an bord pleanála inspector’s reportna 0001. an bord pleanála page 2 of 2 list of observers. 1....

NA 0001. An Bord Pleanála of 1

An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

Reference No: NA 0001.

Proposed Development: Dunboyne (M3) Commuter Rail.

Location: Clonsilla, Co. Dublin to Pace, Co. Meath.

Applicants: Coras Iompair Eireann (CIE).

Planning Authorities: 1. Fingal County Council.2. Meath County Council.

Application Type: Railway Order under section 37 of theTransport (Railway Infrastructure) Act, 2001as amended by section 49 of the Planning andDevelopment (Strategic Infrastructure) Act,2006.

Observers: There are 31 observers and they are listedoverleaf.

Dates of Site Inspection: 21st and 30th November 2007.

Inspector: David Dunne.


List of Observers.

1. Richard B. Leahy, Liverpool.2. James Reeves, 8a Elton Drive, Dunboyne.3. Thomas & Maud Potterton, Rathcormick, Ballivor.4. James & Adrienne McGrath, 9 Elton Drive, Dunboyne.5. John Connaughton Ltd.6. Millfarm Residents Association.7. Hilltown Partnership.8. SIAC Construction Ltd.9. Menolly Group.10. Virginia Kerr.11. Rail Users Ireland.12. McGarrell Reilly.13. Sean Boylan, Castlefarm, Dunboyne.14. Ian Pringle, Barnhill.15. Tony Murray & Michael Degan, Lucan.16. Mrs Betty Larkin, Station Road, Dunboyne.17. DTO.18. Manor Park Homebuilders.19. Gerty Gregan, Lands at Bennettstown, Dunboyne.20. Michael Mc Loughlin, 11 Riverwood Heath, Castleknock.21. NRA.22. Barina Construction Ltd.23. An Taisce.24. Gerard & Moira McGrath, Stirling Bridge.25. Meath Local Authorities.26. Castelthorn Construction.27. Colm Moore.28. Fingal County Council.29. Dept. Environment, Heritage & Local Government.30. Waterways Ireland.31. Tom Maher (Note: Observation received 13/12/07 during oral hearing).


TABLE OF CONTENTSSection 1.

1.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………. 5.

1.2. Site and Surroundings…………………………………………………… 5.

1.3. History…………………………………………………………………….. 6.

1.4. Proposed Development…………………………………………………… 7.

1.5. Observations……………………………………………………………… 9.

1.6. Planning Framework…………………………………………………… 23.

1.7. Provisions of EIS………………………………………………………… 27.

1.8. Oral Hearing……………………………………………………………. 34.

Section 2.

2.1. Preamble………………………………………………………………… 37.

2.2. The Application………………………………………………………… 37.

2.3. Need…………………………………………………………………….. 38.

2.4. Adequacy of EIS……………………………………………………….. 39.

2.5. Conservation…………………………………………………………… 43.

2.6. Stations/Park & Ride – General………………………………………. 49.

2.7. Pace Station and Park & Ride………………………………………… 52.

2.8. Dunboyne Station and Park & Ride………………………………….. 54.

2.9. Hansfield Station……………………………………………………… …58.

2.10. Clonsilla Station…………………………………………………….. 60.

2.11. Roads Issues…………………………………………………………. 61.

2.12. Property Acquisition & Related Issues……………………………. 65.

2.13. Other issues…………………………………………………………. 77.

Section 3. Recommendation……………………………………………… 79.

Amendments to Articles in draft Railway Order………………………. 80.

Amendments to Schedule 1 -The railway and railway works

authorised by this order…………………. 81.

Amendments to Schedule 2 - Land to be acquired…………………….. 82.


Amendments to Schedule 3 - Roads to be closed permanently……………… 83.

Amendments to Schedule 4 - Roads to be closed temporarily………………. 83.

Amendments to Schedule 5 -Roads to be altered…………………………….. 83.

Amendments to Schedule 6 - New roads to be constructed…………………. 83.

Amendments to Schedule 7 - Land over which rights including

rights of way and other rights and

easements are to be acquired………………… 83.

Amendments to Schedule 8 - Part 1- Public rights to be extinguished……… 83.

Amendments to Schedule 8- Part 2 - Private rights to be extinguished…….. 84.

Amendments to Schedule 9 - Public and private rights of way to be

temporarily interrupted…………………………84.

Amendments to Schedule 10 - Land of which temporary possession

is to be taken………………………………….. 85.

Schedule 11 - Agreements reached at the oral hearing……………………… 86.

Schedule 12 – Conditions……………………………………………………… 96.

Report Attachments.

Attachment 1: CIE/IE Evidence to Oral Hearing.

Attachment 2: Local Authorities Submissions to Oral Hearing.

Attachment 3: Observers Submissions to Oral Hearing.

Attachment 4: CIE/IE Amendments to draft Rail Order.

Attachment 5: CIE/IE Responses to Submissions.

Attachment 6: Photos from site inspection.


SECTION 1.

1.1. Introduction.

1.1.1. This is an application for a Railway Order under section 37 of the Transport(Railway Infrastructure) Act, 2001 as amended by section 49 of the Planningand Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act, 2006. It involves reopening arailway line between Clonsilla and Pace that previously operated for a periodof approximately 100 years between 1862 and 1963 as part of the Dublin-Navan railway but has been closed for the past 45 years. Since its closure in1963, the tracks have been lifted and the land disposed of. The line wouldconnect to the existing main line from Connolly Station to Sligo at Clonsilla.

1.1.2. The applicants are Coras Iompair Eireann/Iarnrod Eireann (CIE/IE) and theyheld pre-application consultations with the Board.

1.2. Site and Surroundings.

1.2.1. The former alignment of the proposed railway is largely intact and there is nodevelopment over it. The overall amount of land involved is stated as 23.5ha(see EIS 12.6.3 p153) and the alignment passes through the administrative areaof two planning authorities, Fingal County Council and Meath County Council.The following is a brief description of the route travelling from south to north.

1.2.2. Clonsilla Station to Hilltown.The proposed railway links in with the existing Maynooth line to the west ofClonsilla Station and adjoining the Royal Canal. The stone abutments of theformer bridge over the canal are still intact. The north bank of the canal is apedestrian way but consists of a grassed area without footpath or public lighting.There is a towpath at the bridge abutments and the remains of a stoneaccommodation under-bridge to its north.

1.2.3. From the Royal Canal to Hilltown Stud the alignment is intact with earthenembankments and hedgerows either side. The central portion has been cleared.The Barnhill over-bridge has damaged parapets on both sides and a pipe on itseastern side. Parts of the flank walls are loose. There are no dwellingsimmediately adjoining the line and there is farmland on both sides adjoining theroute.

1.2.4. Hilltown to Sterling.The line is blocked at Hilltown Stud by an earthen bank and hedgerow. Throughthe stud the hedgerow along the western side of the alignment is still intact butthe line and its eastern boundary have been incorporated into fields separated bypost and rail fencing. To the east of the line is Hilltown House with a walledgarden. At the northern end of the stud farm the line is blocked by a concretewalled dungstead. The route of the recently constructed pipeline through thefarm from the R149 is visible with cleared hedges and trees at the road frontage.


1.2.5. From Hilltown Stud to Sterling over-bridge the line and hedgerows are intact.At the southern side of the bridge there are paddocks to the west and SunnyBank house to the east, both set back from the line. The parapets of the stone-arched bridge are intact but there is evidence of cracking and repairs to thecrown of the arch. To the north of the bridge the line leading to a stone-archedaccommodation bridge is impassable due to flooding. The parapets of thisbridge are badly damaged.

1.2.6. Sterling to Dunboyne.The line is intact between Sterling and Dunboyne over-bridges with mostlyfarmland either side. To the southeast of Beechdale housing estate there is anESB pylon blocking the line but there is a farm track around it that continues toDunboyne Bridge. The estates of Beechdale and Larchfield are immediatelyadjoining the line to the west and between these estates the line crosses theDunboyne or Castle Stream where there is a stone-arched under-bridge. To thesoutheast of Dunboyne Bridge there is a residence and health clinic. Here thereis also an intact water tower. The bridge appears to be in good condition and itsparapets are intact.

1.2.7. Dunboyne to Pace.Immediately to the north of Dunboyne Bridge the line is blocked as it has beenincorporated into the garden of a dwelling that was formerly the stationbuilding. This garden is surrounded by tall evergreen trees and there areremnants of the former station platforms in this garden. The line then becomesintact again with the Millfarm housing estate immediately to the west andfarmland to the east.

1.2.8. North of Millfarm the line passes through rough pasture and then tillage beforebecoming identifiable again as it crosses the Tolka River in two places. To thenorth of the river there has been some encroachment onto the former alignmentby the rear gardens of houses fronting the R157. The line then passes throughBennetstown over-bridge where the parapets on both sides have been badlydamaged. North of the bridge the line is blocked where the garden of a househas been extended to the bank of the Tolka. North of the Tolka there is a shortintact section of the former line with a farmhouse and outbuildings to the west.Thereafter there are construction works at the proposed M3 interchangeincluding diversion of the river.

1.2.9. I attach photographs taken during my site inspection.

1.3. History.

1.3.1. Originally a railway line from Clonsilla to Navan was opened in 1862 as asingle line. Following the take-over by the Midland Great Western Railway in1888, doubling of the line took place between Clonsilla and Drumree. Passengerservices were suspended temporarily during the Second World War and werefinally suspended in 1947. Goods traffic continued to use the line until it closedcompletely in 1963. The track was then lifted and most of the land disposed of.


1.4. Proposed Development.

1.4.1. The principal elements of the proposed development consist ofThe construction of approximately 7.5km of dual track from Pace to

Clonsilla along an existing discontinued alignment for series 2900 DieselMultiple trains with plans to electrify the railway line in the future. This isseen as the first phase in the reopening of the Navan line. The line wouldconnect to the existing main line from Connolly Station to Sligo at Clonsilla.

It is intended to run a total of 44 trains between Clonsilla and Pace increasingto 88 trains over subsequent years leading to a peak service of one train every15 minutes. Total passenger demands are predicted from rail feasibilitystudies to be in the region of 2 million passenger trips by 2016.

The construction of new railway stations at Pace and Dunboyne. The stationsare to a generic design and will consist of 174m long platforms, buildingsand footbridges. The style of the stations follows an IE Architectural themealready established along the Maynooth line.

Construction of platforms at Hansfield Station site (Hansfield station will beconstructed in the future as the area is developed).

The provision of park and ride facilities for 1200 cars located south of the M3interchange at Pace.

The provision of car parking spaces for 420 cars at Dunboyne station on theeast side of the rail.

The construction of three accommodation bridges at Hilltown, Dunboyne andHansfield.

The demolition of bridges at Bennetstown and farmer’s AccommodationBridge north of Stirling Bridge.

Strengthening works to the existing bridges at Barnhill, Sterling andDunboyne.

The construction of a new railway bridge across the Royal Canal west ofClonsilla.

The construction of a new foot/cycle bridge immediately north of DunboyneBridge.

The replacement/construction/strengthening of three river-under-rail bridges,one for crossing the Tolka north of Dunboyne, one south of Dunboyne forthe Castle Stream water-course, and a third for the Tolka at Bracetown.

Associated infrastructure, earthworks, drainage, culverts etc.The installation of new boundary treatment works along the rail corridor – to

be one of four types.Public lighting for roads, stations and car parks.

1.4.2. Given that all of the property required to construct and operate the railway is inprivate ownership, the lands to be acquired constitute only those areas necessaryto construct stations and car parks, maintain minimum lateral clearances,embankments/cuttings and longitudinal drainage ditches.

1.4.3. The overall construction period is expected to take 24 months commencing in2008. It is proposed to locate five construction compounds along the railway.Four of these take access from existing roads. The fifth, the Pace Park and Ridesite, will take access from the new Dunboyne by-pass and M3 Interchange that


is expected to be in place when railway works begin. There may be a need fortwo additional compounds at Barnhill Bridge and at Sterling Bridge.

1.4.4. The draft Legal Order and Schedules are set out in four volumes. Volume 1 setsout the articles and contains Schedule 1 listing the railway and railway worksauthorised by this order. Volume 2 contains Schedule 2 listing the lands to beacquired on a permanent basis.

Volume 3 contains the following schedules:- Schedule 3 – Roads to be closed permanently. This refers to the closure of

the R157 following the demolition of Bennetstown Bridge. Schedule 4 – Roads to be closed temporarily. This refers to the closure of

the R149 at Barnhill Bridge and the closure of Sterling Road Bridge whileworks to these bridges is being undertaken.

Schedule 5 – Roads to be altered. There are 5 items and they refer to theprovision of an entrance to proposed station from the R156 at DunboyneBridge, the construction of a roundabout on the Dunboyne by-pass,alterations to the vertical alignments of Sterling and Barnhill over-bridges,and revised access arrangements to private property on the R156 atDunboyne opposite station car park.

Schedule 6 – New roads to be constructed. These refer to vehicular accessto Dunboyne and Pace Park and Ride sites.

Schedule 7 – Land over which rights including rights of way and otherrights and easements are to be acquired – none.

Schedule 8 Part 1 – Public rights to be extinguished – Bennetstown Bridge. Schedule 8 Part 2 – Private rights to be extinguished. There a 3 such rights

and they refer to demolition of the Farmers Accommodation Bridge to thenorth of Sterling road bridge, and relocation of a well and a private entrancefrom public road, both at Castlefarm, Dunboyne. In the case of the lattertwo items, alternatives are being provided.

Schedule 9 – Public and private rights of way to be temporarily interrupted.These refer to watermains, surface water and foul sewers, overheadelectricity lines, electricity pylon, gas mains, telecoms and other services.

Volume 4 contains a schedule of the lands of which temporary possession is tobe taken.


1.5. Observations.

A total of 30 written observations were received prior to the oral hearing and 1 duringthe hearing. The following is my summary of the main issues contained in eachobservation:

1.5.1. Richard B. Leahy, Liverpool.Transportation corridors involving road and rail operate successfully in Europeand are more likely to obtain a grant if the terms ‘transportation corridor’ or‘economic corridor’ are used.

1.5.2. James Reeves, 8a Elton Drive, Dunboyne.Noise issues. Having regard to the noise mitigation measures proposed for 14Elton Grove and 10 The Elms, and the fact that his house had not beenconstructed when the studies were carried out, the observer says his propertyqualifies for all the additional noise reduction measures.

1.5.3. Thomas & Maud Potterton, Rathcormick, Ballivor.Property issue. They object to the location of the proposed temporary serviceroad for the construction compound at Hilltown as it would bisect their farm.They have indicated an alternative access point and route.

1.5.4. James & Adrienne McGrath, 9 Elton Drive, Dunboyne.Noise, vibration, air quality and property issues.The proposed increase in noise levels from 50 to 59 dB would have a

significant impact on the quality of their lives and environment and wouldnot have the ‘slight’ impact referred to in the EIS.

An application for outline permission, Reg.Ref. DA/30429, has been madefor a dwelling on the land beside the existing house and abutting theboundary with the railway. The railway should be constructed a significantdistance from their boundary wall, at least 20m, to ensure no noise nuisanceand acoustic screening should be provided.

There should be no intrusion during construction into the public area at theend of Elton Drive as shown on temporary acquisition map. Noise andvibration should be controlled during construction and there should be no airor water pollution.

Given the uncertainty and potential harm that vibrations could cause to theexisting and proposed dwelling, the railway line should be relocated.

CIE should be required to ensure there is no deterioration in air quality andthere is no pollution resulting from construction and operation of the railway.

The proposed car parks at Dunboyne and Pace should not be built unless thedanger of flooding can be eliminated.

There should be immediate electrification of the line as this would haveenvironmental benefits for noise and air pollution.


1.5.5. John Connaughton Ltd.Issues - parking and access to Dunboyne station, surface water and seweragepipes.420 spaces excessive and inconsistent with IAAP. Adverse impacts not

assessed in EIS as quantum of parking to be re-evaluated at a later date.The access to Dunboyne station off Clone Road is contrary to the IAAP

which states that access be taken from the Eastern Distributor Road (EDR)and not from Clonee Road. While it is noted that the proposed access istemporary pending construction of the EDR, it is not clear from the EISwhether the entrance to the car park from Clonee Road will remain. Theproposed access should be reconsidered as it compromises the developmentpotential of the lands which front onto Clonee Road and the layout ofdevelopment as per IAAP. The EDR should be constructed by IE to allowcell 5 to begin development at the same time as the train station.

The location of the entrance to the station will lead to major trafficcongestion in this area of Dunboyne.

The EIS does not take cognisance of the existing sewage connection on theobserver’s lands. The location of the pipes is not indicated on AlignmentPlan A006. The train station and car park is located on and above theobserver’s surface water and sewage pipes. This impacts on the lands andfuture development potential. It restricts freedom to upgrade these facilitiesin the future. Confirmation is sought that the line of these pipes and their usewill be maintained. The RO should confirm that there is no change ofownership or use of these pipes. and ownership is confirmed in the RO.

1.5.6. Millfarm Residents Association.Broadly supportive but has concerns.Block walls should supplement the proposed timber screens at the end of 2

culs-de-sac and the open space at Willow Park.The residents with side walls to front gardens bounding the railway should be

given the option of having them raised in addition to the proposedconstruction of timber screens.

Any further areas adjacent to Millfarm should be planted/landscaped tominimise noise and to camouflage the proposed timber fence.

Acoustic screening should be installed for all houses located at the end ofculs-de-sac adjacent to the railway and that a regular timber screen beprovided along the entire length of the boundary with Millfarm.

There should be no unreasonable over-lighting of the private areas to the rearof existing houses from the station.

Timetable information should be given by electronic signage and not by wayof public address.

The proposed pedestrian bridge should not afford unreasonable overlookinginto the rear of properties, should be aesthetically well presented andappropriately lit.

Construction hours should be limited to 8.00am to 7.00pm Monday to Fridayonly.

Noise screening should be put in place during construction where works arelikely to exceed 70 dB(A) and this limit should not be exceeded duringconstruction.


The services of an accredited pest control company should be employed todeal with displaced rodents.

If sewerage associated with the estate intrudes into the area of the railway,contingency measures should be introduced to ensure continuity of services.

Vibrations should be kept to a minimum and within limits that preserve theamenity and structural integrity of existing houses.

A liaison officer should be appointed between the residents and contractorand should be on site during all operational hours.

1.5.7. Hilltown Partnership.There is no provision for a Park and Ride facility south of Dunboyne. There

is adequate green space adjacent to the line in the observer’s lands for a P&Rfacility to be provided.

The RO application makes no provision for a future station south ofDunboyne, close to the Meath County boundary, as envisaged in the MeathCounty Development Plan. The RO is deficient in not including a station atHillstown in its plans.

Electrification of the line should be part of the current works.

1.5.8. SIAC Construction Ltd.This is a property issue regarding reference 007.P.42. The observers say theyhave agreed a revision of the property take with CIE as shown on attacheddrawing SK-CIE-01 and understand that this is acceptable to CIE.

