in combination

with the N33, it provides a satisfactory alternative to use of the M2/N2 between

Dublin and Ardee. The same position does not apply to the M3. It is routed

southwest of Navan and, while there is a new link into Navan, the route from the M3

to Slane runs right through the town of Navan. This effectively limits any role which

the M3 might have in relieving the M2/N2. The basic structure of this network has

been criticised but this network is now established and the Board have no function in

relation to it; the current application has to be dealt with by reference to the matters to

which the Board are legally bound to consider.

__________________________________________________________________________________


On the basis that the current traffic flow patterns of HGV traffic through Slane

indicate that a substantial proportion of this traffic could reasonably be diverted from

the N2 to other routes, with consequent benefits in terms of traffic safety and

environmental conditions in Slane, it is worthwhile to examine the practicalities of

how such a system of traffic diversion might be implemented.

6.7.3 Implementation of Ban

It can readily be accepted that the implementation of a partial or total ban on HGV

traffic through Slane would not merely require the erection of a few advance warning

signs on the approaches to the bridge. It would require the implementation of a

coordinated area-wide programme along the N2 corridor. This is not dealt with in the

EIS but has been addressed at the hearing in the submission of Séamus Mac Gearailt,

in County Council reports and by others. The reports emphasise the problems

involved and the likely consequences for other routes but, while these problems

certainly exist, I consider it worthwhile to comment in some detail on the manner in

which such a ban might be implemented. The most obvious requirement would be the

provision of comprehensive signage directing HGV traffic on to alternative routes

between Ashbourne and Ardee. There would not be a ban on vehicles approaching or

entering Slane so that there would have to be provision for vehicles being obliged to

turn back or use alternative routes. Finally there would have to be a system of

restricted or gated entry to the bridge. I do not consider that manual supervision or

occasional checking of permits with issue of parking-type tickets would be effective.

A barrier system would appear to be an effective method of control, with access to the

bridge limited to persons with permits or cards with chips. The selection of the

locations of such barriers could pose problems. On the southern approach they could

be installed near the top of the hill on the approach to the bridge. On the northern

approach the same is unlikely to be feasible as consideration has to be given to east /

west movements on the N51 and to N2 / N51 turning movements through the village.

In practical terms the control point would have to be just below the crossroads,

possibly with an outer control point north of the village. This would have the

potential for causing congestion at the crossroads.

A further option would be the installation of a toll, either for HGVs or for all vehicles,

with the toll set at a level that would act as a significant disincentive for use of the N2

and subject to adjustment in the light of usage and other circumstances. The most

suitable location for it would be on the southern approach to the bridge near the

existing lay-by where some space is available. In this scenario there would not be a

physical obstacle to passage apart possibly from a lifting barrier. Persons with

business in the area or residents would have permits or cards for free passage, or

could have their registration numbers recognised in the case of a barrier-free system.

The suggested approaches outlined above are essentially indications of how this

problem might be addressed. In practice the installation of a satisfactory system

would require more detailed study, involving development and testing of alternative

systems and consultation with relevant authorities, road users and others.

The administration and issue of permits is likely to pose problems for any control

system. Businesses in the area or along the N2 for some distance to the north or south

would have permits for their vehicles but there would have to be a mechanism for

permits to be issued also to drivers of vehicles visiting businesses and delivering

goods to shops and businesses in Slane and the wider area. Meath County Council

__________________________________________________________________________________


might be the body charged with administering such a system. In practice the system

could become unwieldy and there would be a risk that permits would have to be

distributed rather more widely than desired, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of

the restriction on HGV traffic over the bridge.

Reference has been made to the ban on HGV traffic along the quays in Dublin, roads

which are part of the national road system. This ban, which applies to five-axle

vehicles, appears to be effective and clearly it has to provide for access for vehicles

with business in the inner city area. It may work well in that the vehicles involved

have point origins or destinations, Dublin Port, which presumably facilitates

administration. Furthermore the traffic volumes on the quays are very high so that the

effects of additional vehicles using the quays, whether with permits or in non-

compliance with the ban, would possibly not be all that significant.

One particular point raised by several parties at the hearing related to the designation

of the N2 as a national primary road. The basic point is that, if the status of the road

were downgraded, then this would facilitate the diversion of traffic to other roads. If

the road were reduced to regional or local status, the signage could be adjusted to

divert traffic to other links of the main road network. Furthermore such a change in

status would allow priorities to be altered at junctions to favour traffic movements

using roads other than the existing N2. This road, as pointed out above, is an integral

part of the national road network and it is not clear that measures on the lines of those

discussed could readily be implemented as they could require consultation with

several agencies and possibly consultation with and notification to the public. Nor is

it clear that a de-designation would have a tangible effect, though it could be part of a

longer-term solution. I would comment in general that the implementation of an

effective ban would have inherent difficulties but that it is nevertheless reasonable to

consider the practicalities of the implementation of such a ban, the degree to which it

would achieve its aims and its likely implications for road users in general.

A further relevant consideration is whether the distribution of traffic across the

network could be influenced by adjustments in the toll regimes on the road network in

the area. It must be said that this consideration is academic as existing toll regimes

appear to be bound up in long-term contracts with the builders of the roads such that

any such adjustment would be likely to have serious financial implications. I would

nevertheless make some comment on the issue of adjusting the toll regime as this

issue was raised at the hearing. Some relief might arise in Slane from an easing of the

toll regime on the M1 but I do not see this as being in any way realistic. A more

feasible option in the current economic climate would be to install a toll plaza on the

M2 in the vicinity of Ashbourne. That would probably divert some traffic back on the

M1 but the actual extent of such a diversion might not be sufficient to have a material

effect on conditions in Slane. Moreover this would be likely to have the negative

effect of diverting some traffic into Ashbourne. In any case the Board have no role in

this field so that further consideration of such options is not warranted.

6.7.4 Likely Outcome in Slane

It is clear that a significant proportion of the traffic passing through Slane, particularly

the HGV traffic, does not need to use that route and should be capable of being

diverted to other routes. Any such diversion would have a beneficial effect on traffic

conditions in Slane but a partial diversion may be unlikely to improve these

__________________________________________________________________________________


conditions sufficiently to achieve a satisfactory resolution of the current problems in

Slane. The basic question that arises is what extent of diversion is required to achieve

a satisfactory resolution of the problems, a question I put to the hearing. In this

context I would accept that the bypass would divert in the order of 95% of the traffic

off the bridge. I consider that a very substantial diversion of traffic is necessary to

achieve satisfactory results. I do not consider that a 50% diversion, for example,

would be sufficient; the perception, and probably the reality, of hazardous conditions

would in my opinion remain. I further consider that an effective diversion should

comprise a far higher proportion of the HGV traffic. It is difficult to identify the

precise proportion which would give a satisfactory outcome and this is not something

that lends itself to a scientific assessment. Instead it is a deeply entrenched problem

and the nature of the hazardous conditions on the approaches to the bridge is such that

there would be likely to be a significant residual hazard in the absence of anything

other than a drastic reduction in HGV volumes. Nothing other than such a reduction

in HGV volumes would reassure the community that their safety concerns were being

adequately addressed.

The information available indicates that a significant proportion of the HGV traffic

through Slane could be diverted to other routes in the event of the imposition of a ban

on extraneous traffic. Accepting that this information is not complete, I consider that

there is a material degree of doubt, having regard to that information and to the

pattern of uses in Slane and along the N2, that the diversion to other routes of a

proportion of the HGV traffic sufficient to achieve a satisfactory resolution of the

existing traffic and safety problems in Slane could be achieved by means of a HGV

ban. I would comment also that the imposition of a ban might result in some traffic

being diverted on to the N51 road in Slane, though with wider familiarity with the

operation of a ban, this might not be a significant problem. On the other hand the

bypass, in contrast to a HGV ban, would also result in the diversion of a very large

volume of car and light goods vehicle traffic from the bridge to the bypass.

6.7.5 Likely Outcome on Wider Network

The implications of a ban on HGV traffic on the N2 through Slane are that the

diverted traffic, in the absence of a bypass, has to be rerouted on alternative routes in

this route corridor. There is a perception that most of the extraneous traffic comprises

traffic from Northern Ireland and Counties Louth, Monaghan and Donegal travelling

to the Dublin area, and vice versa, and that these movements could better be

accommodated on the M1 with payment of the appropriate tolls. The M1 carries

heavy flows but I infer that it has adequate spare capacity and in the longer term its

alignment would permit a widening to three lanes in each direction. I consider

however that the overall pattern of movements is rather more complex. It appears that

significant volumes of HGV traffic have origins and destinations in places along the

N2 corridor. Ashbourne has expanded quite substantially and has commercial and

industrial developments. Northbound traffic from Ashbourne, if avoiding Slane,

would have to use the R152 road past Duleek to junction 9 on the M1 outside

Drogheda and then use either the R168 road from Drogheda to Collon to rejoin the N2

or the longer M1/N33 link. The same would apply to traffic from Ratoath. The

village of Collon located on the N2 the north of Slane is relatively small but the same

considerations would apply to southbound traffic from the Collon area. These

regional roads are of varying standards. The R152 is of a good standard but the R168

is of quite a poor standard in cross section and overtaking opportunities.

__________________________________________________________________________________


Some diversion of traffic could also occur to the R132 road (the former N1) through

Drogheda and to Stackallen bridge. The former could occur if traffic diverted to the

M1 corridor used the main road through Drogheda in order to avoid the toll on the

M1. There appears to be some restraint on access to Drogheda for HGVs but it is not

clear how well this works and, even if the effects of additional diverted traffic would

tend to be absorbed into the greater traffic volumes in Drogheda, such additional

traffic movements would scarcely be welcomed there. The latter (Stackallen bridge)

is a viable alternative to the N2 and is not far upstream from Slane so that it could be

an attractive toll-free alternative to the M1 that would not require a particularly long

detour. The occasional extent of congestion on the N2 arising from high levels of car

traffic could also be a factor in such diversion. Stackallen bridge and approaches are

of a very poor standard and these are linked to the main road network by minor

country roads but the bridge is not subject to a weight limit. The route over this

bridge is signposted at present only as a local road but, in the absence of a further

control system, there appears to be a likelihood that a significant volume of traffic,

including HGV traffic, would use this route as an alternative to the N2.

While it is clear that the N2 road in Slane is being used by a significant volume of

HGV traffic not needing to use this route and while the imposition of a HGV ban

should succeed in removing a significant volume of these vehicles from the N2 in

Slane, there are some possible shortcomings in this proposal. The information

available indicates that there is a high level of local HGV traffic which can not readily

be diverted to other routes. It is far from clear therefore that the volume of vehicle

movements that could be diverted in this way would be sufficient to reduce traffic

volumes in Slane to a level at which the existing hazardous conditions could be taken

to have been satisfactorily resolved. Furthermore there appears to be a likelihood

that a significant proportion of the diverted vehicles would divert not to the M1

motorway but to other roads unsuitable to carry additional volumes of HGV traffic.

__________________________________________________________________________________


7. OBJECTIONS TO COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER

The outstanding objections are referred to in Section 4.2 of the report and they fall

into three groups. The first group comprise objections resolved in discussions leading

to minor revisions which could be implemented by means of the attachment of

conditions to a decision to approve the development. The second group comprise the

objections of the Inland Waterways Association of Ireland and An Taisce-the National

Trust for Ireland. These are inter-related, have been the subject of discussions but still

stand. The third group comprise objections not discussed at the hearing, which are

outstanding on the basis of the original written objections. The outstanding objections

are commented on individually below.

Rowan Collins (002)

This property is very close to the route of the bypass, which runs past the side of the

property, and the proposed N51 junction. It is clear that the bypass would have a

severe effect on this property and its setting, having regard to noise, light and fumes.

The realigned N51 would not however add to these effects as it would be in cut in this

area. I accept that the noise barrier would add to the obstruction of views and that

there would be disturbance during the construction phase. The Council’s position is

that the acquisition of the property is the appropriate remedy in the circumstances of

the case and I consider that this is a reasonable position.

Mark Laird (006)

While a number of points were raised in the written submission on behalf of Mr.

Laird, I understand from the presentation at the hearing that the points of particular

concern to Mr. Laird are the location of the access to his land and the location of the

proposed attenuation pond. These points have been addressed in a layout revised in

consultation with the County Council, the details of which are shown on a drawing

submitted at the hearing. This drawing provides for a direct access off the roundabout

in substitution for the access on the Slane side, an altered location and layout for the

pond and the elimination of the roadway giving access to the pond. The access off the

roundabout would be marked in such a way to indicate its purpose as a private access.

I consider that this is a satisfactory resolution of Mr. Laird’s concerns and that the

details of it could be incorporated into the development in the event of an approval.

Susan McKeever (reps. of) (007)

The point of most concern raised in this objection is that the proposed pedestrian link

between the end of the minor cul-de-sac at Crewbane and the bypass would seriously

diminish the security enjoyed by the property at that location and other properties on

Crewbane Lane. In particular the need for compliance with regulations for disabled

access would open the path for use by vehicles such as motor cycles. I accept that

there are reasonable grounds for these concerns and I note that all of the landowners

on Crewbane are stated to be opposed to this footpath. I can see that it would function

to some extent as a shortcut from Crewbane to Slane but it would still be quite a long

walk (something over 2 km) and its benefits would be proportionally less for

properties further from the end of the lane. In particular I consider that the routing of

a right of way through the property in question would be a significant imposition on

that property. The County Council have no objection to the removal of the footpath

and I consider that details of the necessary amendments could be incorporated into the

development and into the Compulsory Purchase Order in the event of an approval.