1.5.9. Menolly Group.Issue - Hansfield Station.A requirement of the SDZ is that occupation of dwellings constructed in a

later phase may not occur until all of the required facilities andinfrastructure in the previous phase(s) have been completed. Phase 2 allowsfor occupation of up to 2,000 units and requires the provision of a newrailway station. Thus, the occupation of dwellings in phase 3 (units 2,001-3,000) cannot occur until the railway station with a 15-minute frequency isin place.

To date 700 units have planning permission and further applications are inpreparation. It is realistic to assume that an additional 1,300 units could beapproved before the completion date of 2010. The Barnhill LAP is welladvanced. There is a current variation of the development plan to alter thezoning of lands immediately adjoining the station from open space toresidential with the specific objective for pedestrian access betweenBarberstown/Barnhill and Hansfield by way of a new over-bridgeintegrated with the railway station. A planning application for the principalnorth-south road within Hansfield which will provide access to the stationwill be submitted by Menolly Group in the immediate future.

In the light of the above, it is essential that an adequate railway station beprovided for Hansfield/Barnhill as part of the overall scheme and that thestation has a strong visual presence as the focal point and principal entrancepoint for both communities.

The section 49 schemes in Fingal and Meath for the re-opening of therailway applies to the lands at both Hansfield and Barnhill and will generate


14 million euro. The rail scheme fails to provide access and facilities andthus the application of the s.49 scheme is unjust and inequitable.

The design criteria for the station are set out and a plan and layout for theproposed station are attached.

The RO does not specify the frequency of trains proposed to serve the newrail spur. It should be modified to include specific details of frequency to atleast that required under the SDZ, i.e. 15-minute train service at Hansfieldand 7.5-minute service at Clonsilla during peak hours with each trainhaving a capacity of c.1,250 passengers. Should this frequency not beprovided, the final 1,000 units under phase 3 could not be occupied underthe terms of the SDZ.

1.5.10. Virginia Kerr.Property/boundary refs 004.P.23, 004.T.23, and 004.T100A.No tree survey assessment has been carried out or included in the RO yet

recommended in EIS. Reference is made to detailed planting plans but theydo not accompany the documents on public display.

Inconsistencies in EIS and lack of certainty regarding retention ofvegetation on the boundary bank and the impact of works to the road sideembankment.

The boundary to the railway to consist of 2.4m steel powder coated palisadefence – type 3.

The existing mature hedge to be replaced with suitable size material so as toprovide adequate screening, shelter and privacy – non-toxic species.

The existing bank along the boundary to be maintained or replaced.Timber stud railing to be provided to enclose the paddock and be located so

that horses cannot damage new planting and shall include electrified tape.Provision shall be made for grazing horses off site during construction.A detailed assessment of vegetation likely to be removed to be undertaken

and a detailed reinstatement plan provided.The 2 cherries near the house to be maintained.A base-line noise survey to be carried out near the studio and an assessment

of the construction noise associated with the bridge works be provided andany necessary mitigation put in place.

Working hours to be restricted to between 0800 and 1800 hrs and that noweekend or evening works be undertaken.

1.5.11. Rail Users Ireland.Access & design issues.Objection to charging for parking at Pace and Dunboyne. If this is not

withdrawn, the applicant should be required to offer a range of ticketswhich incorporate a parking charge.

The applicant should engage a bus operator to offer connecting bus servicesserving Pace and Dunboyne with integrated bus and rail tickets.

The applicant should demonstrate that the number of turnstiles at Pace andDunboyne are sufficient to cope with the expected passenger flows.

The entry routes for wheelchairs are overly complex. The general landheight around stations should be raised to reduce steps and ramps.

A gate should be provided adjacent to the station side of the footbridges.


The line design sped should be increased to 75mph.All trackside electrification equipment should be constructed in parallel

with the line opening.

1.5.12. McGarrell Reilly.Owners of the land of the Pace Park and Ride. Fully supportive.

1.5.13. Sean Boylan, Castlefarm, Dunboyne.This is a property issue.The exact line of temporary and permanent land take has not been set out

on the lands.The reason for the temporary land take on the bridge embankment along the

NW boundary of the lands is unclear as CIE previously said no works wereto be undertaken to the bridge other than parapet strengthening.

There are certain inefficiencies in the extent of the permanent land takeparticularly in the area of the Castle Stream and at the eastern side of thebridge embankment where the need is unclear.

Re plot 006.E.32A the proposal is poorly designed, will not accommodateturning by 16.5m heavy vehicles accessing the site, has substandard sightlines to the east on egress and sterilises a significant length of frontage.

CIE have been requested to produce drawings showing a swept pathanalysis and sight lines in accordance with DMRB.

A direct access in line with that to the proposed car park on the north sideof R157 is preferred.

The observer’s well falls within the permanent acquisition area and there isno indication that an appropriate alternative source can be found on site.

There are some contradictions in the EIS as to whether a sound barrier is tobe provided along the western boundary.

Details of the relocation of foul, water and gas services running along theline of the railway have not been shown.

Clarity on the proposed timescale for the scheme is required. The 7-yeartimeframe is excessive.

1.5.14. Ian Pringle, Barnhill.Property issue. Strong objection to temporary possession of plots 003.T.12 and003.T.100A as these lands are within 20m of his home and are in an area ofmature woodland providing a shield from road noise. There are alternativeaccess routes which would not require any trees to be destroyed.

1.5.15. Tony Murray & Michael Degan, Lucan.Property - Boundary Detail, Dunboyne lands. The proposed boundary detailshould be amended to a high quality timber fence of 3m minimumincorporating noise mitigation.

1.5.16. Mrs Betty Larkin, Station Road, Dunboyne.Property issue plot 006.P.35. The acquisition of portion of the observer’sproperty would render the remaining portion totally unviable. Accordingly, theentire holding should be incorporated in the CPO. Preliminary discussionswith CIE indicated their agreement.


1.5.17. DTO.Strategic, access and design issues.No clear demonstration how the key policies in the strategic planning

policy documents have been reflected in rail service levels, the pattern ofservices, station design and station accessibility.

The forecast passenger demand figures for the peak period are low inrelation to the scale of development referred to by Meath Co. Co. It is notclear what rail capacity could be achieved as the completion of other T21projects are likely to have a major bearing on capacity and the level of cartrips associated with the rail stations. Phase 2 implications.

Justification for P&R at Dunboyne questioned. Scale in excess of thatrecommended. The longer term case for P&R at Pace needs to be examined.

Station design should be sufficiently adaptable to accommodate futuredevelopment in the immediate vicinity.

Dunboyne station does not appear to have been designed with specificregard to the surrounding environment in terms of non-car accessibility. Itis not clear that planning policies and other objectives have guided stationdesign. The EIS should consider pedestrian accessibility from within thewider area. The segregated pedestrian/cycleway alongside StationRoad/Bridge is insufficient in width at 4m as a shared facility and should be5m. To the north of the pedestrian bridge, the footway and cycle route arenot continued and there are no crossing facilities proposed.

More pedestrian routes should be incorporated into the design of the carpark at Pace. Measures to improve passenger safety should be included. Avariable messaging system should be introduced with the NRA to informusers about the quantity of P&R spaces available.

There is a need to regulate car parking on the surrounding road networkaround Dunboyne and Pace stations.

1.5.18. Manor Park Homebuilders.Issues – Hansfield station and second entrance at Clonsilla.The arguments regarding the requirement in the SDZ to provide a station

with a specified train frequency as phase 2 are similar to those set out in thesubmission of Menolly Group, including drawings of a station.

In addition, it is argued that the level of detail in the Dunboyne IAAP andM3 Interchange is no greater than that of the Hansfield SDZ.

The RO fails to include for a second entrance to Clonsilla Station in theform of a footbridge over the Royal Canal connecting the western end ofClonsilla station with the Hansfield Road. The applicant’s argument thatthis is outside the scope of the project and does not require a railway orderis rejected. It would appear logical, practical and of major benefit to theexisting and future residents of the surrounding area to provide a secondentrance including footbridge in the RO. It would provide certainty thatsuch a facility will be delivered. The inclusion of a second entrance is arequirement of the Planning Scheme approved by ABP(Ref.PL06F.ZD.2002).


1.5.19. Gerty Gregan, Lands at Bennettstown, Dunboyne.Property issue.No direct contact by CIE to explain proposals.7-year period unreasonable.Amend article 5 of Order to ensure that surface water does not drain onto

lands.No closure of a road should take place unless unrestricted access is

provided and is suitably surfaced.No alteration to any public ways unless access and egress to the property

will not be interfered with.No trees, hedges or shrubs on the property to be removed without prior

notice and suitable replacement with a fence or wall to agreedspecifications.

The observer reserves ownership of the air space above 5m for re-development purposes together with all rights and easements.

Any damage to lands not acquired to be reinstated and made goodimmediately.

Adequate compensation for acquisition of any easements.Property acquisition should be limited to 3 years from date of Order.Compensation for any diminution of the value of lands not acquired.Objection to lack of information re mitigation of noise impacts and other

disturbance.The scheme involves acquisition of lands which are superfluous to

requirements and will have a devastating effect on the use and value of theremaining lands.

Access is flawed due to lack of proper planning.

1.5.20. Michael Mc Loughlin, 11 Riverwood Heath, Castleknock.The application fails to take account of the needs of residents in communitiesliving along the line closer to the city particularly where level crossings arelocated. The level crossings in the Castleknock, Clonsilla and Diswellstownareas currently cause severe traffic congestion. The proposal ignores theimpact of additional trains on these crossings. Currently there are as many as12 per hour closings at Coolmine and these plans will increase this to 20 perhour or for 45 of the 60 minutes with chaotic results.

1.5.21. NRA.Property issue and traffic management.Plots 007.P.102, 008.P.102, 008.T.101A, 008.T.102, 008.T.102A, and

008.T.102B as owned by Meath Co.Co. and occupied by NRA andEurolink. The Order should not interfere with or prejudice the availabilityof the lands for the M3 and should state that they will not be made availableuntil after construction of the M3 is completed and written approval isgiven by the NRA.

A condition is requested that the design for the railway line takes intoaccount the conditions attached to the Board’s approval of the M3 Cloneeto North of Kells Scheme applicable to the area.


A condition should be attached requiring detailed design of theaccess/junction arrangements for the Park and Ride facility to be subject tothe approval of the Authority.

The NRA requests that a ‘Traffic Liaison Group’ be established to assessand approve traffic management proposals during the railway constructionperiod.

1.5.22. Barina Construction Ltd.Property issue. No objection in principle to temporary acquisition but the exactnature and extent of the proposed works is unclear from the documentation.They have requested a site meeting with CIE and request an Oral Hearing.

1.5.23. An Taisce.Further information should be sought on the best technology for minimisingenergy consumption and incorporated into the mitigation measures.

1.5.24. Gerard & Moira McGrath, Stirling Bridge.Property issue. The proposed scheme is unnecessary, unlawful, in breach ofconstitutional property rights, not in the public interest and in excess of thatnecessary to provide a railway.There are alternative and more suitable lands available in the area.The development is not in accordance with the development plan.The CPO notices, including maps, are defective.Removal of shelter (trees and hedges) for horses also needed to absorb

diesel fumes. No tree survey or planting of screen hedgerows asrecommended in EIS.

Impact of loss of lower field on bloodstock business not addressed. Securityrisks. Works will necessitate relocating 4 horses.

The house is 7m from the railway line. Noise and vibration levels will notbe attenuated by triple glazing.

Removal of all large trees for bridge works and temporary possession ofpart of front paddocks will leave the observers open to the public withconsequent security and visual problems and the loss of 2 fields. Dirt anddust at house during construction may render occupation impossible. Thereshould be no weekend work or work before 8.30am. When the works areongoing, the observers and their horses may have to be relocated.

The EIS and equine report therein is deficient.What happens to pheasants and disturbed rats? No provision to relocate

slurry pit.If the order is granted it should include conditions requiring CIE to replace

all mature trees of non-toxic variety, minimising noise, dust and vibration,provide for suitable accommodation for the observers and their bloodstockduring construction, and the carrying out of a survey to assess potentialdamage to the premises arising out of the works to Sterling Bridge andidentifying mitigation works.

1.5.25. Meath Local Authorities.The planning authority draws attention to and quotes extensively from thevarious development plans and guidance documents that it has prepared.


The reinstatement of the former rail line accords with the provisions of theCounty Development Plan as they relate to rail/public transport.

The delivery of the rail line from Clonsilla to Pace is considered critical inrealising the adopted spatial policy framework of the County by 2012 andbeyond.

The reinstatement of the former line accords with the provisions of theDunboyne Detailed Objectives and Written Statement contained in VolumeII of the County Development Plan 2007-2013. Objective DB7 reserved apotential site for future rapid transit station facilities on the western side ofthe rail line. Having regard to the assessment of options contained in theEIS, the planning authority accepts the decision to locate the car parking tothe east of the rail line rather than the west.

The planning authority is concerned that the station at Hansfield is notbeing provided at the initial stage of construction. It is considered that thiswill result in motorists from the Ongar area in particular using the proposedstation car parking at Dunboyne although it is accepted that motorists donot normally travel in the opposite direction from their intended destination.This issue is not addressed in the EIS and will in the medium to longer termmake it more difficult to reduce or remove the station parking fromDunboyne Station in line with the adopted spatial framework provided inthe Dunboyne IAAP.

The strategy of the local authorities to have local feeder bus services to thestations is not specifically addressed in the RO. The planning authorityaccepts the points made in the EIS and will await the IFPLUT beforereconsidering such bus services.

The quantum of parking spaces now being proposed at Dunboyne exceedsthe numbers included in the IAAP and the manner in which the rail stationwould integrate with future bus services and the wider development contextof the local centre has not been considered.

The planning authority considers that within a timeframe, suggested as 5years after the commencement of passenger services on this line, thenecessity of the quantity, layout and principle of station car parking atDunboyne should be revisited in the context of the wider developmentstrategy contained in the IAAP for this area and that a condition to thateffect be included in confirmation of the RO.

A condition should also be attached seeking the closing off of thetemporary access to the station from the Clonee Road, as proposed, andconnection to the proposed Local Distributor Road at the expense of CIE.

The planning authority is satisfied as to the safety of the proposed priorityjunction off Clonee Road in the interim and to the proposed access to the 2no. adjoining properties off the Clonee Road.

The provision of the proposed pedestrian/cyclist footbridge immediatelynorth of the existing Dunboyne Bridge realises objective DB17 and theplanning authority is satisfied that it caters for the wider development needsof the lands east of the rail line. The planning authority is also satisfied thatthe existing capacity provided by the existing Dunboyne Bridge is adequatefor the medium term development needs of Dunboyne. The planningauthority engaged in detailed consultations with the applicants regardingthe need to provide for a dedicated pedestrian and cyclist footbridge as part


of the RO and is satisfied with the proposals lodged in this regard. Theexact alignment of the proposed footbridge is unclear from Structure PlanNo. B009 and should be submitted for the agreement of ABP prior tocommencement of development.

The Council is currently in the process of appointing consultants to preparean IFPLUT for the Clonee to Pace Interchange area. This will inform thepreparation of the Dunboyne/Clonee/Pace Corridor LAP and guidedevelopment over the next 20 years. It is hoped to appoint a firm ofconsultants by the year-end.

The planning authority accepts the rational for the level of proposedparking spaces at the M3 Pace Station. However, the statements with regardto the necessity for the quantity of car parking spaces or the percentage ofpassenger peak period boardings are not substantiated and are consideredanecdotal.

The applicants acknowledge the potential for possible future retail andcommercial developments at the Pace P&R and the current proposals willnot limit of prevent future development plans. It is noted that if expansionof the P&R is required in the future, it may take the form of multi-storey.The planning authority also consider that the potential to develop over theP&R for other commercial uses proximate to a public transport interchangewould be appropriate and request ABP to consider whether or not acondition to this effect should be included.

The planning authority has no objection to the design of the proposedstations which are considered functional buildings. The Board shouldsatisfy itself as to the design of the footbridges and in particular to preventoverlooking/loss of privacy at No’s 14 & 15 Elton Grove. An alternativematerial to the tensile galvanised woven mesh on the northern edge may berequired.

The planning authority recommends that the proposed palisade fenceshould be replaced with a more appropriate boundary treatment at the Pacestation in order to screen 2 no. steel storage containers.

The retention of the water tower at Dunboyne is welcomed and should bestrengthened by condition.

The proposed works to the Dunboyne over bridge will moderately impacton heritage but must be balanced against the use of the bridge for itsintended purpose. The proposed new pedestrian/cyclist bridge adjoiningDunboyne Bridge will not have a significant adverse impact on the settingof the latter.

It is proposed to reuse remaining short sections of railway platform on siteat Dunboyne or elsewhere on the railway. This should be strengthened bycondition. It is noted that none of the structures/buildings at the formerDunboyne Station are protected structures.

Bennetstown Bridge - the planning authority has no objection to itsdemolition as the proposed project is considered to outweigh the negativeimpacts of demolishing a protected structure.

Re architectural heritage, it is accepted that the context in which the railwaywas originally constructed was very different to the modern needs of a railline. The suitability of these heritage structures for modern purposes wasassessed in the context of the design process. It is considered that the


proposed project provides an acceptable balance between the retention ofimportant heritage features whilst ensuring that their original context,namely along a railway line, is reinstated.

The planning authority is satisfied with the methodology employed in theEIS assessment of noise impact and mitigation.

Attention is drawn to the existing surface water and foul sewage pipesserving the adjoining Millfarm estate. The planning authority requests theinclusion of an appropriate condition requiring the diversion of thisdrainage at the applicant’s expense. It is proposed in the medium term toreplace these pipes with new pipes located in or adjoining the proposedLocal Distributor Road as part of the integrated residential development tothe east of the rail line.

The RO proposes to acquire lands that were acquired for the constructionof the M3 Motorway Scheme. The Council entered into an agreement withCIE on 16th August to purchase the lands for the M3 Motorway Scheme andit was agreed that lands would be made available to facilitate the opening ofthe railway on terms to be agreed between the parties. The Council requiresthat the proposed acquisition of the lands is carried out in accordance withthe agreement of 16th August 2007 and request ABP to attach a condition tothe RO to this effect. A condition should also be attached that the railwayscheme to include provisions such that the M3 Clonee to North of KellsScheme mitigation measures (landscaping) remain materially unchanged.

A condition should be attached requiring the applicants to agree details withthe Council, NRA and DTO relating to the geometry, capacity, pedestrianand cycleway facilities and programme for construction of the proposedroundabout on the Dunboyne By-pass (R157).

In further letter received 29/11/07, the Council listed the personnel that willattend the Oral Hearing.

1.5.26. Castelthorn Construction.Issues – pedestrian and cycle connection to Clonsilla Station, and provision ofa station at Hansfield.

Regarding Hansfield station, the arguments are similar to those submitted byMenolly Group and Manor Park Homebuilders. Regarding a second entranceat Clonsilla, the arguments are similar to those submitted by Manor ParkHomebuilders.