__________________________________________________________________________________


Inland Waterways Association of Ireland (015)

An Taisce-the National Trust for Ireland (016)

These objections are inter-related and can be considered together. They relate to the

canal on the Boyne Navigation which runs on a course parallel to the river on its

southern side. The canal would of necessity be crossed by the bridge on the bypass

and a CPO has been issued with the purpose of acquiring rights over the canal. This

section of the canal is currently disused but the IWAI are implementing a programme

of restoring the canal for navigation and have carried out work further downstream.

Referring to the particular points of concern, the legal argument against acquisition is

that this is unnecessary as the canal and towpath would not have any physical contact

with the bridge, as the possibility of the County Council preventing passage on the

canal could arise and as the need for air rights and access for construction could be

dealt with otherwise. Strictly speaking the actual bridge structure could be a trespass

but at a more practical level the Council would need access on the ground for

construction purposes. The current position is that the parties have discussed the

practicalities of construction and appear to be close to agreement on outstanding

matters. The resolution of these problems appears to lie in this direction, rather than

in an annulment of the CPO, and I would comment that I cannot foresee a situation in

which the Council would seek to prevent passage on the restored canal.

Details of the construction are clearly a matter of concern and the practicalities of this

appear to be at least close to resolution to the satisfaction of the parties. A detailed

construction programme was submitted on the second last day of the hearing and I

infer that this took account of discussions between the parties. This programme seeks

to limit occupation of the canal and canalside area and to clarify the nature and

progress of the works proposed. The siphon under the canal would be at least one

metre below the bed and would not affect the canal. Drainage patterns in this area

should not be affected. There is a reference in the submission of the IWAI dated 30th

March, 2011 to restricted access to severed parcels but I infer that this is not an

outstanding issue.

In the event of the development being approved, a condition could be attached to the

effect that this programme be implemented. That would be a satisfactory resolution

of the problem in my opinion but there is one outstanding matter. The approach of the

Council is based on the presumption that the construction of the road would precede

the restoration of the canal. There is a fair degree of uncertainty about the timing of

both projects and, were the canal to be restored first, that would present further

constraints on the construction of the bridge. It is not possible however to anticipate

every difficulty and such an eventuality would have to be dealt in the light of the

circumstances pertaining at the particular time. The submission of the IWAI dated

18th

February, 2011 has drawn attention to some shortcomings in the EIS but I infer

from discussion at the hearing that these are not now a matter of outstanding concern.

Michael & Elaine Cully (020)

The property in question fronts on to the N2 road close to the proposed bypass

junction. It is occupied by a cottage close to the road frontage which did not appear to

be occupied on inspection. The portion to be acquired is described as part of public

road and effectively comprises the very wide verge which adjoins the road at this

point. While Mr. and Ms. Cully recognise the need for the bypass, much of their

objections relate to lack of detail on the likely impacts of the development on their

__________________________________________________________________________________


property. Referring to particular points raised, it has been pointed out in response to

the claimed inadequacy of information on noise that low noise road surfacing is to be

provided as part of the scheme design and the diversion of a substantial volume of

traffic from the existing N2 to the bypass should tend to reduce noise levels in this

location, a point confirmed in the noise predictions in the EIS. I consider that the road

could be adequately screened in this area and that there should be no material change

in road drainage in this location. Details of road lighting have been provided and

appear to be in accordance with normal practice. It does not appear that access and

road margin details would be materially affected by the proposed development.

Brendan & Teresa McDonnell (022)

The property in question fronts on to the Rossnaree road some 240 metres west of the

route of the bypass. It is occupied by a house of relatively recent construction on a

substantial curtilage. The road in his location is quite narrow but the boundaries of

this and the adjoining three houses have been set back from the road to provide a

verge. The portion to be acquired is described as part of public road and effectively

comprises portion of this verge along part of the frontage of the house. While Mr. and

Ms. McDonnell recognise the need for the bypass, much of their objections relate to

lack of detail on the likely impacts of the development on their property. Referring to

particular points raised, the predictions in the EIS indicate that there would be an

increase in noise levels at this property but the approach followed by the NRA does

not indicate the need for mitigation measures in the situation likely to arise in this

location. The bypass in this area would be some distance from the houses and would

run under the Rossnaree road and I consider that the road and associated works could

be adequately screened in this area. The bridge however would have a significant

adverse effect on houses in this location, an issue commented on in Section 6.3.3 of

the report. Road drainage is a relevant consideration in this area as the Rossnaree

road is to be raised from the frontage of this house towards the east. I consider

however that the particulars provided are adequate to confirm that there would be no

adverse effect on road drainage in this area. It does not appear that there would be

any adverse change in the Rossnaree road cross section apart from some widening of

the carriageway along the realigned portion. I would comment that the eastward

relocation of the bypass has been beneficial to properties in this location.

Bernard Macken (035)

Mr. Macken owns a substantial holding adjoining the N2 road on the northern

outskirts of Slane and on the far side of the road to the bypass. The proposed

roundabout in this location would encroach on to his holding and affect the access

into it. Mr. Macken supports the principle of a bypass but has problems with the

proposed closure of the northern access into his holding and the proximity of the

southern access to the roundabout. His proposed solution is the opening of a direct

access off the roundabout in substitution for the two existing accesses. This solution

has emerged from discussions between the parties and is illustrated on a revised

drawing submitted at the hearing. This arrangement is acceptable to the Council and I

consider that it is satisfactory in the circumstances of the case. It could be

implemented by means of the attachment of a condition in the event of the

development being approved.

Representatives of the County Council have pointed out that the revisions outlined

above would not give rise to significant effects on any aspect of the environmental

assessment of the scheme and I concur with this position.

__________________________________________________________________________________


8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

8.1 Objectives of Development

The fundamental problem in this case is that the N2 road through Slane is totally

unsuited for its role as part of a national primary road having a strategic function and

that the traffic flows on this road, which include a high proportion of HGV traffic, are

having a severe effect on the safety of road users and pedestrians in the village and on

its environmental quality, architectural heritage and economic life. I consider that the

bypass would remove most of the existing traffic flows from the N2 road through

Slane and thereby enable the primary objectives of resolving the traffic and safety

problems in Slane to be achieved. The further objective of providing a higher level of

service for road users on the N2 would also be achieved. While some traffic

movements on the N51 would continue to flow through the village, I do not consider

that they would seriously offset the benefits of the bypass.

I consider that the proposed development would contribute to the achievement of

national and regional policy objectives for the national road network and the achievement

of an objective (INF OBJ 15) of the County Development Plan relating to the

reservation of the corridor of this proposed road free of developments, which would

interfere with the provision of this proposal. I consider that this can be construed as

an objective to construct the Slane Bypass.

8.2 Environmental Impact

The application for approval for the construction of the Slane Bypass is subject to

environmental impact assessment. An environmental impact statement has been

submitted by the applicant and the further appropriate stages in this process have been

undertaken. The decision-maker (the Board in this case) must consider the likely

effects of this development on the environment and its likely consequences for proper

planning and sustainable development in the area in which it is proposed to be

situated. An environmental impact assessment of the proposed development is

included in this report with the purpose of informing the Board in relation to the

matters specified above. Referring to this assessment, a project of this nature cannot

but have significant effects, including positive and negative, direct and indirect, on the

environment. Allowing for mitigation of negative effects, I propose at this point to

refer to the residual effects of most significance.

There would be significant net positive effects on the human environment, air quality,

material assets and the architectural heritage of the village of Slane. Road users in

general would derive significant benefits from the development. These effects would

be offset by negative effects mainly along the bypass corridor, including effects on

residents and property close to the route, air quality and waters. Construction effects

would be a factor in this regard, though they are of necessity temporary and

susceptible to mitigation.

There would be significant effects on the landscape and cultural heritage, arising from

the outstanding scenic quality and cultural heritage of the Boyne valley. The

proposed development, including the bridge and cutting into Cullen hill, would

intrude into this sensitive river valley landscape and give rise to a high magnitude of

change in many views, though its impact would be greatly mitigated through

__________________________________________________________________________________


appropriate landscaping. The bridge would be a prominent feature though its impact

would be offset by its simple structural form and by its nature as a characteristic

feature in a river valley. I consider that the long-term residual impact of the

development in the landscape would be an impact of moderate and neutral

significance, with the exception of negative impacts in some viewpoints close to the

bridge. The bridge would also open up new views of the landscape.

The Boyne valley has a very rich archaeological heritage. The route selection process

sought to avoid features of interest but there would be direct effects on a small

number of sites. These effects, though negative, would be compensated to some

extent by information derived from excavations. The most significant effect is likely

to be the indirect effect on Brú na Bóinne, inscribed as a World Heritage Site by

UNESCO. The bypass would have effects on its setting, particularly in relation to its

intrusion into the field of view from the monument at Knowth. The experience of this

view is of a relatively unspoilt rural landscape. The development would introduce a

further man-made object into this setting but, having regard to the distance of the

development from that Site, the limited extent of that Site from which it would be

visible and its relatively unobtrusive position in the landscape, I consider that its

impact would be a moderate and adverse impact.

The architectural heritage would be directly affected to a very limited extent but there

would be significant positive indirect effects arising from the removal of traffic from

Slane bridge and village. There would however be some negative effects on the Slane

Mill and Slane bridge area arising from the proposed bridge, balanced by positive

effects arising from the diversion of traffic from the existing bridge. I consider that

the overall residual effect would be positive.

The effects on the landscape and cultural heritage referred to above are relevant to

policies and objectives in the Development Plan and it is necessary to consider

whether negative impacts would conflict with these policies or objectives to such a

degree as to amount to a material contravention of the Plan. Accepting that this

development would comprise a substantial man-made artefact and that there would be

some significant negative impacts, I do not consider that it would prejudice the

achievement of these policies and objectives nor that it would contravene materially

the Development Plan. A point of relevance is that the objective of bypassing Slane

cannot be achieved without giving rise to effects of some significance on the

landscape and cultural heritage.

8.3 Alternatives

An outline of the main alternatives studied is an integral part of the environmental

impact assessment process. The nature of the alternatives considered is a function of

the circumstances of any particular case and consideration of feasible alternatives

contributes to an understanding of the extent to which the development in question

would fulfil its stated need in a satisfactory manner with minimal adverse impacts.

The requirement that no suitable alternative exists for the implementation of the

project is necessary for this process and for the justification of the compulsory

acquisition of land.

Alternatives in this case include adjustments to the location and height of the

proposed bridge and to details of the routing of the road but these would still have

__________________________________________________________________________________


implications for the river valley landscape and the World Heritage Site. Alternatives

of greater relevance to this overall assessment are a reduction in the standard of the

road, a routing of the bypass to the west of Slane and the implementation of a

permanent ban on HGV traffic on the existing bridge in Slane. Taking this as a stand-

alone project and noting that the projected flows are at the upper end of the range for a

two-lane road, there is a case for designing the road to that standard but a single

carriageway road with long and steep gradients would require long climbing lanes and

I consider that the approaches should be kept at dual status on grounds of road safety.

This consideration would not apply to the part of the route north of the N51 junction

where the projected volume is less and the gradients less steep.

The routing of the bypass to the west of Slane, an issue examined in the submission of

additional information, should resolve the traffic problems of Slane without affecting

the World Heritage Site but I consider that this alternative has significant

shortcomings. The avoidance of impact on the World Heritage Site would be offset

by impacts on other significant landscape and cultural heritage features, particularly

Slane Castle and demesne, designated as an Architectural Conservation Area, and the

very scenic stretch of the river upstream of Slane Castle. At a practical level the much

greater length of the western bypass, and consequent greater cost, would greatly

diminish its benefits in terms of its attractiveness and time saving for road users.

The last alternative is the imposition of a ban on HGV traffic across Slane bridge. It

appears that a significant proportion of the traffic using this route, particularly the

HGV traffic, should be capable of being diverted to more suitable routes, in particular

the M1 Motorway which provides a higher level of service but whose use is subject to

a toll. Any such diversion would have a beneficial effect on traffic conditions in

Slane but, having regard to the information available on traffic movements, which is

admittedly incomplete, and the pattern of traffic generating enterprises along the N2

corridor, it is likely that a substantial residual volume of traffic movements would not

be amenable to diversion. It is doubtful therefore whether the proportion of traffic

movements that could be diverted from the N2 would be sufficient to reduce traffic

volumes in Slane to a level at which the existing hazardous conditions would be

satisfactorily resolved and at which the community would be reassured that their

safety concerns were being adequately addressed. Furthermore it appears to be very

likely that a significant proportion of the diverted vehicles would divert not to the M1

motorway but to other unsuitable roads and river crossings. Against that the bypass

would result in the removal of a substantial volume of car and light goods vehicle

traffic from Slane.

8.4 Conclusions

This development proposal has been made in response to the severe traffic conditions

in Slane village and bridge, as detailed in this report. This situation needs to be

addressed by the relevant authorities; the indefinite continuation of the status quo is

not an acceptable option. I am satisfied that the bypass as proposed would achieve its

aims and solve the traffic and safety problems in Slane but I accept that it would have

significant effects on the environment, in particular on the landscape and cultural

heritage of the Boyne valley. The consideration of alternatives is relevant to the

solution of these problems. The main route alternative would be a western bypass but

this would also have significant implications for the cultural heritage and would fulfil

its function much less effectively due to its greater length.

__________________________________________________________________________________


A ban on HGV traffic over Slane bridge has been proposed as an alternative to a

bypass, which would not necessitate the construction of a major element of

infrastructure. This would undoubtedly contribute to an easing of the safety and

traffic problems in Slane but I consider that, to be satisfactory, a very high proportion

of this HGV traffic would have to be permanently diverted from Slane, leaving such

diverted traffic to be accommodated elsewhere on the road network. The fundamental

problem in this regard is that the road network along the lower reaches of the Boyne

between Navan and Drogheda is inherently flawed in so far as the only crossing

points along a stretch of some 22 kilometres comprise three bridges, all on the record

of protected structures and all unsuitable to carry heavy goods traffic. The effective

removal of the N2 bridge from this network would confine suitable river crossing

points to the town of Navan, the town of Drogheda and the M1 motorway. The

former two are in congested urban areas and the latter is subject to a toll, set at a high

level for repeated short journeys. Whether diverted HGV traffic would actually use

these routes is not certain.