1.5.27. Colm Moore.Mr Moore with an address in Dublin 6 has submitted a large documentrunning to over 70 pages and subdivided into 7 sections: Part 1 – Commentary on Draft Railway Order. Part 2 – Commentary on Schedules. Part 3 – Commentary on EIS. Part 4 – Commentary on drawings. Part 5 – Commentary on Building Regulations. Part 6 – Commentary on other issues. Part 7 – Commentary on alternative stairs and bridge options.


The points raised are very detailed and are too numerous to summarise. Manyrefer to errors in punctuation, spelling and grammar. Others highlight allegederrors and omissions in the text of the EIS or on drawings. Personal commentsand opinions have also been made about a large number of issues. Aconsiderable amount of work has gone into the making of this submission.There appears to be no overall objection in principle to the re-opening of therailway line. Nowhere in the document is there any indication that Mr Mooreowns property along the proposed rail corridor or that there are particularproperty issues that would affect him.

1.5.28. Fingal County Council.An observation from this planning authority was not received by the end of thestatutory six-week period, i.e. 24/10/07. Accordingly, the Board direction of8/11/07 requested a submission with a latest date of 26/11/07. A submissionwas received on 20/11/07.

In many respects this observation covers issues concerning the provision of astation at Hansfield and access improvements to Clonsilla previouslyidentified in the submissions of Menolly Group, Manor Park Homebuildersand Castlethorn Construction.

The submission refers to the strategic planning framework, the planningscheme for Hansfield SDZ and the provisions of the County DevelopmentPlan. The following points are of particular note:The Hansfield SDZ stipulates that the Clonsilla Station improvements to be

completed to enable the occupation of 1000 dwelling units and that theprovision of a new rail station serving the SDZ must be in place to enablethe occupation of up to 2000 dwelling units.

A LAP for Barnhill (40.55ha) is in preparation and will be presented toCouncil in Spring 2008. The lands are zoned RS1 and the plannedneighbourhood would contain approximately 1600-1800 dwelling units.

A Variation of the Development Plan is in progress for lands atBarberstown. This proposes rezoning 3.8ha from open space to residentialadjoining the rail alignment. It includes an objective that pedestrian accessbe provided between Barberstown/Barnhill and the Hansfield SDZ bymeans of a pedestrian over-bridge integrated with the adjoiningdevelopment including the proposed Hansfield rail station. The draftVariation public display period ended on 18/10/07, 4 submissions werereceived and the Manager’s Report was considered at the Council meetingon 12/11/07.

The terms of the section 49 Supplementary Development ContributionScheme for the Re-opening of the Navan to Dublin Railway Line – Phase 1– Clonsilla to Dunboyne (Pace) are presented. The scheme applies to a 1kmcorridor either side of the rail line. The yield would be approximately 30million euro. It is likely that over the lifetime of the scheme (30 years)additional lands will be brought forward for development yielding anoverall sum of approx. 60 million euro.

Three planning permissions have been granted for new residentialdevelopment within the Hansfield SDZ (listed details) and for advertising


hoardings (temporary for 2 years) for the Menolly Homes site. Inaccordance with the provisions of the SDZ, these permissions are restrictedby condition to occupation of only 150 dwellings each pending writtenconfirmation from the planning authority that the infrastructure phasing ofthe SDZ Phase 1A is being complied with.

Planning enforcement proceedings have issued in respect of non-compliance with conditions in one of the permissions.

An outline of road network improvements in the vicinity is presented.Adequate water supply and foul drainage is available for a station atHansfield. A storm water management system would be required. Theproposals for C & D waste are acceptable subject to conditions regardingcontaminated soil, and re-use of uncontaminated soil and road surfacing tarbased wastes.

The planning authority advocates that permission should issue subject to theinclusion of specific conditions covering the provision of Clonsilla RailStation improvements and the provision of a new rail station at Hansfield.Draft conditions are presented.

A further submission received 29/11/07 informed the Board that Variation 21of the County Development Plan had been adopted on 12/11/07. Enclosed wasthe Manager’s map of the variation and a copy of an application for a newroad to the rail station at Hansfield that had been received by the planningauthority.

1.5.29. DoEHLG.Late submissions were received and returned. The Board then requested asubmission and that received 22/11/07 is in three parts – architectural heritage,archaeology, and nature conservation. Architectural heritage – on account of their age it is not possible to simply

reuse the existing structures generally without modification. The return touse will have an impact on the structures and a balance has to be struckbetween the retention of existing structures of architectural heritage meritand the works necessary to be carried out to them to achieve currentstandards of construction and safety. The loss of structures has to bebalanced against the gain to the common good of having a commuter linkfrom Dunboyne to the city centre. Some discussion of the legislationfollows.

Three archaeological monitoring conditions are recommended. Re nature conservation it is acknowledged that all hedgerows will be

cleared but it is unclear why hedges cannot be left along the widersections of the alignment. Site synopsis of the Royal Canal pNHA isattached. The following are recommended

- All mitigation measures for flora and fauna be carried out including thosefor birds, bats, badgers and otters.

- As much hedgerow as possible should be retained and suitable planting inmitigation for loss of hedgerow should be carried out.

- Where possible all crossings of watercourses should be by bridges and theriparian zone retained. Where bridging is not possible, culverts mustcontain suitable ledges to allow mammals such as otters to use them.


- The applicants should apply to the DoEHLG for licences to relocatebadgers, to disturb or destroy bat roosts and to disturb the habitat of theprotected plant species (Hairy St. Johns Wort, found in the past atBarnhill). A badger and a bat expert should carry out such work.

1.5.30. Waterways Ireland. It is the policy of Waterways Ireland not to allow any water to be

discharged into the canal system either on a temporary or permanent basis. The Royal Canal shall remain open to navigation from 1 March to 31

October with no canal closures between these dates. During construction, the towpath, which is a public right of way, should

be open to pedestrians. Where this is not feasible, a suitable diversionroute should be established.

During construction, the applicants should provide an access route formaintenance vehicles to Waterways Ireland, possibly via theirconstruction compound.

The steel bridge should be painted in a subdued colour in keeping with thecanal setting. Any retaining walls facing the canal should be clad in astone in keeping with the stone on the existing abutments.


1.6. Planning Framework.

1.6.1. National and Regional Plans.National Spatial Strategy 2002.

In the strategy, Dublin is identified as a gateway settlement and, within theGDA, Navan is a primary development centre. Section 3.7.1 says that tosupport balanced regional development, Ireland’s transport networks must- build on Ireland’s radial transport system of main roads and rail lines

connecting Dublin to other regions, by developing an improved mesh ornetwork of roads and public transport services,

- ensure, through building up the capacity and effectiveness of Ireland’spublic transport networks, that increases in energy demand and emissionsof CO2 arising from the demand for movement are minimised,

- allow internal transport networks to enhance international access to allparts of the country, by facilitating effective interchange possibilitiesbetween the national transport network and international airports and seaports,

- address congestion in major urban areas by increasing the use of publictransport.

The section later says that cities and large towns require well developed andeffective internal public transport networks.

A Platform for Change – DTO Strategy 2000-2016 (November 2001).The strategy includes the construction of a new spur line off the Maynoothline near Clonsilla via Dunboyne to Navan. It says there are a number ofpossible alignments and the final alignment will depend on detailed designand public consultation. In the ‘Indicative Implementation Programme 2000to 2016’, ‘construct rail line from Clonsilla to Dunboyne (Navan line phase1)’ is given a time horizon of 2006-2010.

Strategic Rail Review 2003.This report prepared by consultants to the Dept. of Transport examined theproposed direct Dublin to Navan rail line. It concluded that the schemeperformed poorly in economic evaluation and that whilst the provision ofeffective public transport to Navan is essential to enable the town to becomeself-sustaining, the means of delivering this will require re-evaluation in theform of a detailed feasibility study. Phasing was not examined.

Regional Planning Guidelines – Greater Dublin Area 2004-2016(July 2004).The Guidelines support the vision and objectives contained in A Platform forChange – DTO Strategy 2000-2016 and, at 8.4, say that the main railwayalignment from Navan to Dublin via Dunboyne should be identified and alink from the City to Dunboyne could be considered as a first phase of thisdevelopment.

Transport 21(November 2005).In the 10-year plan, a completion date of 2008 is given for ‘extension of railline to Dunboyne’. Extension of electrification to Drogheda, Maynooth,Dunboyne and Kildare is to be completed by 2014.


National Development Plan 2007-2013.In chapter 7, the Public Transport Sub-Programme for the Greater DublinArea lists a set of projects to be advanced over the plan period of 2007 –2013 in line with the timetable in Transport 21. Included in this list ofprojects is the re-opening of the Dublin to Navan rail link (page 134).

1.6.2. Fingal County.Development Plan 2005-2011.

The following policies, objectives and designations are of particular note:- Strategy TS2 & Policy TP12: To facilitate and promote the

development of a new and improved rail based transportation systemincluding --- a new rail line from Clonsilla to Dunboyne ---.

- Objective TO8: To maintain the reservation of the former Navan railline free from development.

- Record of Protected Structures – Barnhill Bridge (RPS No. 712).- The lands on either side of the rail line are zoned objective RS1 –

residential.

Variation 21.This variation of the development plan was adopted on 12/11/07 andconcerns lands at Barberstown, Barnhill. An area of 3.8ha located to thesouth of the site of the proposed Hansfield railway station has been rezonedfrom objective ‘OS’ (open space) to ‘RS1’ (residential). In addition, thevariation includes three local objectives, the first of which is of relevance andstates:‘That pedestrian access shall be provided between Barberstown/Barnhill andthe Hansfield SDZ by means of a new pedestrian overbridge integrated withadjoining development including the proposed Hansfield rail station’.

Hansfield SDZ.On 30/1/06, the Board approved the making of a SDZ (PL 06F.ZD.2002)subject to modifications. The main purpose of the SDZ was to provide forapproximately 3,000 residential units together with associated local servicesand facilities on a phased basis. The following provisions are of particularnote- Phase 1B (501-1,000 dwellings): allows for the occupation of 1,000

dwellings and requires, among other things, Clonsilla Stationimprovements completed.

- Phase 2 (1,001-2,000 dwellings): allows for the occupation of up to 2,000dwellings and requires, among other things, the provision of a new railstation serving the SDZ.

Section 49 Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme.The scheme is forThe development of a railway from Clonsilla, County Dublin, to Dunboyne(Pace) in County Meath, including acquisition of property, provision ofstations, car parks, other ancillary development, rolling stock and diversionof utilities. Stations are proposed at Clonsilla (upgrade existing station),Hansfield, Dunboyne and Pace.


The scheme applies to a 1km catchment either side of the proposed rail line andwill be in operation for 30 years from its adoption on 10/7/06. The Council willreceive the contributions and pay them to Coras Iompair Eireann.

Barnhill LAP.A LAP for the Barnhill lands (40.55ha) is in preparation and it is anticipatedthat a draft will be presented to the Council in Spring 2008. The LAP willprovide a structure for the development of a residential neighbourhood ofapproximately 1600-1800 dwelling units.

1.6.3. Meath County.County Development Plan 2007-2013.

The following policies, objectives and designations are of particular note:- Policy INFRA SP8 gives priority to the implementation of the

recommendations in the DTO’s Platform for Charge and subsequentreviews. Section 4.3.1 says the Council is actively promoting thedevelopment of the railway line from Clonsilla to Dunboyne/Pace and onto Navan and will ensure that the route is reserved free from development.

- Policy INF POL 1 seeks to promote, facilitate and co-operate with otheragencies in securing the re-opening of the Dublin to Navan railway lineand rail services.

- Objective INF OBJ 1 : To maintain the reservation of the former Dublin -Navan rail line free from development.

- Objective INF OBJ 4 : To facilitate the provision of Park and Ridefacilities at Dunboyne rail station, Pace Interchange etc.

- Strategic Settlement Objective SO2 – to prepare a IFPLUT Plan for theClonsilla to Pace Interchange Corridor.

- Policy SS POL 1 : The written statement and maps contained in the 2001Development Plan will remain in force pending preparation of a set ofLAPs.

- Objective SS OBJ 1 : To prepare LAPs for the urban centres in table 7.Dunboyne/Clonsilla/Pace Corridor is listed in the table as a ‘ModerateGrowth Town’.

- Record of Protected Structures - Bennetstown Bridge (Reg.No.MH050-105), Sterling House (Reg.No.MH050-107),

Integrated Action Area Plan for Lands east of the Railway Line, Dunboyne,2005.This is a non-statutory plan setting out the strategic issues determining thedevelopment of lands to the east of the railway line in Dunboyne. The‘Concept Masterplan’ (figure 12) identifies a location for the railway stationto the NE of the existing bridge over the Clonee Road. The station wouldform one side of a civic square where retail and commercial uses would actas a local centre. The centre of the square would have 200 parking spaceswith access from a new north-south distributor road but not from CloneeRoad. To the north of the station square and parallel to the eastern side of therailway line there would be a linear parking area for 100 cars together with abus station, community facility and primary school. The plan has 3 phasesand the station, local centre and car park form cell 5 to be developed in phase3.


Section 49 Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme.It is noted that the planning authority has adopted a similar s.49 scheme tothat of Fingal regarding the Clonsilla to Pace railway corridor.


1.7. Environmental Impact Statement.

1.7.1. The application is accompanied by an EIS in four volumes:Volume 1 - a non-technical summary.Volume 2 consists of 4 chapters giving background, description of the

proposed development, consideration of alternatives, and public consultation.Volume 3 consists of 14 chapters giving a description of the environmental

impacts and mitigation measures under the prescribed headings.Volume 4 is in two parts. Part 1 consists of 4 appendices under the headings

of alignment and station layout drawings, preliminary EIS report,consultations, and ecology report. Part 2 contains 8 appendices consisting oftechnical reports.

1.7.2. Description.A detailed description of the development and all proposed works is given inVolumes 2 and 3 of the EIS.

1.7.3. Alternatives.Section 4 of Volume II considers alternative corridors, services and operationalform. The overall proposal is based on the findings of a number of keyfeasibility assessment and strategic planning studies. A summary of theprovisions of the key development documents is provided. Consideration ofalternative corridors was carried out in the Dublin Suburban Rail StrategicReview 2000 and the proposed development was the preferred corridor.

A series of value management workshops in 2004 considered options for singleor double track. A workshop in 2007 established project teams and managementmethodology. Alternative locations for stations at Dunboyne and Pace arereported and were selected using environmental criteria.

1.7.4. Human Beings.Section 7 examines existing population and employment and their forecasts withreference to the development plans. It details the phasing provisions of theHansfield SDZ. Impacts, during construction and during operation, areconsidered under the headings of population and employment, residentialcommunity, agriculture, the working and visiting community, mobility,community severance, and safety. Some of these are considered in detail later inthe EIS, e.g. noise impact on the residential community. Mitigation measuresare outlined in general. Of note are the traffic management arrangementsnecessary during construction, and the accommodation bridges for agriculture.

1.7.5. Fauna and flora.Surveys were carried out of habitats and flora (April & June 2007), mammals,amphibians and reptiles (April & May 2007) and bats (May 2007). Bird specieswere surveyed during the fieldwork for habitats and observations on winterbirds were made in January.

The most important habitats are the pNHA at the Royal Canal and the un-designated Tolka River system that is of regional importance. Scrub clearanceof the line under supervision was carried out during the preliminary site


clearance. The hedgerows along most of the line have an average height of 6-7mand very mature tree standards do not occur, reflecting the past maintenance oftrees along the line. The hedgerows are rated as having moderate value of localimportance and are dominated by ash and hawthorn. Some whitebeam are ofnote. A typical array of herbs and ferns are present in the ground layer. Thereare no legally protected plant species within the study area but cowslip (RedData Book) occurs along parts of the line. There are some areas of semi-naturalgrassland that are of recent origin and these are considered to have moderatevalue in a local context.

The flora species of particular conservation interest that were present or may beexpected to occur include otter, badger, Irish hare, hedgehog and a number ofbat species. There are no bird species which occur solely along the corridor butthe species present utilise the habitats along the line and on adjoining lands.Bird species of note include kingfisher, yellowhammer, sand martin, swallow,stonechat and buzzards. All other bird species are commonly occurring in thecountryside.

The impact assessment elements of particular note areThe actual placement of a bridge over the canal would not be expected to

have any impacts on habitats.The scheme will involve complete clearance of all vegetation from the line as

well as from the sites for the proposed stations and associated car parkingareas. Therefore all existing habitats will be lost. This is considered to be amoderate negative impact.

New bridges across the Tolka will not directly affect the habitat.Some protected fauna species such as pygmy shrew and hedgehog will be

directly impacted. There are limited ways to protect such species and bothare common in Ireland.

While badger setts will be disturbed and some foraging habitat will be lost,there are not expected to be any long-term significant impacts .

Otters are relatively tolerant of disturbance and the proposed development isnot likely to reduce or impact on this species unduly if adequate mitigationmeasures are taken.

Bat activity is high along the line and it provides a significant commutingcorridor and roosting sites at bridges and some mature trees. Thedevelopment is considered to have a moderate negative impact.

As all bird species also use adjoining habitats it is expected they willcontinue to have a presence in the immediate area after construction. Thekingfisher species is not expected to be affected by the scheme, other than byminor disturbance.

Section 8.5 sets out detailed mitigation measures with particular reference tootters, badgers and bats. The section lists measures that should be undertaken,including evacuation of badgers by a badger expert and the appointment of a batexpert. Owing to the existing relatively low ecological interest along the routecorridor, and subject to full incorporation of mitigation measures and bestpractice design and operation of the proposed development, it is considered thatthe overall impact of the scheme on habitats, vegetation and flora may beconsidered as minor negative.


1.7.6. Soils, geology and hydrogeology.Soil investigations were carried out at 11 locations (table 9.1) in May 2007. Theresults indicated that the majority of samples were well within the DutchGuidelines Target Values but some exceeded them (table 9.2). The mainexceedance was for copper at location TP89. Further investigation will beundertaken. Nine groundwater monitoring wells were installed. The results arepresented in table 9.6-9.8 and indicated that the majority were well within theDutch Target Levels. Where target levels were exceeded the results in mostcases were less than half the intervention levels.

Figure 9.1 presents aquifer vulnerability based on GSI data. Section 9.3.5 saysthere is a well at chainage 4870 south of Dunboyne Bridge that will have to bemoved east prior to construction works in the area.

Section 9.4 identifies potential impacts arising from works to the bridges,culverts, station buildings, car parks, and earthworks. The handling ofcontaminated soil is dealt with in section 15 of the EIS covering Waste.Mitigation measures during construction are presented for soil excavation andstockpiling control, fuel and chemical handling, transport and storage, and thesourcing of aggregates. During the operational phase mitigations cover leaksand spillages from trains, the use of bio-degradable herbicides, sprayingguidelines, and the provision of oil interceptors at station car parks.