The information available is insufficient to establish that the proportion of the HGV

traffic that could be diverted from the N2 would provide the level of relief necessary

to deal adequately with the traffic and safety problems in Slane and it fails to establish

that significant traffic generating enterprises in Slane and along the N2 corridor would

not be excessively inconvenienced. I consider therefore that the appropriate course of

action is to have a detailed origin / destination survey carried out, to be achieved

through a request for further information. I note also that there is no mechanism

available to the Board to have a HGV ban implemented other than by refusing to

approve the development, leaving this matter to be dealt with by other agencies.

At the detailed design level and accepting the principle of a bypass running to the east

of Slane, I would comment on three particular shortcomings, which ought in my

opinion to be addressed. The first is the prominence of the route at Cullen Hill. I

consider that it would be quite feasible to have the route moved down to a lower level.

The cutting would be much shallower, and narrower at its top, and as a result of this

the impact of the road on the landscape in this area would be significantly less.

Further considerations are that the orientation of the southernmost portion of the road

would be aligned less closely with the line of sight from Knowth and that the

likelihood of penetration into competent rock would be less. The road would then run

somewhat closer by Fennor House but I do not consider that this variation would

significantly affect the setting of that house.

The second shortcoming relates to the standard of the road. I consider that there is no

need for a dual carriageway on the section of the route from the N51 junction to the

northern N2 tie-in point. The third relates to the detailed design of the roundabouts. I

consider that the design of the roundabouts at the northern and southern roundabouts

should be adjusted to favour movements of vehicles on to the bypass in preference to

movements into Slane. These shortcomings might be addressed by means of a request

under Section 217B(4)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as inserted by

Section 38 of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006. The

contents of any reply would have to be published as significant additional information

and a revised EIS is likely to be required.

I would refer also to two further issues which might be addressed. I consider that the

basic parameters of the bridge design are satisfactory but, having regard to the

__________________________________________________________________________________


recommendation of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local

Government that details of the final design should be agreed with those having a

direct interest in the process, I consider that it would be reasonable to issue a request

that a review of this type be carried out.

The archaeological heritage of the route corridor has been thoroughly assessed but it

has been acknowledged that uncertainty will remain pending full excavation. The

issue of the possible need for further investigative work prior to an approval was

discussed at the hearing and a number of possible measures were suggested by Ms.

O’Carroll. I consider that it would be reasonable in these circumstances to seek

further information on the basis of the measures discussed. This and the bridge design

review are dealt with in the report of Mairead Kenny and indicated as matters which

could be included in a request for further information, in the event of the Board

deciding to take that course.

The conclusions on the application for confirmation of the Compulsory Purchase

Order are that the correct procedures have been followed but that, in light of the

recommendation above that additional information be requested, the confirmation of

this order would be premature. I note that the alteration to the route sought at Cullen

hill would require the acquisition of land not included in the schedules to the order.

8.5 Recommendation (Application for Approval for Road Development)

On the basis of the contents of this report and of the conclusions set out above, I

recommend, in relation to the application for approval of the development, that further

information be requested in accordance with the details set out below.

The Board, invoking its powers under Section 217 of the Planning and Development

Act, 2000, as amended by Section 217B(4) of the Planning and Development

(Strategic Infrastructure) Act, 2006, requires you to make the following alterations to

the scheme and submit the following further information:

1. You are required to carry out comprehensive origin/destination surveys to

determine the patterns of traffic movements in the M1/M2/N2 road corridors,

with particular regard to the origins and destinations of heavy goods vehicles,

and to submit the results to an Bord Pleanála. These surveys shall comprise the

following:

(a) A comprehensive roadside origin / destination survey. This shall take place

over at least two, not necessarily consecutive, working days, shall cover the

period from 7.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. on each day of the survey and shall be

implemented by means of interviews with a sample of drivers. The survey

locations shall include the N2 north of Ardee, the R169 west of Junction 12,

the N2 north of Slane, the N2 south of the junction of the R150, the N51

west of Slane and the R153 west of Kentstown. The information to be

collected shall include origins, destinations, intermediate calling points (if

relevant), purpose of journey and vehicle type. The results shall be

presented on the basis of zones based on towns, villages and road corridor

segments. Advance notice of the survey shall be given only to the extent

necessary to ensure compliance with accepted standards of safety for road

__________________________________________________________________________________


users and survey personnel and regard shall be had to any advice or

directions received following consultation with An Garda Síochána.

(b) A survey of major traffic generating enterprises in the Slane area to include

all significant industrial, extractive and commercial enterprises in Slane,

within 10 km along the N2 road to the north and south of Slane and within 5

km along the N51 road to the east and west of Slane. This survey shall

include details of all HGV movements over a period of one week outside the

months of June, July and August and outside other holiday periods and shall

as far as possible include the origins and destinations of all journeys made.

2. Please submit details of an alternative route for the section of the bypass south

of the Rossnaree road crossing (from chainage 100.000 to chainage 1200.000)

(with appropriate detailed drawings) showing details of the horizontal and

vertical alignments, cuttings and cross sections. This route shall follow a course

to the northwest of the route the subject of the application for approval and shall

cut into Cullen Hill at a lower level. In particular it shall be relocated a distance

of between 75 and 100 metres to the northwest of the proposed route at chainage

600.000. It may pass closer by Fennor House and may join the southern

roundabout at a more acute angle with the northbound portion of the existing N2

road than shown. The purpose of the relocation of the route in this manner is to

reduce the extent of the cutting into Cullen Hill and thereby reduce the visual

impact of the development in the landscape and in views of this area from the

Brú na Bóinne World Heritage Site.

3. Please submit details of an alternative design standard for the section of the road

between the N51 junction and the northern tie-in point, which shall comprise a

standard single carriageway road with hard shoulders. The purpose of this

alternative design standard is to provide a road of a standard consistent with the

projected traffic volumes for this section of the road.

4. Please submit details of revised entry and exit arms at the northern and southern

roundabouts to provide for the detailed layout of the exit points to be designed

in such a way as to discourage turning movements into Slane village along the

existing N2, to provide for the adjustment of the alignment of the bypass from

the southern roundabout as sought in Item No. 2 above and to incorporate the

additional direct private access points into adjoining lands, in accordance with

details submitted at the hearing.

5. The applicant is requested to undertake further archaeological investigation as

discussed at the oral hearing on April 1st 2011:

- Ploughzone analysis on the northern side of the river where practical.

- Studies to identify any correlation between potential features noted in

the geophysical surveys and the lithics scatters.

- Hand testing of any sites to determine any features surviving in the

subsoil underneath..

- Phosphate analysis to identify any further evidence for archaeological

features.

- Any outstanding reassessment of the LIDAR survey.

__________________________________________________________________________________


6. The applicant is requested to further progress the detailed design of the bridge.

Consultations with relevant prescribed bodies may be undertaken as part of this

process. The applicant is advised that the general parameters of the design

proposed are acceptable to the Board. The Board however consider that further

information on matters of detail including any further consideration of the

overall structure, finishes, railings and abutments should be supplied at this time.

The applicant is also advised that a finalised design is likely to be the subject of

further conditions in the event of the development being approved. That may

include a peer review for the final design.

8.6 Recommendation (Application for Confirmation of Compulsory Purchase

Order)

In view of the recommendation that a request be issued for the submission of further

information and for the making of alterations to the scheme, which would require

variations in the extent of the land to be acquired, I recommend that the order not be

confirmed at this stage on grounds of prematurity.

_________________

Michael Walsh

Planning Consultant

12th

January, 2012

__________________________________________________________________________________


APPENDICES

APPENDIX I – Report on CULTURAL HERITAGE AND LANDSCAPE AND

VISUAL ASPECTS prepared by MAIREAD KENNY

This report is bound as a separate document.

APPENDIX II – List of Outstanding Objectors to Compulsory Purchase Order

An Bord

Pleanála

Ref. No.

Objector Agent (if any)

002 Rowan Collins

006 Mark Laird Frank Burke & Associates

007 Susan McKeever (reps. of) Knight Frank

015 Inland Waterways Association of

Ireland (Boyne Navigation Branch)

016 An Taisce-the National Trust for Ireland Michael Campion & Co, Soir.

020 Michael & Elaine Cully Gaynor Corr & Associates Ltd.

022 Brendan & Teresa McDonnell Gaynor Corr & Associates Ltd.

025 Bernard Macken ILTP Consulting

__________________________________________________________________________________


APPENDIX III – List of Those having made Submissions

/ Observations on Environmental Impact Statement

No. Name

002 St. Patrick’s National School

003 Jack Fitzgerald

004 Diarmuid Rossa Phelan

005 Edward and Valerie Greene

006 Michele Power

007 Ciaran Kelly and Elizabeth Warde

008 Professor George Eogan

009 Denis McCullough

010 St. Patrick’s N. S. Parents’ Association

011 Donal Spring

012 Slane Active Retirement Association

013 Ciarán Earley and John R. Holohan

014 John Farrelly

015 Peter Harbison

016 Tricia Sheehy Skeffington

017 Muireann Ní Bhrolcháin

018 Liam Aherne

019 Finola Revington

020 Carmel Diviney and Kieran Murray

021 Beth Royds

022 Philomena Rogers

023 Meath Archaeological and Historical Society

024 Kitty Rogers

025 Carina and Alexander Mount Charles

026 Senator Dominic Hannigan

027 Laurence Ward

028 The Swans and Snails Ltd.

029 Richard Callanan

030 Miriam Reilly

031 Joseph P. Fenwick

032 Desmond and Maura Smyth

033 Liam and Margaret Ó’Broin

034 Aisling Law

035 Mairéad Ní Choighligh and Others

036 Thomas Byrne, TD

037 Grangegeeth Fianna Fáil Cumann

038 Slane Fianna Fáil Cumann

039 Nick Thorneley

040 Imogen Stuart

041 Brigid Moynahan (The Next Level Inc.)

042 Brendan and Aoife Conroy

043 Lu Thorneley

044 Bypass Slane Campaign Committee

045 ICOMOS Ireland

046 Lelia Doolan

047 Gerald Sands

048 Daniel Moore

__________________________________________________________________________________


049 Peter Legge

050 Royal Irish Academy

051 Anthony and Marion Harding

052 Barbara M. Smith and Tony Cuckson

053 Slane Bridge Action Group

054 Professor Gabriel Cooney

055 Janey Quigley

056 Save Newgrange

057 Councillor Wayne Harding

058 Slane Tidy Towns Committee

059 Siobhán Rice

060 Glenpatrick Residents’ Association

061 George J. Gill

062 Patricia Harding

063 Churchlands Management Company

064 Senator Dominic Hannigan

065 Laurence Ward

066 Slane Community Forum

086 Traders of Slane

087 Slane Credit Union Ltd.

088 Patrick Griffin

089 Slane Courtyard

090 Ciarán Baxter

091 Churchlands Residents’ Association

092 Ledwidge Hall Residents’ Association

093 Slane Gaelic Football Club

094 Séamus Ó Tuathail

095 Francis Ledwidge Museum and War Memorial Centre

096 Alice Hanratty

097 Shane McEntee, TD

098 Betty Tallon

099 Hugh Hartnett

100 John Rogers

101 The Heritage Council *

102 An Taisce *

104 Mary and Henry Murphy

105 Alternative A5 Alliance

106 Dept. of Environment, Heritage and Local Government *

107 Inland Fisheries Ireland, Eastern Region *

108 Fáilte Ireland *

109 Michael and Loreta Corish

110 Pauline Bleach

111 Mary Thornton and Alan McCrea

112 Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland

113 Department of Transport *

(* Denotes Prescribed Body)

__________________________________________________________________________________


APPENDIX IV – Appearances at Oral Hearing

Application for Confirmation of Compulsory Purchase Order

Meath County Council

Mr. Dermot Flanagan, SC, instructed by Rory McEntee, Law Agent, Meath Co. Co.

Mr. Rory McEntee, Law Agent, Meath Co. Co.

Mr. Séamus Mac Gearailt, Roughan & O’Donovan, Consulting Engineers.

Objectors

Mr, Callum Bain, Knight Frank, rep. the representatives of the late Susan McKeever,

Mr. Ronan McKenna, Raymond Potterton & Co. Auctioneers and Property Partners

Laurence Gunne, rep. Brian Wogan, Thomas Lenihan, William & Monica

Connolly and Leonard Kinsella,.

Mr. Tom Corr, Gaynor Corr & Associates, Ltd. rep. Mark Laird, John & Mary

Colgan, John Farrell, Patricia Crinnion and others,

Mr. James Leahy, Consulting Engineer, rep. An Taisce Properties / Inland Waterways

Association of Ireland,

Mr. Myles Brady, Chairperson, Boyne Navigation Branch, IWAI,

Mr. Peter Sweetman, rep. An Taisce Properties,

Mr. Colm Gogan, ILTP Consulting, rep. Bernard Macken.

Application for Approval for Development

Meath County Council

Mr. Dermot Flanagan, SC, instructed by Rory McEntee, Law Agent, Meath Co. Co.