1.7.7. Water.The proposed railway crosses the Tolka River (at 3 locations), the Dunboyne orCastle Stream and the Royal Canal. The Tolka is not designated as a NHA orSAC. Water quality data for the Tolka and Castle Stream is presented from EPAmonitoring and shows phosphate pollution. Sampling of the Royal Canal by theCentral Fisheries Board showed no breaches of nutrient or faecal coliformthreshold limits.

The works associated with the railway that have potential for impact particularlyduring the construction of culverts and bridges. Potential impacts may arisefrom removal of soil cover, ponding during flooding with release of silt orsuspended solids, discharge of raw concrete, spillage of fuels or chemicals, anduncontained spillage of domestic effluent.

Mitigation measures to protect surface waters are set out in 10.4.2 and includepreparation of a EMP. Baseline water quality surveys show that the majority ofmeasured parameters are within the relevant water quality standards. Furthersurveys will be carried out on a quarterly basis during construction. Mitigationmeasures during operation are set out in 10.5.2 and include attenuation frompaved areas such as car parks. However the system has not been designed andalternatives to attenuation by underground tanks may be used.

A Preliminary Flood Study is contained in Appendix L2 and there are nopredicted impacts on stormwaters arising from construction and operation. Thestudy recommends that track level and substructure be raised above the 1/100-year flood level and this results in a build up of up to 2m above existing ground


levels at Pace. The loss of flood plain storage by car park construction at Pacehas been discussed and alternatives are available.

1.7.8. Noise and vibration.Section 11.2.1 reviews noise assessment criteria and a criterion of 60 dB(A)LAeq 06.00-00.00 (free field) is adopted, above which the impact is judged to be ofmoderate significance (justification contained in Appendix E). Baseline noisesurveys were carried out at 14 locations along the line during March & April2007. Predicted noise assessment for both construction and operation arepresented.

During construction for houses within 20m of the track, the noise levels arelikely to significantly exceed 70 dB(A) for a short duration but as worksprogress away from a house the levels will fall off rapidly and beyond 50m thelevel would be less than 70 dB(A). As there will be no blasting it is expectedthat vibration levels at nearby properties will be comfortably within thevibration limits for protection against structural damage (NRA standards) and interms of nuisance are likely to be imperceptible. During operation there are 4locations identified where noise levels are predicted to equal or exceed the 60dB(A) criterion. It is not possible to predict vibration levels during operationwith absolute certainty, but based on measured ground vibration levels of lessthan 0.5mm/s at 5m from the track, there is no potential for any cosmetic orstructural effects on buildings along the line.

Mitigation measures are set out in 11.5. During construction, they includeworking hours and setting noise limits with the use of temporary screening ifnecessary. During operation, acoustic screening is proposed at the 4 sensitivelocations referred to above. Section 11.7 says noise monitoring should beundertaken.

1.7.9. Air quality and Climate.Air monitoring surveys were carried out at 4 locations during February andMarch 2007. Sensitive residential and ecological receptors were identified.

During construction, the main impacts on air quality will arise from increasedtraffic and from excavations, earth moving and demolition, and fromtransportation and storage of materials at compounds. The principal mitigationmeasures will be identified through the Contractor’s EMP and MethodStatements supported by a Pollution Incident Control Plan. A Dust Control Planwill be implemented and its main control measures are outlined (page 143).Wheel wash facilities are mentioned.

A comparative analysis is presented of rail and road emissions during theoperational phase. Mitigation measures include the use of new diesel poweredtrains designed to comply with the relevant (specified) current and future EUlegislation.

Under the heading of climate, the EIS says there is no distinctive micro-climate on site. There is a general discussion of greenhouse gases andacidification. It is predicted that the construction phase will not have any


significant adverse impact on climate. During operation, train traffic will emitgreenhouse gases in the form of CO2 but the levels will be significantly lessthan other forms of traffic. Taking account of the traffic that will be displacedby the railway, a slightly positive impact is predicted.

1.7.10. Landscape and visual.Photomontages are not presented because the alignment has a low level ofvisibility from public roads and the most significant visual and landscapechanges will occur at Pace and are determined to a greater extent by the M3motorway.

Section 13.5.1 says there will be a planting plan around the new railwaystations and in the associated car parks, and screen planting will be provided inselected locations. The landscape and visual impacts are described in sections13.6.3 and 13.6.4.

Locations for planting and associated works are listed in 13.8.3. Broadly thelocations refer to the stations and car parks. Planting is also proposedAdjoining the property of St. Joseph’s Hospital at Clonsilla,Adjoining the properties to the north and south of Sterling Bridge.

Buffalo fencing with sections of acoustic screening is proposed at the housingestates immediately north and south of Dunboyne Bridge.

1.7.11. Material assets.Minimal use of natural resources during construction phase – aggregates forballast and road & bridge improvement, new rail track, and the use of fuels formachinery. During the operational phase, rail transport is known to use 4 to 6times less direct energy per tonne kilometre than transport by road. There areadequate electricity and telecommunications services in the area. Mains watersupply will be provided at the two stations. Foul drainage for Dunboynestation will connect to public sewers. Foul effluent at Pace station will have adedicated domestic treatment system. It is noted that the existing natural gaspipe crosses the line on the deck of Stirling Bridge and safety issues arise.

The project will not have any significant impact on natural resources or publicutilities or other services.

1.7.12. WasteSection 15 examines the nature of waste arising from construction (table 15.2).The operational phase will not lead to significant increases in waste quantitiesas they are expected to be mainly mixed municipal waste. Food services willnot be provided on the trains.

The principal mitigation measure will be the development of a WasteManagement Plan for the project (15.3.4) covering specified areas. Of note inrelation to waste soil (15.4.2), it is proposed to carry out a trial pitting exerciseprior to disturbance of contaminated soil supervised by a specialist. Specificmeasures are set out for storing and disposal of contaminated soil. Othermitigation measures are of a standard nature.


1.7.13. TrafficThis section is based on Appendix H and examines the background trafficflows on the road network in the immediate vicinity of the line. It predicts theamount of construction traffic and provides an assessment of the quantum ofparking required at both Pace and Dunboyne stations. The projected impacts oftraffic generation for opening year (2010) and plan year (2025) are examinedin conjunction with road proposals and are deemed to be satisfactory.Appendix H (page 30) says it is envisaged that Clonsilla Station would have a15-minute service frequency during peak hours from December 2008.Therefore, the project would not result in any additional services or roadclosures at existing level crossings on the existing line between ClonsillaStation and Docklands.

Works at the bridges will involve temporary road closures. In the case ofDunboyne Bridge, a single lane with traffic control system will operate.Mitigation measures are set out in 16.5.

1.7.14. Cultural Heritage – Architectural Heritage.Section 17 identifies a set of structures associated with the former railway thathave heritage value. These include the following: Engine shed and turntable between the main line and the

Clonsilla/Dunboyne line west of Clonsilla. The shed is without a roof andis overgrown. No works are proposed to these structures.

Stone abutments of former bridge over the Royal Canal. It is proposed toretain these and erect a new canal bridge. Predicted impact is positive.

The remains of an under-bridge just west of the canal crossing. It isproposed to remove these damaged remains.

A stone arched over-bridge at Barnhill that is a protected structure. It isproposed to remove the stone parapet walls and replace them with higherconcrete parapets faced with stone internally. Damaged or missingcapping stones on the wing walls will be replaced. The existing unsightlyguarding each side of the ramps up to the bridge will be replaced by in-situ concrete guarding.

The stone arched over-bridge at Sterling. The arch would be demolishedas it shows clear evidence of structural failure. Significant heritage impactbut the bridge is failing. A new concrete portal span bridge would beerected on the existing abutments.

A stone arched accommodation over-bridge just north of Sterling, whichit is proposed to demolish. Slight negative impact as the bridge is a minorone and not generally visible.

Retain stone arched under-bridge spanning stream south of Dunboyne. Retain water tower at Dunboyne – NIAH Regional Rating. Retain stone arched over-bridge at Dunboyne - NIAH Regional Rating. It

is proposed to remove the stone parapet walls and replace them withhigher concrete parapets faced with stone internally. Damaged or missingcapping stones on the wing walls will be replaced. Provide guarding eachside of the ramps up to the bridge in precast and in-situ concrete walls.Moderate negative impact.


Retain station house (in domestic use) and outbuildings (other than thoseattached to the bridge embankment). The remaining short sections ofrailway platform will be reused on site or elsewhere on the railway.

Two stone arched under-bridges spanning the Tolka River at Bracetownwould be removed and replaced. Slight negative impact as these are minorstructures.

Demolish stone arched over-bridge at Bennetstown – a protectedstructure. Profound negative impact. Due to extensive flooding in the area,the proposed new level of the rail line in this area is some 1.5m above theoriginal level. There is, therefore, insufficient clearance under the existingbridge arch.

Retain stone abutments of under-bridge over Tolka River at Bennetstownwith a new bridge span being added.

It is predicted that electrification (attaching supports to the undersides ofBarnhill and Dunboyne over-bridges) will only have an imperceptible to slightneutral impact on heritage bridges.

1.7.15. Cultural Heritage – Archaeological Heritage.This section states that an examination of the RMP and SMR maps for the areaindicate that there are no recorded archaeological monuments within a 500mcorridor on either side of the railway track. Sites levelled in the past may notpresent any surface remains and the sub-surface evidence may still remainbelow the modern surface and only be detected when ground is disturbed.Consequently, impact on existing archaeological heritage is considered to belimited and the greatest potential impacts will arise during the constructionphase.

As mitigation, it is recommended that no construction, land take or topsoilremoval take place without the presence of a suitably qualified archaeologist.A licensed archaeologist should be retained for the duration of the relevantgroundworks and a monitoring programme should include the areas of the twostations, car parks at Dunboyne and Pace, works on overbridges andunderbridges, construction compounds, including maintenance and accessroads, and the removal of topsoil along the horizontal clearance area on bothsides of the railway line.

1.7.16. Interactions.Section 19 examines cumulative and indirect impacts and concludes that therewill be no significant negative impacts. Interaction of impacts is also examinedand visually represented on figure 19.1. No significant negative impacts areidentified.


1.9. Oral Hearing.

1.9.1. At the Direction of the Board, I conducted an oral hearing on 10th to 14th

December 2007 at the Board’s offices. The proceedings were recorded bystenographers and a transcript of the hearing in five volumes is attached. Ahard copy of the evidence presented by CIE/IE is contained in ReportAttachment 1 and that of Fingal and Meath County Councils in ReportAttachment 2. During the hearing the Board received letters from someobservers and these together with hard copies of oral evidence presented to thehearing by other observers are contained in Report Attachment 3.

1.9.2. On the final day of the hearing, CIE/IE proposed amendments to the draftRailway Order following agreements with observers. These are contained inReport Attachment 4. They also submitted a folder containing ‘Responses toSubmissions’ and these are in Report Attachment 5.

1.9.3. The following is a list of appearances and the order of presentation:

Monday 10th December 2007.

Presentation of evidence by CIE/IE.Maurice Gaffney S.C assisted by Conleth Bradley S.C and Michael

O’Donnell S.C – Opening.Tom Finn – Strategic Background.Fiona O’Sullivan – Project Overview.Peter Cunningham – Property Referencing & Landtake.Barry Kenny – Project Public Consultation.Oliver Doyle – Operations Precis.John de Villiers – Engineering.John de Villiers – Construction Strategy.Mags Dalton – EIS Overview.Brendan Allen – Assessment of Relevant Planning Issues.Bill Hastings – Architectural Heritage & Visual Impact.Michael Cregan – Landscape Assessment.Colin Doyle – Noise.Seamus Quigley – Roads and Traffic.

Continued overleaf


Tuesday 11th December 2007.

Continuation of Presentation by CIE/IE.Dr. Kevin Dodd – Impact on Bloodstock.

Questions to CIE/IEEamon Galligan S.C for Hilltown Partnership.Brendan Kilty S.C for Sean Boylan.Patrick Butler for Menolly Homes/Manor Park Homebuilders.Rory McEntee, Law Agent for Meath County Council.Joan Caffrey for Fingal County Council.Gary O’Brien for Fingal County Council.Colm Moore.

Presentation of evidence by Fingal County Council.Joan Caffrey – PlanningGary O’Brien – Roads.

Presentation of evidence by Meath County Council.Rory McEntee – Opening.Bernard Green – Planning.Jim Gibney – Roads.Tim O’Leary – Drainage.Jill Chadwick – Conservation.Philip Bayfield – Traffic.John McGrath – Roads.

Presentation of evidence by Hilltown Partnership.Eamon Galligan S.C.

Presentation of evidence by Menolly Homes/Manor ParkHomebuilders.Douglas Hyde.

Presentation of evidence by Castlethorn Construction.Stephen Little.

Wednesday 12th December 2007.

Presentation of evidence by Observers.Ray O’Malley for Gerard McGrath.Des Laydon for Gerard McGrath.

Update on discussions between CIE/IE and Menolly Homes/ManorPark Homebuilders re Hansfield Station.

Adjournment.Note: There was no after lunch session.


Thursday 13th December 2007.

Presentation of evidence by Observers.Ian Pringle.C. McGarry (RPS) for John Connaughton Ltd.Owen Shinkwin for DTO.

Update on discussions between CIE/IE and Menolly Homes/ManorPark Homebuilders re Hansfield Station.

Adjournment.

Friday 14th December 2007.

Responses and submission of amendments by CIE/IE.Comments from

Gerard McGrath.Rory McEntee for Meath County Council.Joan Caffrey for Fingal County Council.Gary O’Brien for Fingal County Council.

Closing Submission by CIE/IE.


SECTION 2 - ASSESSMENT.

2.1. Preamble.

2.1.1. I consider that the documentation submitted with the draft Railway Order,including the EIS, and the written and oral submissions by CIE/IE and theobservers address the principal issues and that there are no new issues to beconsidered by the Board. My assessment is arranged under the followingheadings:

The Application. Need. Adequacy of EIS. Conservation. Stations/Park & Ride - General Pace Station and Park & Ride. Dunboyne Station and Park & Ride. Hansfield Station. Clonsilla Station. Roads Issues. Property Acquisition & Related Issues. Other issues.

2.2. The Application.

2.2.1. The application has been screened by the Board and appears to comply withthe documentary requirements of section 37 of the Transport (RailwayInfrastructure) Act 2001.

2.2.2. CIE/IE submitted the following documents to the Oral Hearing:Revised Volume 1 of ‘Draft Legal Order and Schedules to the Order’,‘Property Errata’,‘List of Proposed Amendments to Draft Railway Order drawings and

additional drawings submitted in support of agreements reached’,

In relation to the document Revised Volume 1 of ‘Draft Legal Order andSchedules to the Order’, there are two changes as explained by Mr. Gaffneyfor CIE/IE (see transcript day 5 page 6). The first change is the replacement ofthe wording ‘mechanical power’ by ‘mechanical power includes electricalpower and other power’. The second change is to delete reference to theRailway Act 1891 as this has to do with safety and has been overtaken bysubsequent legislation.

2.2.3. Mr. Colm Moore in written submissions both prior to and during the oralhearing has brought the attention of the Board to his difficulty in accessingdocuments at Connolly Station and from the internet. This matter was raised at


the oral hearing (see transcript day 2 pages 85 & 86). Ms. O’Sullivan forCIE/IE said the matter of access at Connolly Station was corrected whenbrought to their attention. She said the documents were on public display atDunboyne library and at Dunshaughlin but had to be requested at Connollydue to space constraints.

2.2.4. I consider that the procedural matters raised are of a minor nature and itappears that the significant documents involved in the draft Railway Orderwere on public display.

2.3. Need.

2.3.1. The need for this railway project is discussed in Volume 3, section 6, of theEIS, the evidence presented to the oral hearing by CIE/IE, and the observationsof Fingal County Council, Meath County Council and the Dublin TransportationOffice.

2.3.2. The reopening of the Clonsilla to Pace railway line is identified as a strategicdevelopment in the following documents (described in more detail in section 1.6of this report):- A Platform for Change – DTO Strategy 2000-2016 (November 2001), Regional Planning Guidelines – Greater Dublin Area 2004-2016 (July

2004), Transport 21 (November 2005), National Development Plan 2007-2013, Fingal County Development Plan 2005-2011 (Strategy TS2, Policy TP12

and Objective TO8), Fingal Development Plan Variation 21 (2007), Hansfield SDZ (2006), Fingal Section 49 Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme

(2006), Meath County Development Plan 2007-2013 (Policies INFRA SP8, INF

POL1, and Objectives INF OBJ 1 and INF OBJ 4), Integrated Action Area Plan for Lands east of the Railway Line, Dunboyne

(Meath County Council 2005), and Meath Section 49 Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme.

2.3.3. I consider that the need for the project is well established by these national,regional, county and local plans. In particular, the county and local plans areprimarily based on the provision of this railway in terms of transportation andland use planning policies and objectives.


2.4. Adequacy of EIS.

2.4.1. A summary description of the main provisions of the EIS is given in section1.7. of this report. A number of observers have referred to aspects of theproject description and individual topics and these may be considered underthe following headings:

Project description:-Forecast demand.Train frequency.Electrification.Pace telecom mast.Drainage at Pace.

Topics:-Tree survey.Noise standards.Energy.Environmental Management Plan.

2.4.2. Forecast demand.The DTO said the forecast passenger demand figures for the peak period arelow in relation to the scale of development referred to by Meath Co. Co. It isnot clear what rail capacity could be achieved as the completion of other T21projects are likely to have a major bearing on capacity and the level of car tripsassociated with the rail stations.

2.4.3. CIE/IE in ‘Responses to submissions’ (item 17) say the modelling for theBusiness Case was undertaken by DTO and the key result from the DTOoutput was for a total of 2300 boardings in the AM peak by 2016. Theassumptions of a capacity provision of 3600 and populations of 7000 atHansfield and 10,000 at Dunboyne formed the base case scenario. It isaccepted that there will be an associated uplift in demand, estimated to be3000 in AM peak, following the roll out of T21 and with themetro/interconnector in particular (representing 85% capacity). Consultantsare currently preparing a scoping study for phase 2 extension to Navan and the2025 year model is being calibrated. A preliminary indication is that the 30%expected uplift associated with T21 is a realistic benchmark. Some preliminarystatistics are presented with comments.

2.4.4. Train frequency.Some of the observers asked whether the frequency of a 15-minute trainservice at Hansfield Station and a 7.5 minute train service at Clonsilla Stationduring the peak hours with each train having a capacity of circa 1,250passengers referred to in condition A4(ii) of the Board’s decision on theHansfield SDZ would be achieved (PL 06F.ZD2002). CIE/IE in ‘Responses tosubmissions’ (item 26) stated that it is intended to run a service every 15minutes during peak periods.


2.4.5. Electrification.Some of the observers said that electrification of the line should be carried outduring construction while others said the EIS did not adequately describe theimpact of electrification.

2.4.6. Mr. Oliver Doyle for CIE/IE in direct evidence during day 1 of the oral hearing(see hard copy in Report Attachment 1) said the Dunboyne line will not beelectrified from the outset as it cannot be electrified in isolation from theMaynooth line. The electrification of the Maynooth line is a separate projectincluded within Transport 21 with an implementation date of 2015. Provisionfor electrification has been made within this scheme. Additional property hasbeen sought and all the bridges being provided are of adequate clearance toallow future electrification of the line with minimal disruption to services. Hesaid a separate Railway Order will not be required for future electrification ofthe line.

2.4.7. Mr. Finn for CIE/IE in response to my questions on day 2 of the hearing (seetranscript pages 109-113) said the additional property now sought wasspecifically to do with sub-stations. He said that up to now they have notneeded approvals for any work within the railway boundary itself for theelectrification of the DART line in 1999 or thereabouts. One of the key factorsthat would drive electrification in the Dublin area is the inter-connectorbetween Heuston and the Docklands. He said the EIS does not address visualimpact of electrification, as that is not being proposed in the project. Ms.Dalton clarified that there is no detailed design for electrification at this stage.In his closing submission, Mr. Gaffney (see transcript day 5 pages 26 & 27)said that if electrification occurs, all the necessary permissions, and therewould be many permissions required, will be sought at one and the same timeand will be a matter of public knowledge. He said that the acquisition ofadditional land to provide for the future is not unfamiliar to railway orders andever since they began it was recognised that provisions might be made whichwere for circumstances that did not immediately apply, but were thought likelyto apply at some time in the reasonable future.

2.4.8. Pace telecom mast.In response to my questions at the oral hearing, Mr. Oliver Doyle for CIE/IEsaid that the proposed telecom mast at Pace was for the local train radiosystem and that it was not intended that other telecommunication companieswould use it. He said its height was determined by surveys along the route andthe proposed height was the minimum necessary (see transcript day 2 page 113& 114).

2.4.9. Drainage at Pace.In response to my questions at the oral hearing (see transcript day 2 pages 106-109), CIE/IE in ‘Clarifications and Responses to points raised during oralhearing’ submitted 14/12/07 (see Report Attachment 4) provided informationon proposed surface and foul water drainage at Pace. This included drawing011506-49-DR-0843 showing the location of the proposed surface waterattenuation tank and the percolation area for the bio-cycle treatment unit. Theysaid the ground level in the area of Pace is to be raised approx. 2.5m above


existing level thus providing adequate clearance for the predicted 100 yearflood level of the Tolka River.

2.4.10. Tree survey.The BSM report ‘Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment’ 2004 iscontained in Appendix B Volume 4 of the EIS and it advocates carrying out atree survey. Some observers have criticised the EIS because a tree survey wasnot carried out. It is to be noted that the draft RO proposes to clear allvegetation from the line.

2.4.11. CIE/IE in ‘Clarifications and Responses to points raised during oral hearing’submitted 14/12/07 (see Report Attachment 4) make the following points:The EPA Advice Notes section 2 are quoted. The Ecology section of the

EIS, Chapter 8, was conducted in accordance with the EPA Guidelines. Themajority of hedgerows had a good structure as regards height andintactness, though mature trees were largely absent. Also, the speciesdiversity was low with near dominance of hawthorn and ash.

Due to the relatively low flora value and near absence of mature trees, therewas no requirement for a tree survey. This approach is fully in line withEPA guidance documents. In addition, prior to commencement, the surveywas scoped and agreed with the local National Parks and Wildlife Service.

2.4.12. Noise standards.There was criticism of the noise reports and the noise standards adopted byCIE/IE by some of the observers, most notably by Mr. Colm Moore and byMr. Ray O’Malley for Gerard McGrath. The main points were:- The criterion of 60 dB(A) is unreasonably high and contrary to the EPA

Guidelines. The noise calculations underestimate the number of trains. Night-time noise criteria not adequately considered. Averaging used in predicted noise levels. Back calculation from 70m inappropriate. Construction noise understated. Cumulative and indirect impacts not considered. The graphs in figures 3 and 4 of EIS Volume 4 Appendix E appear to

have errors. Table 8 not supplied.

In summary, CIE/IE in ‘Clarifications and Responses to points raised duringoral hearing’ submitted 14/12/07 (see Report Attachment 4) replied as follows: There are no Irish limits for railway noise and the 60 dB(A) criterion used

is numerically equal to the Irish NRA criterion for road traffic noise. Itwas derived from the UK rail noise criterion and the NRA criterion andincorporates a rail bonus of 3dB. It could be argued, reasonably, that a railbonus of 6dB should have been used. Therefore, the 60 dB(A) criterionwas biased on the conservative side. The EPA guideline limits of 45/55dB(A) refer to scheduled activities and are not directly applicable to railoperations where the noise profile is intermittent in nature.

There will be a signalling capacity of 8 trains per hour in each direction.This provides extra capacity to allow for timetable robustness in terms of


delays, defective trains and unforeseen events. However, the service in theRO application is to provide 4 trains per hour in each direction duringpeak periods and 2 trains per hour during off-peak. This equates to a totalof 88 trains per day. There may be an occasional requirement to deviatefrom these frequencies.

During the nigh-time period there would be 2 empty train movementsfrom 00.00-00.25 from Pace to Clonsilla and 2 empty train movementsfrom 05.30-05.45 from Clonsilla to Pace.

All transportation noise in Ireland and throughout the EU is assessed interms of average noise levels over the relevant time periods.

The modelling was based on a combination of measurements taken 70mfrom the Maynooth rail line and 20m from the Cork to Cobh rail line.From a comparison of these results and other measurements it was foundthat the measurements at the 70m location formed a reliable basis formodelling.

Table 11.3 details the highest noise levels predicted during trackconstruction and table 11.4 details the predicted noise associated with theconstruction of structures. This explains the different noise levels referredto by Mr. O’Malley.

Re cumulative and indirect impacts, the project specifically excludes anyextension to Navan and/or provision of electrification. The possibleopening of an extension from Pace to Navan would not increase thefrequency of the trains or the train size.

On figure 3 Appendix E noise maxima data for the period 0.6.00 to 15.15was copied in error to the time period 16.30 to 05.45. A corrected graph isattached and there is no implication for the data analysis and conclusionspresented in the EIS. The noise plots in figure 4 have been re-examinedand are correct. A copy of table 8 is attached.

2.4.13. Energy.The observation of An Taisce said that further information should be soughton the best technology for minimising energy consumption and should beincorporated into the mitigation measures.

2.4.14. CIE/IE in ‘Responses to submissions’ (item 23) discuss the intendedintroduction of a 5% biodiesel blend, the use of sulphur free fuel and theconformity of IE’s latest fleet of Class 22000 railcars with EU Directive2004/26/EC in relation to standards of emissions.

2.4.15. Environmental Management Plan.In response to my questions at the oral hearing (see transcript day 2 pages 116-118), CIE/IE in ‘Clarifications and Responses to points raised during oralhearing’ submitted 14/12/07 (see Report Attachment 4) lists the topic contentsof the EMS and saysThey have developed an EMP that captures all mitigation measures

identified in the EIS and any further requirements during detailed design.The EMS will form part of the tendering process and will form a core

element of the successful contractor’s deliverables.It is not normal practice to finalise the document until the detailed design

is complete and conditions attached to a decision are made. Therefore, it is


considered premature to release the information for public review at thisstage.

It is not required that the EMP is placed on public display. However,members of the public and residents can raise their concerns via theappointed liaison officer.

IE commit to continuing public liaison throughout the construction phaseto ensure minimal impact on affected parties. Monitoring will ensure legalcompliance and effectiveness of EMP.

2.4.16. Conclusion.It is to be noted that the EIS contains a non-technical summary in volume 1. Inrelation to some of the proposed mitigation measures, the EIS says they‘should’ be carried out or they are ‘recommended’. However, at the oralhearing I obtained a commitment from Mr. Finn of CIE/IE that all mitigationmeasures would be carried out (see transcript day 2 page 116). In my opinion,the responses of CIE/IE adequately address the issues raised by the observers.

2.4.17. The required content of an EIS is set out in section 39 of the Transport(Railway Infrastructure) Act, 2001 as amended by section 49 of the Planningand Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act, 2006. I consider that the EIS,together with the additional written and oral information and explanationspresented by CIE/IE, complies with the requirements of section 39 of the Actand provides an adequate description of the project, its impacts and theproposed mitigation measures for the purposes of making an informeddecision.

2.5 Conservation.

2.5.1. Natural environment.The relevant sections of the EIS are contained in chapter 8 (flora and fauna)and chapter 13 (landscape and visual). The Royal Canal is designated as apNHA while the undesignated Tolka River system has regional importance.The proposed railway involves constructing a bridge over the canal using theexisting stone abutments. New underbridges are proposed over the Tolka. Inboth cases, the EIS says there will be no impact on habitat. Construction of theline will involve total clearance of existing vegetation. Mitigation measuresare proposed in relation to bats, otters, and badgers.

2.5.2. The DoEHLG observation requires the following: All mitigation measures for flora and fauna shall be carried out including

those for birds, bats, badgers and otters. As much hedgerow as possible should be retained and suitable planting in

mitigation for loss of hedgerow should be carried out. Where possible all crossings of watercourses should be by bridges and the

riparian zone retained. Where bridging is not possible, culverts mustcontain suitable ledges to allow mammals such as otters to use them.

The applicants should apply to the DoEHLG for licences to relocatebadgers, to disturb or destroy bat roosts and to disturb the habitat of the


protected plant species (Hairy St. Johns Wort found in the past atBarnhill). A badger and a bat expert should carry out such work.

2.5.3. The Waterways Ireland observation requires the following: It is the policy of Waterways Ireland not to allow any water to be

discharged into the canal system either on a temporary or permanent basis. The Royal Canal shall remain open to navigation from 1 March to 31

October with no canal closures between these dates. During construction, the towpath, which is a public right of way, should

be open to pedestrians. Where this is not feasible, a suitable diversionroute should be established.

During construction, the applicants should provide an access route formaintenance vehicles to Waterways Ireland, possibly via theirconstruction compound.

The steel bridge should be painted in a subdued colour in keeping with thecanal setting. Any retaining walls facing the canal should be clad in astone in keeping with the stone on the existing abutments.

2.5.4. CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ (item 28) say that all comments byDoEHLG are noted and it is intended to appropriately manage all vegetationand protected species in accordance with applicable legislation. Regarding theobservation from Waterways Ireland, CIE/IE make the following points (seeitem 29) IE will provide access for Waterways Ireland to cross under the rail

alignment via the reconstructed Farmers Underpass. A right of way willbe provided on the east side of the railway embankment to link theunderpass with the canal bank. The construction contractor will berequired to coordinate with Waterways Ireland for occasional accessthrough the underpass and right of way during the construction period.The underpass will have a minimum headroom of 3180mm and width of3600mm and the wing walls shall be stone-clad to match the existingbridge abutments. The proposed drainage for the right of way and theunderpass will not discharge into the canal and either existing drainagechannels or soak pits will be used.

The alignment section from the underpass to the Royal Canal Bridge willdrain south towards Clonsilla. The trackside drainage pipes will run underthe bridge or walkway deck and be encased in a box as part of thestructure.

A 1.8m high plastic coated steel mesh fence will be fixed to sides of thewalkway and will connect with a 2.4m high palisade fence which runsalong each side of the railway embankment.

The existing tow path at the base of the northern abutment will be keptopen for pedestrians, except at times of heavy construction overhead.During these short periods, temporary access may be provided via theunderpass.

2.5.5. I consider that the mitigation measures contained in the EIS, together with theresponses, adequately address the issues raised in the two observations.


2.5.6. Built environment.On the railway alignment there are only two protected structures, Bennetstownand Barnhill over-bridges, but there are other railway-related structures thathave heritage value.

2.5.7. Bennetstown Bridge.It is proposed to demolish Bennetstown Bridge, a protected structure. Section17.7 of the EIS says that due to extensive flooding in the area, the proposednew level of the rail line will be some 1.5m above the original level.Therefore, there is insufficient clearance under the existing bridge arch.

2.5.8. It is noted that the DoEHLG say, in written observation received 22/11/07, thatthe loss of architectural heritage is part of the environmental cost of returningthe railway to use and has to be balanced against the gain to the common goodof having a commuter link from Dunboyne to the cite centre.

2.5.9. It is also noted that Ms. Jill Chadwick, Conservation Officer with MCC, said inoral evidence (see Report Attachment 2) that it is reluctantly accepted that it isnecessary to demolish this bridge and that this is one of the ‘exceptionalcircumstances’ in which it is possible to demolish a protected structure. At theoral hearing, Mr. Tim O’Leary said that trains stopped due to flooding inNovember 1954 and this represented the 1 in 100 year event (see transcriptday 2 page 187).

2.5.10. Subject to recording the structure, I accept that it is necessary to demolish thisbridge.

2.5.11. Dunboyne and Barnhill Bridges.The stone arched over-bridge at Barnhill is a protected structure while that atDunboyne has a Regional Rating on the NIAH. It is proposed to remove thestone parapet walls of both bridges and replace them with higher concreteparapets faced with stone internally. Damaged or missing capping stones onthe wing walls will be replaced. The existing guarding each side of the rampsup to the bridge will be replaced by in-situ concrete transition walls (seeArchitectural/Structural Plans B003, B008 & B012).

2.5.12. The Conservation Officer of MCC in oral evidence (see Report Attachment 2)accepted the need for safety measures but said the bridge at Dunboyne is notvisible just from the road but also from the station below. She said the designof the reinforced superstructure, coping and transition walls is unsympatheticto the historic structure and the Board should require revised designs toinclude ashlar stone facing on both sides of the parapet.

2.5.13. I raised this issue at the oral hearing (see transcript day 2 pages 192 – 195).Mr. Hastings for CIE/IE said that only concrete or stone finishes wereconsidered for the replacement parapets and stone was rejected because it hadno tensile strength. It was not possible to drill through small stones to tie theminto the bridge. Consequently, stone would dislodge on impact. Mr. Hastingsconsidered that a concrete finish made by plywood formers would be morehonest than the use of concrete that was finished with moulded stone shapes.


He drew attention to the difference in thickness between the parapet walls andthe transition walls and said this could be accentuated. Mr. Finn stressed thatthe key issue was safety.

2.5.14. It is to be noted that CIE/IE in document ‘Conditions Requested’ submitted on14/12/07 agreed in principle to MCC’s suggested condition 17 in relation tothe replacement parapets. They said that ‘IE confirm that the replacementparapets will be replicated as far as possible with regard also to safety andcurrent design practice’.

2.5.15. I accept that the safety issue is of paramount importance but I consider that theproposed design of the parapets is principally an engineering solution and thedesign would have a significant impact on the character of these bridges. Theouter faces of the bridges will be visible to the public from Dunboyne station,Mr. Boylan’s clinic and following the development of the lands in Hansfieldand Barnhill. It may be possible to face the parapets in stone combined withthe introduction of speed restrictions on the approaches to the bridges. Failingthat, at least the transition walls could be faced in an alternative material sothat the massing of the overall length of walling is broken up visually. I cannotbe prescriptive in terms of finish but consider that this issue should beexplored with the planning authorities and in default of agreement referredback to the Board for determination. I consider that the design solution that isproposed in the draft Railway Order is not acceptable from a conservationviewpoint.

2.5.16. Mr. Hastings also said that only minor repair work was necessary to the sidewalls of these bridges. It is noted that conservation method statements had notbeen prepared. It seems that supervision by a conservation architect has beenused in previous railway works. I consider that a condition should be imposedrequiring the preparation of method statements and that a conservationarchitect should supervise the works. It is noted that the EIS says the predictedimpact of electrification (i.e. attaching supports to the undersides of Barnhilland Dunboyne over-bridges) will only have an imperceptible to slight neutralimpact on these heritage bridges.

2.5.17. Sterling Bridge.This is a stone arched over-bridge. While it is not a protected structure and isnot included on the NIAH, it has similar heritage value to those at Barnhill andDunboyne. The EIS says the arch would be demolished as it shows clearevidence of structural failure. A new concrete portal span bridge would beerected on the existing abutments (see Structure Plan B005). The ConservationOfficer of MCC said she had not seen a structural report and thought theincreased carriageway width could be achieved by replacing the deck andparapets while retaining the arch. MCC’s suggested condition 18 requires thearch to be retained if possible.

2.5.18. CIE/IE in document ‘Conditions Requested’ submitted on 14/12/07 says thebridge shows signs of structural damage and cracking has occurred in thespandrel walls extending into the parapets. In addition, the arch is sagging dueto lateral movement of the abutments and is considered structurally unsound.


The structural report contained in document ‘Clarifications and Responses toPoints Raised during the Oral Hearing’ says that following removal ofvegetation it was ascertained that the arch is in a very poor condition. Thereport says that stitching does not appear to be viable in this case.

2.5.19. I consider that CIE/IE have made a reasonable case for the replacement of thearch and subject to prior recording I consider that the proposal is acceptable.

2.5.20. Sterling Farmers Accommodation Bridge.It is proposed to demolish the stone arched accommodation over-bridge justnorth of Sterling. The EIS says this will give rise to a slight negative impact asthe bridge is a minor one and not generally visible. I agree with this conclusionsubject to prior recording.

2.5.21. Underbridges.In relation to these bridges, the EIS says It is proposed to retain the stone abutments of the former bridge over the

Royal Canal. It is proposed to remove the damaged remains of an under-bridge just

west of the canal crossing. It is proposed to retain a stone arched under-bridge spanning the stream

south of Dunboyne. It is proposed to retain the stone abutments of an under-bridge over the

Tolka River at Bennetstown with a new bridge span being added. Two stone arched under-bridges spanning the Tolka River at Bracetown

would be removed and replaced.

2.5.22. I consider that these proposals are acceptable subject to prior recording wheredemolition is involved.

2.5.23. Other Structures.The EIS says No works are proposed to the engine shed and turntable between the main

line and the Clonsilla/Dunboyne line west of Clonsilla. It is proposed to retain the water tower at Dunboyne which has a NIAH

Regional Rating. The remaining short sections of railway platform at Dunboyne will be

reused on site or elsewhere on the railway.

2.5.24. MCC in written submission prior to the hearing said the retention of the watertower at Dunboyne should be strengthened by condition. Having regard to theexempted development provisions of the legislation, I agree that a conditionshould be imposed requiring retention of this structure.

2.5.25. MCC’s suggested condition 19 required that all historic structures along theline be recorded in advance of construction in accordance with DoEHLGguidelines and that the results should be lodged with the IAA and respectiveplanning authorities. It is to be noted that at the oral hearing, Mr. Bill Hastingsfor CIE/IE submitted a copy of an advice document from the ArchitecturalHeritage Advisory Unit dated February 2004 which provides guidance on the


extent of heritage building recording (see Report Attachment 1). Based on this,I have drafted a condition for the recording of the bridges and other heritagestructures proposed for alteration or demolition. CIE/IE in ‘ConditionsRequested’ accept MCC’s proposed condition and, in ‘Clarifications andResponses to Points Raised during the Oral Hearing’, list the content of suchrecording.