Mr. Rory McEntee, Law Agent, Meath Co. Co.,

Mr. Séamus Mac Gearailt, Roughan & O’Donovan, Consulting Engineers,

Mr. Damian Kelly, AWN Consulting,

Dr. Edward Porter, AWN Consulting,

Dr. Brian Madden, BioSphere Environmental Services,

Dr. Tina Aughney, Specialist on Bats,

Mr. Bill Quirke, Conservation Services,

Ms. Aislinn Collins, Cultural Resource Development Services,

Mr. John Bligh, Philip Farrelly & Co.,

Mr. Kieran Kennedy, RPS Consultants,

Mr. Pat Gallagher, Senior Planner, Meath County Council,

Mr. Eugene Cummins, Director of Services, Meath County Council,

Ms. Finola O’Carroll, Cultural Resource Development Services,

Mr. Declan O’Leary, Cunnane Stratton Reynolds,

Mr. Chris Shackleton, D3D,

Dr. Douglas Comer, Cultural Site Research Management.

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

Mr. Gerry Browner, Architect,

Dr. Linda Patton, Ecologist,

Mr. Mark Keegan, Archaeologist,

Dr, Maurice Eakin, Ecologist,

__________________________________________________________________________________


An Taisce

Mr. Ian Lumley, Heritage Officer,

Mr. James Leahy, Consulting Engineer,

Dr. Mark Clinton, Monuments & Antiquities Chair,

Mr. Geoffrey Clarke, Meath Association,

Representatives of the Slane community

Mr. John Ryle, Slane Bridge Action Group,

Ms. Elizabeth Sheridan, Principal, St. Patrick’s National School,

Mr. Dermot Smyth, Slane Traders,

Ms. Emma McCann, St.Patrick’s National School Parents’ Association,

Mr. Jim Mullery, Slane Gaelic Football Club,

Mr. Mike Corish, resident,

Mr. Anthony Harding, resident,

Ms. Maria Meagher, resident,

Ms. Anne Griffin, Slane Tidy Towns,

Mr. Malachy Hanley, Parish Finance Committee,

Mr. Colm Yore, Ledwidge Museum Committee,

Mr. Ciarán Baxter, Slane Community Forum,

Ms. Michele Power, Bypass Slane Campaign,

Prof. Philip Geoghegan, Slane Community Forum.

Elected Representitives

Senator Dominic Hannigan,

Mr. Shane Mc Entee, TD,

Mr. Thomas Byrne, TD,

Cllr. Wayne Harding,

Cllr. Anne Dillon Gallagher.

John Rogers

Mr. Colm Ó hEochaidh, SC, instructed by James McGuill, Solicitor,

Mr. Bill Hastings, ARC consultants,

Ms. Amy Hastings, Planning Consultant,

Mr. Karl Searson, Searson Associates, Consulting Engineers,

Mr. Julian Keenan, Consulting Engineer, Trafficwise,

Mr. John Rogers.

Other Bodies and Individuals

Mr. Peter Sweetman, rep. the Swans and Snails Limited and five local residents,

Mr. Roderick O’Conor, as above,

Mr. John Clancy, Meath Archaeological and Historical Society,

Prof. George Eogan,

Mr. Daniel Moore,

Mr. Kieran Murray,

Dr. Elene Negussie, ICOMOS,

Prof. Gabriel Cooney,

Mr. Vincent Salafia, Save Newgrange and Alternative A5 Alliance,

Lord Alexander Mount Charles,

Ms. Carina Mount Charles

__________________________________________________________________________________


APPENDIX V - Schedule of Written Material submitted at Hearing

No. Submitted by: In relation to:

DAY 1 1 MCC - Séamus Mac Gearailt & Declan O’Leary

(Roughan & O’Donovan Consulting Engineers) Route Planning and Design

2 MCC – Damian Kelly (AWN Consulting Ltd.) Noise & Vibration

DAY 2

3 MCC – Aislinn Collins (Cultural Resource

Development Services)

Architectural Heritage (3A- A3 version of

slide 1)

4 MCC – Séamus Mac Gearailt Traffic Surveys (Note on same, see sub 20)

5 MCC – Pat Gallagher (Senior Planner with MCC)

& Kieran Kennedy (RPS)

Planning Policy Context

6 MCC – Dr. Edward Porter (AWN Consulting

Ltd.)

Air Quality & Climate

7 MCC – Dr. Brian Madden (BioSphere

Environmental Services)

Terrestrial Ecology

8 MCC – Bill Quirke (Conservation Services,

Ecological & Environmental Consultants)

Aquatic Environment

9 MCC – John Bligh (Philip Farrelly & Co.) Agriculture

10 MCC – Chris Shackleton (D3D – DigiTech 3D) Model & Photomontages

DAY 3

11 MCC – Dr. Douglas C. Comer (Cultural Site

Research & Management)

Heritage Impact Assessment

12 Slane Local Residents (number of speakers) Intro – Michele Power (Bypass

Slane Campaign)

John Ryle - Slane Bridge Action

Group

Elizabeth Sheridan – Principal, St.

Patricks National School

Dermot Smyth – Slane Traders

Emma McCann – St. Patricks NS

Parent Association

Jim Mullery – Slane Gaelic Football

Club

Mike Corish – Local Resident

Anthony Harding – Local Resident

Maria Meagher – Local Resident

Anne Griffin – Slane Tidy Towns

Malachy Hanley – Local Resident

Colm Yore – Ledwidge Museum

Committee

Wayne Harding – Councillor &

business person

Ciarán Baxter – Slane Community

Forum

Michele Power – Bypass Slane

Campaign

13 Slane Community Forum Prof. Philip Geoghegan

__________________________________________________________________________________


DAY 4

14 An Taisce – Ian Lumley Letter re Mr.Geoffrey Clarke

15 MCC – Number of Documents Minutes – 6/4/09

House of the Oireachtas Road

Network, discussion with Slane

Action Group 6/5/09

Minutes 6/7/09

Letter containing report of E.

Cummins to councillors 6/7/09

Minutes – 9/9/09

Minutes – 18/9/09

16 MCC Route Selection Maps

17 Peter Sweetman – Number of legal references European Commission v. Ireland

(case c-50 / 09)

Peter Sweetman & Ireland, The

AG & the Minister for EHLG v An

Bord Pleanála (Galway Outer

Bypass)

An Taisce v ABP (John McQuaide

Quarries)

18 An Taisce Dr. Mark Clinton - The

Archaeological & Historical

Implications

James Leahy – Boyne Navigation

Ian Lumley

19 MCC Transparent Photomontages

20 MCC – Séamus Mac Gearailt (Roughan &

O’Donovan)

Note on Traffic Survey Data Obtained (Ref

sub: 4)

DAY 5

21 MCC – Finola O’Carroll (Cultural Resource

Development Services) Archaeological Heritage

22 MCC – Declan O’Leary Landscape & Visual

23 MCC – Dr. Douglas C. Comer (Cultural Site

Research & Management, Inc.)

Final Heritage Impact Assessment (21.2.11)

DAY 6

24 Meath Archaeological & Historical Society (John

P. Clancy)

Submission

25 Bill Hastings Witness on behalf of John Rogers, Visual

Analysis (includes photomontages)

26 ICOMOS Dr. Elene Negussie

27 Professor Gabriel Cooney Submission on archaeology

DAY 7

28 MCC – Seamus Mac Gearailt 2 Maps of recently completed / future roads

for the area.

29 Karl Searson Witness on behalf of John Rogers, Noise

report

30 DEHLG, Gerry Browner Qs put to Dr. Douglas Comer in respect to

his report of 21.2.11 (sub no. 23)

__________________________________________________________________________________


31 MCC Planning Permission Decisions in the

Buffer Zone area for the World Heritage

site.

32 MCC – Document prepared for the EPA by SWS

Environmental Services, SWS Group

Environmental Quality Objectives, Noise in

quiet areas

33 Daniel Moore Written version of submission made on Day

6

DAY 8

34 Map from MCC Development Plan 2001, Rural

Detail Map

Shown in relation to protected views

(i) accompanied by table detailing the

views.

35 Emails submitted by the DEHLG in relation to

consultation stage of the MCC Development Plan

2007

(i) 11th

May 2006

(ii) 8th

June 2006

36 Daniel Moore Submission in response to MCC submission

15 (Minutes / Meetings in relation to HGV

ban studies etc)

37 Vincent Salafia Save Newgrange and Alternative A5

Alliance

DAY 9

38 Amy Hastings Witness for John Rogers in relation to

planning

39 Seamus Mac Gearailt HGV Diversion Assessment

DAY 10

40 DEHLG, National Monuments Service Mark Keegan in relation to Archaeology

41 DEHLG, Built Heritage & Architectural Policy

Section

Gerry Browner in relation to Architectural

Heritage

42 Alexander Conyngham, Earl of Mount Charles General Submission

DAY 11

43 Dr. Brian Madden Slane Whooper Swan Assessment

44 Seamus Mac Gearailt Regional Traffic Count Data

45 Seamus Mac Gearailt Road Upgrade A3 Map & Road Nos. in

Locality

46 Seamus Mac Gearailt NRA Guidelines for Treatment of Noise

and Vibration in National Road Schemes

47 Seamus Mac Gearailt Schedule of Correspondence regarding N2

between DOEHLG / World Heritage Centre

& DOEHLG / ABP

48 Seamus Mac Gearailt Schedule of Correspondence regarding

Carranstown Incinerator between DOEHLG

/ UNESCO (2003-2006)

49 Seamus Mac Gearailt MCC Site Planning Applications in the

Buffer Zone

50 Seamus Mac Gearailt Planning Applications refused / withdrawn

- detailed analysis

51 Seamus Mac Gearailt Regional Traffic Count Data

52 Seamus Mac Gearailt Project Appraisal Guidelines. 5.3 Traffic

Forecasting

__________________________________________________________________________________


DAY 12

53 Seamus Mac Gearailt Updated Traffic Data – addendum to Day

11 doc.

54 Seamus Mac Gearailt NRA – review of collisions on the N2 in

Slane Village

DAY 13

55 Seamus Mac Gearailt Balloon Test proposal from Meath Co. Co.

DAY 14 56 Ciarán Baxter Slane Community Forum

57 Seamus Mac Gearailt Alternative Attenuation Pond Layout at

Southern Terminal Roundabout.

Documents on display at the hearing

58 Numerous Enlargements of drawings submitted

in response to ABP request for further

information. Vol 2 July 2010, provided by Meath

Co. Co. (3 Folders)

1 of 3 – Contains

5.1 – Hill of Slane looking south east

towards proposed bridge (existing view)

5.11 – View from the river valley / canal

towpath – 0.2km from the bridge (existing)

5.15 – View from the river valley / canal

towpath – 0.2km from the bridge (pd.)

5.17 – Knowth Ground View (existing)

2 of 3 – Contains

7.1 – Knowth ground level, Bridge option 1

7.2 - Knowth ground level, Bridge option 2



7.5 – Knowth roof level, Bridge option 1

7.6 - Knowth roof level, Bridge option 2



3 of 3 – Contains

7.13 – Towpath 370m from proposed

bridge/Battle of Boyne site Bridge Option 1







7.25 – Slane Bridge, Bridge Option 1



7.28 - Slane Bridge, Bridge Option 1

DAY 15

59 Declan O’Leary –CSR Response to ARC Landscape & Visual

Critique

60 Declan O’Leary-CSR Landscape submissions

61 Seamus Mac Gearailt Drawings PP-101 to PP 110

62 Seamus Mac Gearailt Drawings GI 503 to GI 506

63 Bill Hastings Balloon test photomontages

64 Bill Hastings N7 bridge photos

__________________________________________________________________________________


DAY 16

65 MCC Schedule of CPO submissions

66 Julian Keenan-Trafficwise Trafficwise Ltd. submission

DAY 17

67 Declan O’Leary-CSR 4xA4 additional images

Rossnaree Overbridge x2

Buffer Zone World Heritage Site x2

68 Peter Sweetman Photos of a bridge in an SAC

69 John P. Clancy – MAHS Further submission

70 Colm Gogan – ILTP Consulting Statement of evidence-access

accommodation CPO Ref. 100/137

71 Séamus Mac Gearailt Fig. 001 – Fig. 006 Construction sequence

of bailey bridge and lands required to

construct bridge piers

72 Séamus Mac Gearailt EIS Drawing Fig.3.14 – Revision A – River

Boyne Bridge

73 Rory McEntee Status of CPO submissions – 31.03.2011

101 - P. Crinnion sub. to ABP /formal reply

111 – B. & T. McDonnell sub. to ABP

/formal reply

128 – R. Collins sub. to ABP /formal reply

133 – M. & E. Cully sub. to ABP /

formal reply

73A An Taisce Properties Submission – Part 2

74 John Ryle – Slane Bridge Action Group OS 6-inch map extract showing road levels

DAY 18 75 Meath County Council MCC CDP 2007-2013 Manager’s report to

members on subs. received in respect of

Draft CDP – 4th

Dec., 2006

76 Meath County Council A4 handout – Tara/Skryne Landscape

Conservation Area

77 Meath County Council Draft Schedule of Environmental

Commitments and Mitigation Measures;

Supplemental mitigation measures

proposed at oral hearing

78 Daniel Moore Closing Statement

79 John Ryle Closing Statement

80 Michael Corish Closing Statement

81 Maria Meagher Closing Statement

82 Cllr. Wayne Harding Closing Statement

83 Michele Power (Bypass Slane Campaign) Closing Statement

84 Kieran Murray Closing Statement

85 Roderick O’Conor Closing Statement

86 Geoffrey Clarke Closing Statement

87 John Rogers Closing Statement

88 Colm MacEochaidh Closing Statement

89 Dermot Flanagan Closing Statement

90 Dermot Flanagan Schedule of Consolidated Legislation and

Court Decisions

__________________________________________________________________________________


APPENDIX VI – Summary of Proceedings of Oral Hearing

This summary is bound as a separate document.

INSPECTOR’S REPORT · Attend the oral hearing, provide assistance to Michael Walsh in its format,...

Documents

Transcript of INSPECTOR’S REPORT · Attend the oral hearing, provide assistance to Michael Walsh in its format,...