2.5.26. MCC’s suggested condition 20 that requires that all stonework fromdemolished bridges and other structures to be reused where possible in theprovision of structures as part of the railway scheme with remainingsalvageable materials being sent for recycling. CIE/IE in ‘ConditionsRequested’ accepts this condition subject to the modification that stoneworkfrom demolished bridges will be used to repair other stone-arched railwayoverbridges to be retained by IE.

2.5.27. Archaeology.Chapter 18 of the EIS deals with archaeology and says there are no recordedmonuments within 500m of the alignment. Impact on existing archaeologicalheritage is considered to be limited and the greatest potential impacts will ariseduring construction. Monitoring by a qualified archaeologist is a proposedmitigation measure.

2.5.28. Observations by the DoEHLG and Mr. Colm Moore refer to archaeology. TheDoEHLG recommends imposition of monitoring conditions. Mr. Moore refersto M3 Motorway archaeological finding ‘Dunboyne 3 - possible Neolithicsettlement’ and two circular enclosures at Hilltown (see also oral hearingtranscript day 2 pages 82-85).

2.5.29. CIE/IE in ‘Clarifications and Responses to Points Raised during the OralHearing’ say that Margaret McCarthy, appointed archaeologist for the project,responds as follows:The M3 Motorway archaeological finding ‘Dunboyne 3’ was omitted

from the EIS. However, the mitigation measures will ensure that anypotential archaeological finds will be monitored and therefore protected.

The two circular enclosures were considered and were deemed sufficientlydistant from the railway route not to warrant inclusion. These enclosureswill not be impacted upon by the proposed railway project.

2.5.30. I consider that the inclusion of a condition requiring archaeological monitoringduring construction by a qualified archaeologist will safeguard any potentialimpacts as advised by DoEHLG.


2.6. Stations/Park & Ride – General.

2.6.1. The observations of Meath County Council (MCC), DTO, HilltownPartnership, Rail Users Ireland and Colm Moore raise general issues about theproposed stations and park & ride facilities. The issues may be categorised asfollows:-The Railway Order is deficient in not including a station at Hillstown in its

plans.Issues concerning the design of the stations.Parking at Pace should be incentivised.More pedestrian routes should be incorporated into the design of the car

park at Pace.Parking control in the vicinity of the park and ride facilities.

2.6.2. Hilltown.The Hilltown Partnership in its written submission prior to the oral hearingargued that there is no provision for a Park and Ride facility south ofDunboyne. They said there is adequate green space adjacent to the line in theirownership for a P&R facility to be provided. They said the RO applicationmakes no provision for a future station, south of Dunboyne, close to the MeathCounty boundary, as envisaged in the Meath County Development Plan, andthe RO is deficient in not including a station at Hillstown in its plans.

2.6.3. Meath County Council in written submission stated that it is currently in theprocess of appointing consultants to prepare an IFPLUT for the area of theClonee to Pace corridor. This will inform the preparation of theDunboyne/Clonee/Pace Corridor LAP and guide development over the next 20years. It is hoped to appoint a firm of consultants by the year end.

2.6.4. In the oral submission of Mr. Galligan on behalf of Hilltown Partnership, (seetranscript of oral hearing day 2 pages 198-203), there is recognition that theIFPLUT and future Dunboyne/Clonee/Pace Corridor LAP will address theneed for additional stations.

2.6.5. I consider it sufficient for the Board to note that studies will be underwayshortly leading to a LAP and this will consider possible future settlementnodes and stations along the proposed railway alignment. The Board is notbeing asked to amend the draft Railway Order or intervene at this stage. Iconsider that the issues raised by Hilltown Partnership are for a future forum.

2.6.6. Station design.Meath County Council in its written submission prior to the oral hearing saidthe planning authority had no objection to the design of the proposed stations.However, MCC in its schedule of conditions (number 8) submitted to the oralhearing (see Report Attachment 2) say that parking at Pace should beincentivised and there should be no ticket price disincentive between rail tripsoriginating from Pace and Dunboyne stations. During questions on day 2 ofthe oral hearing, MCC explained that it was concerned that if there was a pricedifference between Pace and Dunboyne that commuters might be more


attracted to Dunboyne thus leading to congestion at that station (see transcriptpages 16/17).

2.6.7. The DTO says station design should be sufficiently adaptable to accommodatefuture development in the immediate vicinity, that measures to improvepassenger safety should be included, that more pedestrian routes should beincorporated into the design of the car park at Pace, and a variable messagingsystem should be introduced with the NRA to inform users about the quantityof P&R spaces available.

2.6.8. Mr. Colm Moore in his written submission presented a commentary on thedrawings and indicated some errors and omissions.

2.6.9. Rail Users Ireland in its written submission saidThere is an objection to charging for parking at Pace and Dunboyne. If this

is not withdrawn, the applicant should be required to offer a range oftickets which incorporate a parking charge.

The applicant should engage a bus operator to offer connecting busservices serving Pace and Dunboyne with integrated bus and rail tickets.

The applicant should demonstrate that the number of turnstiles at Pace andDunboyne are sufficient to cope with the expected passenger flows.

The entry routes for wheelchairs are overly complex. The general landheight around stations should be raised to reduce steps and ramps.

A side gate should be provided adjacent to the station side of thefootbridges.

The line design speed should be increased to 75mph. All trackside electrification equipment should be constructed in parallel

with the line opening.

2.6.10. CIE/IE in ‘Responses to submissions’ sections 11 and 17 received by theBoard on 14/12/07 during the oral hearing (see Report Attachment 5) addressthese matters and the following is my summary of the main points:

It is IE policy to charge for car parking at stations but only to reflectoperational and maintenance costs. IE is in discussions with DoT repossible inclusion of parking charges in the tax relief scheme forcommuting costs.

While IE encourages bus operators to provide local or commuter servicesit is not responsible for operating services, network planning or allocationof bus licenses. Integrated bus and rail tickets will form part of an overallscheme.

The provision of 6 turnstiles is based on the requirement to evacuate a fullcomplement of train passengers plus passengers waiting on a platform inan emergency. Three additional validators can be installed withoutdisruption if forecasts are exceeded.

Re facilities for mobility impaired, the arrangement shown in the RailwayOrder is at a preliminary design stage and it has been possible at detaileddesign stage to considerably reduce the number of steps and length oframps at both stations.

An emergency escape gate will be provided adjacent to station buildings.


Line speed cannot reach 75mph due to short distances between stations. Electrification cannot be done in isolation but as part of the

Maynooth/Connolly project. Space and clearance provisions for futureelectrification have been designed into this rail project.

The location of the station at Dunboyne was selected having regard to theIAAP prepared by MCC. Future commercial/residential/retail facilitiesaround station square is eminently feasible with the current position of thestation. Provisions are made for the interface between bus and taxiservices.

Re pedestrian/cycleway accessibility, IE have provided for pedestriansand cyclists within the confines of the station but connectivity to thesurrounding areas will take place after MCC have completed a Land UseTransportation Study that will define access routes within the stationcatchment areas.

Walking routes from the park and ride to the station have been furtherdeveloped in the detailed design and provide alternative routes. The parkand ride will be serviced with CCTV and public lighting and the provisionof a variable messaging system will be considered when selecting a carpark operator.

2.6.11. At the oral hearing on day 2 there was a discussion of the issue of parkingcharges and incentives. In response to questions from MCC, Mr. Finn forCIE/IE (transcript pages 16/17) said giving incentives would be difficult toenforce. It is envisaged that parking charges would be modest and similar tothose in operation at Leixlip, Lewis Bridge and Upper Gormanstown. Mr.Oliver Doyle for CIE/IE (transcript day 2 page 180) said fares are Governmentcontrolled and based on distances and zones and it is possible that that therewould be a different fare at Pace and Dunboyne.

2.6.12. It is noted that Rail Users Ireland in letter received by the Board on 11/12/07during the oral hearing indicated acceptance of the responses from CIE/IE (seeReport Attachment 3). Mr. Owen Shinkwin for DTO on day 4 of the oralhearing reiterated its previously stated position (see transcript page 41).

2.6.13. I consider that the issue of fare structure is a matter for another regulatorybody and, as such, beyond the remit of the Board. There is no indication fromCIE/IE that the parking charges at the two stations would differ. They havesaid the charges would be modest and in line with those operating elsewherewithin the Dublin rail network. On the issue of station design, it is apparentthat the drawings submitted with the draft Railway Order represent apreliminary design but that detailed design has been completed or is underway.Consequently, the Board does not have answers to some issues concerningsafety and access for mobility impaired commuters but these matters arecovered by other codes. I agree in principle with the DTO that a variablemessaging system should be introduced in consultation with the NRA.However, the roads authority would have responsibility for such in the roadnetwork surrounding the station. These are detailed matters that would notsignificantly effect the overall design of the station buildings in terms of theirsize, shape and layout. I consider that such matters could be agreed with the


planning authority and the NRA and in default referred to the Board fordetermination. I have drafted conditions to this effect.

2.6.14. Parking control.The DTO says there is a need to regulate car parking on the surrounding roadnetwork around Dunboyne and Pace stations. CIE/IE in ‘Responses toSubmissions’ submitted to the oral hearing says the regulation of car parkingin the surrounding road network is a matter for the local authority but it shouldbe noted that this issue is exacerbated by insufficient parking spaces atstations.

2.6.15. I agree with CIE/IE that this issue is a matter for the local authority, andhaving regard to section 44 of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act2001, I consider it to be outside the scope of the railway order.

2.7. Pace Station and Park & Ride.

2.7.1. The observations of Meath County Council (MCC), the Dublin TransportationOffice (DTO), and Colm Moore refer to a number of issues specificallyconcerning the proposed station and park and ride facility at Pace, namely:-The park and ride facility should remain in public ownership.The long-term case for park and ride at Pace needs to be examined.Screening of station storage containers.

2.7.2. Public ownership.Meath County Council argued in both written and oral evidence that theproposed park and ride facilities should remain in public ownership and acondition to that effect should be imposed by the Board. In its writtensubmission before the oral hearing, the Council said the applicantsacknowledge the potential for possible future retail and commercialdevelopments at the Pace P&R and the current proposals will not limit orprevent future development plans. It is noted that if expansion of the P&R isrequired in the future, it may take the form of multi-storey. The planningauthority also consider that the potential to develop over the P&R for othercommercial uses proximate to a public transport interchange would beappropriate and request ABP to consider whether or not a condition to thiseffect should be included.

2.7.3. In its oral submissions, Meath County Council (MCC) said its position was thatPace was a major infrastructural facility which should at all times remain inpublic ownership and it sought a commitment in that regard (see transcript day2 pages 18-22). MCC submitted a document listing the conditions it sought tohave included as part of the Railway Order and condition 21 refers (see ReportAttachment 2). MCC clarified that by ‘public ownership’ it meant in theownership of CIE/IE or alternatively transferred to the ownership of the localauthority. On day 5 of the hearing (see transcript page 19), MCC said it is amatter of great concern that this facility is retained in public ownership andcontrol. MCC referred to the cost to the State which was incurred when it hadto buy back a franchise on the M50 Toll Scheme and do not wish to see this


happen in a case like this. MCC strongly believes that CIE/IE should not onlyoperate but they should own the facility or, if they are not prepared to do that,MCC are willing to take on that responsibility, ownership and operation andmaintenance.

2.7.4. CIE/IE in document ‘Conditions Requested’ submitted to the oral hearing on14/12/07 said that in relation to the requested condition 21 it was not acceptedand that CIE/IE or its agents will operate the car park. Mr. Gaffney for CIE/IEon day 5 of the oral hearing (see transcript page 9) said it can arise that CIEwould obtain control of a particular space and retain control of it withoutretaining ownership of it. He said that MCC can be assured that CIE/IE willalways operate the car park. In his closing submission (transcript day 5 pages24/25), Mr. Gaffney said CIE/IE intend to take and keep control of the carpark and while they keep control it cannot be used for any other purpose. Hesaid there is no reason to think that that intention will be altered, and if it werealtered, it cannot be altered without planning permission without control (sic).He said there is no reason to imagine that there is any stage that CIE/IE willwant to give up control of that property.

2.7.5. The draft Railway Order proposes the permanent acquisition of plots 008.P.62,008.P.62A and 008.P.65. These plots would contain the park and ride facility.It is to be noted that CIE/IE have not sought to alter such acquisition in theamendments to the draft Railway Order submitted on the final day of the oralhearing. I note section 44 of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001where the provisions in relation to a Railway Order are set out. Having regardto the terms of the legislation, I consider that it would be inappropriate for theBoard to impose a condition requiring the P & R facility to remain in publicownership. However, it is noted that CIE/IE in document ‘Agreements reachedwith Iarnrod Eireann’ received 14/12/07 stated in reference numbers 12 and 19that ‘at the request of Meath County Council, IE have confirmed that it willoperate the car park at Pace’. I have included these (renumbered) agreementsin Schedule 11.

2.7.6. Park and Ride long term.The DTO says the long-term case for park and ride at Pace needs to beexamined in the context of extending the line to Navan. On a more generalpoint, Mr. Colm Moore says the applicant appears not to consider measures toreduce car parking demand. It is noted that Meath County Council in itswritten submission prior to the oral hearing said it accepts the rational for thelevel of proposed parking spaces at the M3 Pace Station. MCC in its scheduleof requested conditions (number 22) says future development works at thepark and ride facility should be subject to normal planning controls and notsubject to exempted development.

2.7.7. I consider that the long-term assessment of the extent of parking at Pace shouldawait and form part of an application for a railway order for the extension ofthe line to Navan. As such, it would be outside the scope of the currentapplication. It is noted that CIE/IE in commenting on the requested conditions(see Report Attachment 4) accept the terms of condition 22 proposed by MCC.However, I consider that this type of condition may not be possible. The Board


has an application for a Railway Order under the Transport (RailwayInfrastructure) Act 2001 where, under section 38, the carrying out of railwayworks specified in the railway order or works for the maintenance,improvement or repair of a railway would be exempted development under thePlanning Acts. Having regard to section 44, it would seem to me that there isno provision that would allow the conditions of a railway order to removeexempted development rights under the Act itself or under another Act, i.e. thePlanning and Development Act 2000. Of relevance to this issue is the legalopinion of Mr. Gaffney for CIE/IE at 2.9.6 below in connection with HansfieldStation and the type of conditions permissible under the Act.

2.7.8. Screening.MCC in its written submission prior to the oral hearing requested that theproposed palisade fence should be replaced with a more appropriate boundarytreatment at the Pace station in order to screen 2 no. steel storage containers.

2.7.9. I consider this to be a minor and non-essential matter.

2.8. Dunboyne Station and Park & Ride.

2.8.1. The observations of Meath County Council, DTO, John Connaughton Ltd., andColm Moore refer to a number of issues specifically concerning the proposedstation and park and ride facility at Dunboyne, namely:-Park and ride facility unnecessary or excessive in size. There should be a

review of the size of the park and ride facilities within 5 years of opening ofthe railway.

Access to station contrary to IAAP.Pedestrian accessibility and width of proposed pedestrian bridge.

2.8.2. Size of Park and Ride Facility.Meath County Council, the DTO and John Connaughton Ltd. expressedserious concern about the proposal to provide 420 parking spaces at the parkand ride facility at Dunboyne. The DTO questioned whether any park and ridefacility was necessary here as it was envisaged that by virtue of the size of thesettlement, walking and cycling routes to the station would suffice. Eachobserver said the proposal would conflict with the provisions of the non-statutory IAAP for the lands to the east of the railway where cell 5 shouldconsist of a station square containing 200 parking spaces with a further 100 ina linear space to the north and parallel to the railway line. Station squarewould be bounded on its northern side by a bus station and on its northern,eastern and southern sides by commercial/residential/retail developments.MCC expressed concern at the impact that pay and display parking could haveon the establishment of this proposed local centre since parking charges wereuncommon in such situations in Meath. MCC also questioned how a sense ofenclosure could be created around the square. All three observers accepted thatthe quantum of parking should be reduced to a maximum of 300 spaces with afuture review of its size. The relevant evidence presented at the oral hearing iscontained in the transcript; MCC day 2 page 137 ff, J.Connaughton Ltd. day 4page 12 ff and DTO day 4 page 36 ff.


2.8.3. Meath County Council in its written submission prior to the oral hearing said itconsiders that within a timeframe, suggested as 5 years after thecommencement of passenger services on this line, the necessity of thequantity, layout and principle of station car parking at Dunboyne should berevisited in the context of the wider development strategy contained in theIAAP for this area and that a condition to that effect be included inconfirmation of the RO. The DTO in its written submission agreed with theviews of MCC regarding a future review and the 5-year timeframe. Theseviews were repeated in oral evidence.

2.8.4. It is to be noted that Mr. McGarry representing John Connaughton Ltd said inoral evidence that the 5-year review period was inappropriate, overly lengthyand unnecessary (transcript day 4 pages 16 & 17). He argued that the reviewas proposed would take place in 2015 based on an opening of the line in 2010whereas cell 5 of the IAAP would be developed in phase 2 of that plan whichwill run ‘up to and beyond 2010’. Therefore, he recommended that a lesserquantum of parking be conditioned as part of the final order.

2.8.5. Regarding the location of the park and ride facility, I note that Meath CountyCouncil in written submission prior to the oral hearing said that that theDunboyne Detailed Objectives and Written Statement in the development plan2001-2009 reserved a potential site for future rapid transit station facilities onthe western side of the rail line. It is noted that section 4.3.3 of the EIS andtable 4.3 present three options for the location of the station. Option 2b isconsidered the optimum in terms of separation from existing houses (noise andvisual impacts) and road safety. Therefore, MCC accepts the decision to locatethe car parking to the east rather than the west of the rail line. In relation to theneed for a park and ride facility, I note there is a specific objective INF OBJ 4in the Development Plan 2007-2013 ‘to facilitate the provision of park andride facilities at Dunboyne rail station……’.

2.8.6. CIE/IE in the document entitled ‘Conditions Requested’ received 14/12/07says it has been agreed that the car park at Dunboyne will be reduced to 300spaces with a review 5 years after commencement of operations. In theirdocument ‘Responses to submissions’, CIE/IE have provided a revised layoutfor 300 spaces on drawing 011506-49-SK-0407 (see folder section 6responding to J. Connaughton Ltd.).

2.8.7. Currently most of the Dunboyne settlement is located to the west of theproposed railway line and there are no pedestrian or cycle routes linking theexisting residential areas with the proposed station. It will take a number ofyears for the lands to the east of the railway to be developed as envisaged inthe IAAP and for pedestrian/cycle routes to be determined and implementedthrough either the IAAP or proposed IFPLUT study and proposed LAP.Noting objective INF OBJ 4 of the development plan, I consider that there is aneed to provide a park and ride facility at Dunboyne. Having regard to thearguments presented in the EIS, and to section 6.2.15 of the IAAP where it isstated that a station to the east of the line would be more accessible, I consider


that the location of the proposed P&R facility to the east of the rail line isacceptable.

2.8.8. Meath County Council has criticised the applicant’s estimate of a need for 420spaces at Dunboyne and point out that the DTO advice and the provisions ofthe IAAP suggest a figure of 300 spaces. However, in my opinion, neither theDTO nor MCC have provided a justification for this specific figure. It wasnoted earlier in this report that the DTO questioned the forecast passengerdemand in the EIS. CIE/IE in response said that the DTO output was for a totalof 2300 boardings in the AM peak by 2016, but it was conceded that there willbe an associated uplift in demand, estimated to be 3000 in AM peak, followingthe roll out of T21 and with the metro/interconnector in particular. Suchestimates included a projected population of 10,000 at Dunboyne. I note thatthe applicant has agreed to reduce the amount of parking to 300 spaces and Ihave included this figure in Schedules 1 and 11 attached. However, noadjustment to the permanent property take is proposed. In my opinion, theproperty take should remain unaltered since 300 spaces may not be adequatefor a population of 10,000 with a possible uplift of demand and it would bedifficult to secure additional space in the future in order to prevent parking bycommuters in adjoining residential areas, as happens at Clonsilla.

2.8.9. I consider the imposition of a condition requiring the carrying out of a 5-yearreview of the quantity, layout and principle of the P&R facility may be outsidethe scope of the provisions of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001.Such a review might conclude that the quantum should be increased ordecreased but there can be no certainty on the issue at this point in time. Ifsuch a condition were to be imposed it would be difficult to make a RailwayOrder that specified the quantity of land that may be compulsorily acquired ona permanent and on a temporary basis. In my opinion, a Railway Order cannotbe vague in relation to acquisition. I also note the legal opinion of Mr. Gaffneyfor CIE/IE in his closing submission, albeit in relation to Hansfield Station(see transcript day 5 pages 33-37), that conditions in a Railway Order shouldrefer to the proposals for works in the application and should not involvedependence on another project being completed, in this instance a LAP.Therefore, I recommended that the request for this type of condition should berejected.

2.8.10. Access to station.John Connaughton Ltd. in written submission, repeated in oral evidence onday 3 of the hearing, says the access to Dunboyne station off Clone Road iscontrary to the IAAP which states that access should be taken from the EasternDistributor Road (EDR) and not from Clonee Road. He said that while it isnoted that the proposed access is temporary pending construction of the EDR,it is not clear from the EIS whether the entrance to the car park from CloneeRoad will remain. He said the proposed access should be reconsidered as itcompromises the development potential of the lands which front onto CloneeRoad and the layout of development as per IAAP. The EDR should beconstructed by IE to allow cell 5 to begin development at the same time as thetrain station. The location of the entrance to the station will lead to majortraffic congestion in this area of Dunboyne.


2.8.11. Meath County Council accepts the proposed access from Clonee Road as aninterim arrangement but requires it to be relocated to connect with theproposed distributor road in the longer term (see transcript day 2 page 142). Inits written submission prior to the oral hearing, MCC said it is satisfied as tothe safety of the proposed priority junction off Clonee Road in the interim.MCC in condition 1 of the list of conditions it has sought to be included by theBoard, requires access to be taken from the distributor road once constructedand the temporary access from Clonee Road to be closed off.

2.8.12. CIE/IE in the document entitled ‘Conditions Requested’ received 14/12/07does not accept this condition. They say they have provided in the draftRailway Order for access to the car park at Dunboyne station in the context ofthe current road layout. They are willing to accommodate revised access to thecar park from the distributor road when it is constructed, including the closureof Clonee Road access, but at that time would not have the power to acquirethe land required or to construct the connection. IE is not accountable forfinancing any aspects of the works. They agree to use reasonable endeavour toacquire by agreement the land necessary for the new access road. In the eventthat they are unable to acquire the land, then Meath County Council will useits compulsory purchase powers.

2.8.13. I note that MCC considers that the proposed access arrangements from CloneeRoad are acceptable from a road safety viewpoint and I have no evidence tothe contrary. The precise alignment, levels and timeframe associated with theproposed local distributor road have not been determined. Consequently, Iaccept the view of CIE/IE that they may be unable to execute the relocation ofthe access but I note their willingness to work with the local authority inachieving this. For similar reasons to those outlined above in relation to thesuggested 5-year review condition, I consider that it would be inappropriateunder the legislation for the Board to impose a condition requiring futurerelocation of the proposed access.

2.8.14. Pedestrian accessibility and width of proposed pedestrian bridge.The DTO says the segregated pedestrian/cycleway alongside StationRoad/Bridge is insufficient in width at 4m as a shared facility and should be5m. To the north of the pedestrian bridge, the footway and cycle route are notcontinued and there are no crossing facilities proposed.

2.8.15. It is to be noted that a revised design for the support of the proposed newpedestrian bridge by means of embankments, located immediately to the northof Dunboyne road bridge, was submitted by CIE/IE to the Board on day 1 ofthe oral hearing. Meath County Council stated there was no objection to thisrevision (see transcript day 4 page 29).

2.8.16. The Board should note that on day 2 of the oral hearing (transcript page 176), Iasked Meath County Council whether the railway would impede the provisionof pedestrian/cycle links across the line shown to the north of the station on theMaster Plan for the IAAP. Mr. Green responded by stating that such pedestrianlinkages were to be development driven and it was envisaged that they would


involve a pedestrian over-bridge between the lands on the western side and thelands on the eastern side of the railway, and that a separate supplementarycontribution scheme to make provision for other infrastructure, to includepedestrian bridges, would be devised before planning permission would begranted. In ‘Responses to Submissions’, CIE/IE say the width of the proposednew pedestrian bridge is in excess of that recommended by the DTO manualfor Urban Design. They say the connection of the new pedestrian/cycle way tothe existing network is the subject of further design development but will beguided by the requirements of MCC who are responsible for the local roadnetwork. I consider that these responses satisfactorily address the issuesidentified by the DTO.

2.9. Hansfield Station.

2.9.1. In the draft Railway Order, CIE/IE propose to construct two platforms atHansfield but say that a station would not be provided as part of the project.They say that Hansfield Station will be constructed in the future as the areadevelops. Fingal County Council, Meath County Council, Menolly Homes,Manor Park Homebuilders and Castlethorn Construction have each objected tothe non-provision of a station at Hansfield. A written submission from TomMaher received by the Board on 13/12/07 during the oral hearing makes asimilar objection.

2.9.2. The principal grounds of objection refer to the inclusion of a rail station in theHansfield SDZ approved by the Board on 30/1/06 (PL 06F.ZD.2002). Indeed,the Board required the draft SDZ to be revised by increasing residentialdensity because of the proximity of access to a proposed railway station.Section 10.1.3 of the SDZ requires that the station be provided in phase 2, i.e.before occupation of 2,000 dwellings. The observers point out that to date 700units have planning permission and further applications are in preparation sothat it is realistic to assume that an additional 1,300 units could be approvedbefore completion of the proposed railway in 2010. An application for theprincipal north-south road within Hansfield has been made recently. Theplanning authority adopted Variation 21 of the County Development Plan on12/11/07 which rezoned 3.8ha for residential development to the south of therailway line (lands at Barberstown) and included an objective to providepedestrian access between Barberstown/Barnhill and the Hansfield SDZ bymeans of a new overbridge integrated with adjoining development includingthe proposed Hansfield rail station. In addition, Fingal County Council has asection 49 Supplementary Development Contribution Scheme (adopted10/7/06) for the development of the railway, including a station at Hansfield.The observers say that the omission of the Hansfield Station in the draftRailway Order is contrary to the provisions of the Hansfield SDZ and s.49scheme.

2.9.3. Having listened to the oral submissions in relation to this issue on day 2 of theoral hearing, I expressed the view that the Board was concerned about the factthat Hansfield Station was not included in the draft Railway Order havingregard to the decision of the Board on the SDZ and because the matter had been


flagged in pre-application discussions. I requested CIE/IE to give seriousconsideration to amending the draft Railway Order to include a station (seetranscript day 2 pages 230-232).

2.9.4. On day 4 of the oral hearing (transcript pages 45-50), Mr. Gaffney for CIE/IEreported that the terms of an agreement between CIR/IR and MenollyHomes/Manor Park Homebuilders had been negotiated and were ready forsigning. He outlined the contents and stated that the agreement would secure theprovision of a station at Hansfield at or about the same time as the opening ofthe railway line. He said CIE/IE were committed to the provision of a station,that the agreement would be legally binding and that the property owners wouldbe the enforcement agency.

2.9.5. On day 5 of the oral hearing, a copy of the signed agreement was submitted (seeReport Attachment 4). In summary, the agreement provides for CIE/IE will seek confirmation from ABP as to the appropriate planning

application process to be followed. Within 6 months of this agreement, CIE/IE shall pursue an application(s)

for planning permission to construct a railway station at Hansfield/Barnhillto an agreed design.

There shall be a continuing obligation on CIE/IE to secure planningpermission until such time as it is obtained.

The station design will reflect the intention to provide linkage betweenHansfield and Barnhill by positioning it over the railway tracks. Thestructure spanning the tracks will include a footbridge and cycle pathconnecting the Hansfield and Barnhill sides of the proposed railway.

Within 1 month of completion, CIE/IE will apply to the local authority tohave the footbridge taken in charge.

CIE/IE will use all reasonable endeavours to ensure that the rail stationshall be completed and operational at the same time as the opening of therail line between Clonsilla and Pace.

The agreement will be submitted to ABP for noting. The agreement is binding on the successors/assigns of CIE/IE and the

landowners.

The agreement contains other provisions dealing with ownership issues,provision of services and maintenance.

2.9.6. I asked Mr. Gaffney to provide a legal opinion as to whether this agreementcould be copper fastened by including it in the draft Railway Order or in theconditions that the Board might apply. In this regard, I would draw the attentionof the Board in particular to the closing submission of Mr. Gaffney on day 5 ofthe oral hearing (transcript pages 33-37). Mr. Gaffney said that along with Mr.O’Donnell S.C and Mr. Bradley S.C he came to the view that if the Boardimposed a condition requiring the Hansfield Station to be provided then theRailway Order would be open to judicial review on the ground that the Boardhad acted ultra vires (see page 35). This is because a condition under the statutecan only be a condition which would be relevant to the carrying out of theworks for which permission has been given. I take this to mean that a conditionunder a Railway Order must relate to the proposed project and not to another


project and, therefore, section 44 of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act2001 is more restrictive than the provisions governing conditions in thePlanning and Development Act 2000. Mr. Gaffney said that it would be outsidethe jurisdiction of the Board to say that not only are you to do the works youwant to do, or you are asked to do, but you have to do other works. That as acondition, whatever powers the Board might have in any other regard, would bean ultra vires condition. It is to be noted the Mr. Butler S.C for Menolly/ManorPark agreed with this opinion (see transcript day 5 page 40).

2.9.7. Having regard to the legal opinion of Mr. Gaffney, I consider that it is sufficientfor the Board to note the legally binding agreement between CIE/IE andMenolly/Manor Park. I consider that this agreement resolves this significantissue, as there is now a commitment to provide a station at Hansfield albeitoutside the terms of the Railway Order. Mr. Gaffney did not specifically addressthe possibility of the Board imposing a condition in the Railway Order requiringthat the railway shall not operate until a station is constructed at Hansfield.However, it seems to me that his legal opinion implies that this would open thedecision to judicial review. I recommend that the Board obtain its own legalopinion before they decide to impose such a condition. It is to be noted that Ihave added Schedule 11 containing an outline of the terms of agreementbetween CIE/IE and the observers. This is based on the submission made byCIE/IE at the final day of the oral hearing and it is noted that they used theformat used in the Railway (Glounthaune to Midleton) Order 2007. CIE/IEincluded in their schedule reference to the agreement in relation to Hansfieldstation in the entries for Menolly Homes and Manor Park Homebuilders. Thiswould satisfy my concern that there should be reference to the agreement in theRailway Order.

2.9.8. It is to be noted that there is an amendment to the proposed property acquisitionat plot 002.P.03 to cater in part for the preliminary design indicated on drawing0730-P100 prepared by Conroy Crowe Kelly, architects for Menolly/ManorPark and submitted to the oral hearing (see Report Attachment 4). This may notbe the final design of the station and bridge but gives an indication of the likelyoutcome.

2.10. Clonsilla Station.

2.10.1. Fingal County Council, Menolly Homes, Manor Park Homebuilders andCastlethorn Construction have each requested that the draft Railway Order beamended or that conditions be imposed so that the requirements of theHansfield Strategic Development Zone in relation to improvements toClonsilla Station would be implemented.

2.10.2. The improvements to Clonsilla Station are described in section 8.3.2 of theHansfield SDZ as approved by the Board on 30/1/06 (PL 06F.ZD.2002). Theyconsist of the provision of a new weather protected pedestrian bridge over theRoyal Canal and the railway line to provide direct access to both platforms ofthe station at its western end. Bus and car drop-off facilities, limited car andbicycle parking and covered waiting area and walkway to the new bridge are


to be provided. New ticketing facilities and improved weather protection andwaiting facilities are to be provided for those using the western egress andaccess to the station. Section 10.1.1 of the SDZ requires the improvements toClonsilla Station to have commenced in Phase 1A.

2.10.3. Mr. Finn for CIE/IE in response to questioning by Fingal County Councilstated that they have provided a very elegant new pedestrian bridge atClonsilla immediately adjacent to the road bridge, that this was opened in May2007 and this has improved safety (see transcript day 2 page 45). He said thatIE would be willing to facilitate another pedestrian bridge across the canal anda secondary ticket vending and validation point at the station. They have madesuch position clear to Fingal Co.Co. and have had some discussion regardingits practicality but it is not related to the railway order. CIE/IE in document‘Conditions Requested’ received by the Board on 14/12/07 and submitted tothe final day of the oral hearing (see Report Attachment 4 page 8) state thatthey have applied for a Railway Order between a point 180m to the west ofClonsilla Station to the Pace terminal station. As such, the Clonsilla secondaryentrance is outside the scope of the Railway Order.

2.10.4. Having regard to the draft Railway Order – Alignment Plan No. A001, CIE/IEare factually correct in stating that Clonsilla Station is outside the scope of theproject. Therefore, it is not possible for the Board to amend the Railway Orderby imposing conditions as requested, in my opinion. There is the option ofseeking modifications to the draft Railway Order to include theseimprovements. In my opinion a balance must be struck between the timelyimplementation of the overall railway line and the implementation of thelocalised Clonsilla improvements. The proposed railway will not impede theimprovements to Clonsilla and the planning authority can pursue this matteroutside the terms of the subject Railway Order having regard to the provisionsof the SDZ Scheme and the section 49 scheme.

2.11. Roads Issues.

2.11.1. Leaving aside access to Dunboyne Station that was previously discussed, thefollowing roads issues arose in the written or oral observations:Impact of the proposed railway on level crossings between Clonsilla and

the City Centre.Provision of pedestrian and cycle facilities following removal of

Bennetstown Bridge.Provision of Ongar to Barnhill Road.Other roads conditions requested by Meath County Council.

2.11.2. Level Crossings.The written observation of Mr. Michael Mc Loughlin says the applicationfails to take account of the needs of residents in communities living along theline closer to the city particularly where level crossings are located. The levelcrossings in the Castleknock, Clonsilla and Diswellstown areas currentlycause severe traffic congestion. The proposal ignores the impact of additionaltrains on these crossings. Currently there are as many as 12 per hour closings


at Coolmine and these plans will increase this to 20 per hour or for 45 of the60 minutes with chaotic results.

2.11.3. CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ (see Report Attachment 5 item 20) saidthere is an existing turn back at Clonsilla Station and trains are currentlyrunning from Clonsilla Station into Docklands at a frequency of two trains perhour during the peak period. Regardless of this project, it is intended that thefrequency of these trains will increase to four per hour in future timetables. Assuch, this project will not specifically have any impact on the level crossingsbetween Clonsilla and the Docklands. There are no new level crossings beingintroduced as part of this scheme. Notwithstanding this, IE is separatelyengaged in discussions with both Fingal County Council and Dublin CityCouncil to look to replace some of the level crossings between ClonsillaStation and Docklands station with bridges.

2.11.4. I consider that this response adequately addresses the issue.

2.11.5. Bennetstown pedestrian/cycle link.Meath County Council requested the Board to impose a condition (number 11– see schedule of conditions submitted to oral hearing in Report Attachment 2)that alternative provision be made for a pedestrian/cycle link from the northernend of the R157 (Dunboyne Road – Pace road) to the existing L22250(Woodpark road) as required by mitigation measure no.1 in table 2.16 volume3A of the EIS for the M3 Motorway Scheme arising from removal ofBennetstown Bridge as part of the railway scheme. It should be noted that thisis different to the pedestrian/cycle connection discussed below in section2.12.16 of this report. In oral evidence, Mr. John McGrath for MCC said thereason for this provision was to mitigate the impact of severance on the localcommunities and to allow access to bus services on the realigned N3. He askedthat CIE/IE provide a solution to this problem.

2.11.6. CIE/IE in ‘Conditions Requested’ (see Report Attachment 4) say the conditionis not required. They acknowledge that MCC have commissioned an IFPLUTstudy that will determine if the walkway and cycleway is required. Given thatthe bridge will have to be demolished for clearance reasons, and in the absenceof the IFPLUT study, the CIE/IE proposals for the bridge remain.

2.11.7. It is to be noted that there was further reference to this issue by both MCC andCIE/IE on day 5 of the oral hearing (see transcript pages 6, 7,8, 12, 19, 20, 23and 24). Mr. MacEntee for MCC said the Board is effectively being asked togive guidance on how the mitigation measure in the M3 Motorway EIS can beimplemented in the absence of Bennetstown Bridge. Mr. Gaffney for CIE/IEargued that there is now uncertainty as to whether this facility will or will notbe required and the answer must await the adoption of the IFPLUT study.

2.11.8. It would seem to me that when the Board made a decision (dated 22/8/2003)on the M3 Motorway (17.MS2004) there was no certainty as to whether thesubject railway scheme would go ahead. Government (in November 2005) inTransport 21 provided that certainty. MCC is now embarking on a IFPLUTstudy and are about to engage consultants. It is acknowledged that the study


will examine pedestrian and cycle routes. Consequently, I consider that theplanning circumstances in relation to pedestrian and cycle facilities havechanged since the decision on the M3 Motorway and may change againfollowing the IFPLUT report. Obviously, there are a number of possible routesthat could be chosen and they may or may not involve crossing the railwayline. In my opinion it is not the responsibility of CIE/IE to provide a solutionin such changing circumstances and the Board cannot be prescriptive at thistime. I consider that this is a matter for future agreement between CIE/IE andMCC and cannot be conditioned in specific terms in this railway order.

2.11.9. Ongar to Barnhill Road.The provision of a new road from Ongar to Barnhill is listed in table 6.1 ofthe Fingal County Development Plan 2005-2011 (item 39) and shown onBlanchardstown map 6. At the oral hearing, Mr. Gary O’Brien for Fingal Co.Co. (see transcript day 2 pages 131/132) said this road runs parallel to thewestern boundary of the Hansfield SDZ while also bounding zoned lands inBarnhill. This route will be carried over the proposed rail line by a bridge atchainage 1,580 on the rail line. The Part 8 process was completed in April2007 and the construction of the bridge is by agreement with the landownersso that Fingal Co. Co. did not issue any CPO in this regard. Fingal Co. Co.requires the Board to impose a condition requiring the applicant to constrainhis rail contractor in such a manner as to facilitate the new bridgeconstruction. The early construction of the Ongar to Barnhill Road couldfacilitate the planned upgrade works on the existing Barnhill Road Bridge onthe R149. If such a condition is not imposed, bridge construction works willbe impacted by restrictions such as working under track possessions and willincrease the cost of construction and the construction timeframe. The bridgeworks will include the construction of spill through abutments approximately7.5m from the track edge and the lifting of beams over the rail line.

2.11.10. CIE/IE in ‘Conditions Requested’ submitted 14/12/07 during the oral hearingdo not accept this condition. They say the design of the bridge has beenagreed between the landowners and IE and the outstanding issue relates tothe programming and implementation of the works. They say that IE andFCC agree to cooperate with each other to facilitate the construction of theirrespective works and IE will not unreasonably obstruct or restrict access tothe lands required by FCC to construct the bridge.

2.11.11. I consider that this is a matter for agreement between CIE/IE and the localauthority and is outside the scope of the Railway Order. Having regard to theterms of the legislation, I consider that it would be inappropriate for theBoard to impose such a condition.

2.11.12. Other roads conditions.During the oral hearing, Meath County Council submitted a schedule ofconditions that it requested the Board to impose. Conditions 2, 3, 4, and 6refer to the following matters:Condition 2 - Ducting to facilitate possible future traffic signals at

junction of R156 with Dunboyne Station access.


Condition 3 - Reconstruction of ramped section of road at DunboyneRailway Bridge.

Condition 4 - Signage in accordance with Part 8 of the Traffic SignsManuals and diversions advertised in local newspaper and radio.

Condition 6 - Maintenance of pedestrian bridge/ cycle bridge at Dunboynestation and to ensure it remains open to the public at all times.

2.11.13. CIE/IE in document ‘Conditions Requested’ received by the Board 14/12/07during the oral hearing (see Report Attachment 4) agreed to conditions 2 and4. They agree to condition 3 subject to the wording that the approach rampsto the bridge over the length of the proposed containment works will bereinstated to match the existing alignment. In relation to condition 6, IE agreeto implement reasonable maintenance measures with a view to ensuring thebridge remains open to the public.

2.11.14. I consider that these are detailed matters that can be covered by a conditionrequiring agreement with the local authority and I have included a conditionto that effect.


2.12. Property Acquisition & Related Issues.

2.12.1. Of the 31 observations received, 15 of them refer to property acquisition orrelated issues. Only 4 of such observers made presentations at the OralHearing, i.e. J.Connaughton Ltd, Sean Boylan, Ian Pringle and G & MMcGrath. It is also to be noted that two observations, one from Richard B.Leahy, and the second from McGarrell Reilly (owners of the lands at theproposed Pace Park & Ride facility) support the proposed development.

2.12.2. CIE/IE submitted the following documents to the Oral Hearing:‘List of Proposed Amendments to Draft Railway Order drawings and

additional drawings submitted in support of agreements reached’,‘Responses to Submissions’,‘Agreements reached with Iarnrod Eireann’, and‘Clarifications & responses to points raised during oral hearing’.

Hereunder is a summary of the agreements reached and comments thereon.Apart from individual concerns, the approach by CIE/IE appears to have metthe concerns of the vast majority of landowners along the proposed line of therailway. It is to be noted that agreement was not reached with Gerard & MoiraMcGrath.

2.12.3. Millfarm Residents Association:- A summary of this observation is given insection 1.5.6 of this report. On 11/12/07 the Board received a letter from theAssociation stating that they are satisfied with the assurances given incorrespondence with CIE/IE (copy of 2 letters in ‘Responses to Submissions’).In summary, CIE/IE propose the following:The ends of the open cul-de-sacs will be closed off by joining the existing

garden walls across the open space at a height of approx. 1.8m.A timber acoustic fence of 2.5m will run the entire length of Millfarm with

the exception of the opening at Willow Park where a 2.5m block wall willbe provided.

Subject to agreement with residents, the side walls to front gardens will beraised to 1.8m but will require replacement of the existing walls.

At the ends of the cul-de-sacs on the Millfarm Estate side, a mixture ofshrubs and standard trees will be planted.

To prevent light pollution, the designers are investigating recessing thelighting on the bridge into its floor. These lights will only be on during thehours of operation of the station.

A public address system is a requirement of Accessibility Legislation butwill be directed towards the station and will only be used during operatinghours.

The station bridge is located on the southern limit of the middle third of theplatform. Its side panels will be 1.8m high perforated metal screens whichlimit visibility.

Construction working hours will be 08.00 to 18.00 Monday to Friday and09.00 to 13.00 Saturdays with work outside these hours by agreement.

Changes to existing boundaries will be implemented as the firstconstruction activity and form security to the site.


Details of rodent control will be set out in the construction contract, IE willhave supervisory staff on site to ensure compliance and a liaison officer canbe contacted if issues arise.

Sewers serving existing dwellings will continue to be operational during therealignment of the outfall sewers by carrying out the works in stages and bythe use of over-pumping.

Houses within 40m of the track will be surveyed prior to commencement ofconstruction activities and these will be monitored for any detrimentaleffects during construction. A letter notifying dates of the surveys will beissued to concerned parties.

Inspector’s Comment: I have no objection to the proposed additional measuresfrom a planning perspective.

2.12.4. James Reeves, 8a Elton Drive, Dunboyne:- This observation requiresadditional noise reduction measures. CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’enclose a letter to Mr. Reeves dated 1/12/07 stating that noise screening willbe provided to a height of 2.5m for the full length of Millfarm, that a housecondition survey will be undertaken and that there will be no constructionaccess from Millfarm.


2.12.5. James & Adrienne McGrath, 9 Elton Drive, Dunboyne:- This observationconcerns noise, vibration, air quality, visual impact, flooding and propertyissues. It is summarised in section 1.5.4 of this report.

CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ enclose a letter to Mr. & Mrs McGrathdated 3/12/07 clarifying issues and proposing acoustic screening as peragreement with Millfarm Residents Association.


2.12.6. Thomas & Maud Potterton, Rathcormick, Ballivor:- The observers object tothe location of the proposed temporary service road for the constructioncompound at Hilltown as it would bisect their farm (Plot 003.T.21). They haveindicated an alternative access point and route.

CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ have agreed to an alternative accessarrangement and enclose a letter of acceptance from the observer dated10/12/07. Property Plan No.P003 has been amended accordingly.

Inspector’s Comment: I consider that this amendment to the draft RailwayOrder is acceptable from a planning perspective. During the Oral Hearing Iraised a question as to whether this temporary access would have any impacton a recently constructed trunk water main. CIE/IE have clarified that therewill be no impact and this was agreed by Meath County Council (see transcriptday 5 page 21).


2.12.7. John Connaughton Ltd:- Most of this observation refers to the proposedquantum of car parking and the access arrangements to Dunboyne Station.These issues have been discussed in section 2.8 of this report. The observationalso says that the EIS does not take cognisance of the existing sewageconnection on the observer’s lands. The location of the pipes is not indicatedon Alignment Plan A006. The train station and car park is located on andabove the observer’s surface water and sewage pipes. This impacts on thelands and future development potential. It restricts freedom to upgrade thesefacilities in the future. Confirmation is sought that the line of these pipes andtheir use will be maintained. The RO should confirm that there is no change ofownership or use of these pipes.

CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ say there are foul and surface watersewer crossings from Millfarm to collector sewers running parallel to theproposed rail alignment and currently run within the proposed reservation. Thefoul sewer crossings are at a suitable depth which will not require anyadjustments. However, the surface water crossings are too close to existingground level and at an unacceptable depth in relation to the proposed verticalrail alignment. Therefore, the surface water sewer crossings will have to belowered. Also, both the foul and surface water main collector sewers will haveto be relocated east of their current position and the surface water will belowered. The ownership of these sewers is unaffected by these changes inlevel and the relocated sewers are proposed within Mr. Connaughton’s lands.The future development will benefit from the lower invert levels. In terms ofcapacity, the rail project does not propose to connect to the surface watersewer. However, a connection to the foul sewer is required. The volumerequired is to cater for a staff WC and kitchen which is approximately0.05l/sec.

In the presentation of evidence to the Oral Hearing by RPS on behalf of JohnConnaughton Ltd, it is stated at page 13 that the confirmation by the projectteam that the continued use and control of the existing services runningthrough the area is acknowledged.


2.12.8. Hilltown Partnership.The issues of additional park and ride facilities in the future and electrificationof the line have been previously dealt with. It should be noted that CIE/IE andthe Thomas Brennan, owner of plots 003.P.18, 003.T.18, 003.T.18A,003.T.18B and 003.T.18C, entered into an agreement dated 13/12/07, a copyof which is enclosed in the document ‘Responses to Submissions’ (see ReportAttachment 5 folder 7). This agreement does not alter the permanent ortemporary land take in the draft Railway Order but alters the alignment plansby increasing the width of the deck of the proposed Hilltown Accommodationover-bridge and by provision of ducting for services in the over-bridge andunder the railway line. These changes are shown on revised alignment planB004 received 14/12/07.


Inspector’s Comment: I have no objection to the proposed alterations from aplanning perspective.

2.12.9. SIAC Construction Ltd.This is a property issue regarding reference 007.P.42. The observers require arevision of the property take with CIE as shown on attached drawing SK-CIE-01.

CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ have agreed to the revision and enclosedrawings illustrating the new property take. SIAC Construction Ltd. in letterreceived by the Board on 10/12/07 has confirmed agreement.

Inspector’s Comment: I consider that this minor amendment to the draftRailway Order is acceptable from a planning perspective.

2.12.10. Virginia Kerr.This observation refers to boundary issues and property refs 004.P.23,004.T.23, and 004.T100A.

CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ propose a number of mitigationmeasures and the following is my summary of the main provisions:The boundary with the railway will consist of a 2.4m high steel black

coated palisade fence (type 3) as indicated on drawing No. D 001. Outsidethis fence and on Ms Kerr’s land, a 3m wide strip will be a temporary landtake to facilitate construction and will be reinstated by planting (type ofplanting specified). A timber rail stud fence shall be erected to separatehorses from the screen planting.

During construction, a 2.5m high solid timber hoarding shall be erected toenclose all construction work as shown on drawing no. 011506-49-SK0404.

The construction of containment barriers at the approaches to the bridgemay necessitate the removal of trees and vegetation growing on theembankment. The extent of the regarding of the slope will be minimisedand will not extend closer than 7m to the root protection area of the cherrytrees as per drawing no. 011506-49-SK0404. The trees will be protectedduring construction. In the event of removal of vegetation from theembankment, reinstatement planting will be implemented (type of plantingspecified).

Regarding security and visual intrusion, a 2m high temporary timber fencewill be erected on CIE land at the top of the embankment to remain in placeuntil planting on the embankment slope is well established.

Mitigation measures for construction nuisance will be written into theconstruction contract and the planting specification shall provide formaintenance and defects for 18 months.

Additional mitigation measures in the form of local noise screening at theworks site or through scheduling of works for non-sensitive periods may berequired by agreement with Ms Kerr. In this regard it is noted that Ms Kerrhas a studio on the premises.


Working hours will be 08.00 to 18.00 Monday to Friday and 08.00 to 13.00on Saturday or otherwise by prior agreement. The programming of thedemolition of the bridge will be discussed.

During relocation of the Eircom telephone line an uninterrupted service willbe maintained.

It is noted that CIE/IE has submitted a copy of its letter dated 12/12/07 to MsKerr and she has signed this.

Inspector’s Comment: I consider that these localised additional measures areacceptable from a planning perspective.

2.12.11. Sean Boylan, Castlefarm, Dunboyne.The concerns of Mr. Boylan are summarised in section 1.5.13 of this report.Mr. Boylan was represented at the oral hearing by Mr. Brendan Kilty S.C.Throughout the hearing Mr. Kilty presented updates of negotiations withCIE/IE and confirmed agreement on day 4 (see transcript page 4).

CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ propose a number of amendments andmitigation measures and the following is my summary of the main provisions:The permanent land take at plot 005.P.32 has been modified to minimise

the extent of the land take required (drawing 005.P.32 attached). In theevent that works are required to the embankment, substitute car parking willbe provided.

Access to Mr. Boylan’s property shall be modified as shown on drawing no.011506-49-SK408. This involves an agreed additional land take.

IE undertake to replace an existing well with a new well on Mr. Boylan’sproperty. The location selected in the RO drawing is based on reasonableprofessional assumption but if not suitable, an alternative location will beagreed. Installation of the new well shall be carried out in advance ofremoval of the existing well. Report on Hydrological Issues in relation towell relocation at Sean Boylan’s property attached.

A 2.5m high acoustic barrier will be installed along the railway lineadjacent to the clinic as shown on plan A006.

IE undertake to divert a foul drain from the clinic across the railway lineand make a new connection to the existing foul sewer to the west of therailway line adjacent to Larchfield Estate (specification provided). IE willprovide a wayleave to Mr. Boylan for this crossing.

IE agrees to construct a 2nd ditch with new outfall to the south of CastleStream – plan 005.T.32 and drawing no. 011506-49-DR-2405 refers.

IE agrees to a local diversion of existing gas main within Mr. Boylan’sproperty including his private connection.

It is noted that Mr. Boylan has accepted these terms by signing the letter dated12/12/07 from IE to O’Connor Sutton Cronin.

Inspector’s Comment: I consider that the amendments to the draft RailwayOrder and the additional localised measures are acceptable from a planningperspective.


2.12.12. Ian Pringle, Barnhill.This observation consists of a strong objection to temporary possession ofplots 003.T.12 and 003.T.100A as these lands are within 20m of his homeand are in an area of mature woodland providing a shield from road noise.

Mr. Pringle made a presentation to the Oral Hearing (see transcript day 4pages 5-8 and cross examination by CIE/IE pages 8-12). Following this, Mr.Pringle entered into discussions with CIE/IE. He later confirmed thatagreement had been reached (see transcript day 4 pages 34 & 35).

CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ propose to install a 2.4m highpermanent timber fence behind the length of the safety barrier. They haveclarified that the temporary land take is necessary due to possible instabilityin the embankment, that no trees will be taken down in the area of thetemporary land take, that a protective hoarding will be erected around trees inclose proximity to the works if necessary, that the temporary land take willnot be used as construction access, and that where vegetation is removedthese areas will be landscaped. Drawing 011506-49-SK-0126 refers.

Inspector’s Comment: I have no objection to these measures from a planningperspective.

2.12.13. Tony Murray & Michael Degan, Lucan.This issue concerns the proposed boundary treatment for plots 007.P.40,007.T.40 and 007.T.40A. The observers require that the proposed boundarydetail should be amended to a high quality timber fence of 3m minimumincorporating noise mitigation. They refer to the zoning of the lands forresidential uses in the IAAP as the rationale.

The draft Railway Order proposes a post and wire fencing.

CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ say the zoning of the lands does not initself demand the boundary treatment requested and that the appropriateboundary treatment for a planned development should be installed as part ofthat development. They say that if the lands are developed in the future, CIEwill not withhold its consent to a change in boundary treatment subject tothere being no adverse effect on engineering or operational requirements.

It is noted that there is no response from the observers.

Inspector’s Comment: As the lands currently form part of a field inagricultural use, I agree with the response from CIE/IE.

2.12.14. Mrs Betty Larkin, Station Road, Dunboyne.This is a property issue concerning plot 006.P.35. Mrs Larkin says theacquisition of portion of her property would render the remaining portiontotally unviable. Accordingly, the entire holding should be incorporated inthe CPO.


CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ agree to acquire the whole of theproperty if requested to do so.

Letter dated 12/12/07 to the Board from O’Donnell Property Consultantsconfirms that agreement has been reached. It requests that the ‘Order’ beamended to include the entire property.

Inspector’s Comment: CIE/IE have agreed in writing to acquire the property ifso requested and I consider that this resolves the issue. However, the entireproperty boundary has not been identified and the compulsory acquisition ofthe entire property is not strictly necessary for the purposes of the constructingthe proposed railway. Therefore I consider that it is more appropriate for thisagreement to be noted in Schedule 11 of the Railway Order.

2.12.15. Gerty Gregan, Lands at Bennettstown, Dunboyne.The original written submission received by the Board on 24/10/07 issummarised in section 1.5.19 of this report. It is to be noted that therepresentatives of Ms Gregan did not make a presentation to the OralHearing.

CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ propose the following: A 2.7m high block wall, faced with real stone on the retained side, will

be built along the CPO boundary line between the property and the carpark at the commencement of the works, the remaining boundary will bepalisade.

Proposed landscaping is specified. The L-shaped outbuilding being demolished will be rebuilt to a similar

size within the boundaries of the retained lands. Compensation will be paid for the relocation of a well and Bio-unit. If required, CIE will acquire a lesser interest in the lands subject to the

provision in perpetuity of the same number of parking spaces as shownin the draft RO.

CIE/IE has also clarified that the drainage to the retained property will beunaffected, that continuous access to the Gregan property will be maintainedat all times, and any damage to lands not acquired will be reinstated andmade good. Other issues refer to compensation.

Inspector’s Comment: I consider that these localised measures are acceptablefrom a planning perspective. CIE/IE include Gerty Gregan in the schedule of‘Agreements reached with Iarnrod Eireann’ that was submitted to the OralHearing. In the absence of information to the contrary, I have no reason todoubt that an agreement has been reached.

2.12.16. NRA.This observation refers to Plots 007.P.102, 008.P.102, 008.T.101A,008.T.102, 008.T.102A, and 008.T.102B as owned by Meath Co.Co. andoccupied by NRA and Eurolink. A summary of this observation is containedin section 1.5.21 of this report and is repeated here, viz:


The Order should not interfere with or prejudice the availability of thelands for the M3 and should state that they will not be made availableuntil after construction of the M3 is completed and written approval isgiven by the NRA.

A condition is requested that the design for the railway line takes intoaccount the conditions attached to the Board’s approval of the M3 Cloneeto North of Kells Scheme applicable to the area.

A condition should be attached requiring detailed design of theaccess/junction arrangements for the Park and Ride facility to be subjectto the approval of the Authority.

The NRA requests that a ‘Traffic Liaison Group’ be established to assessand approve traffic management proposals during the railway constructionperiod.

CIE/IE in ‘Responses to Submissions’ have submitted a copy of a signedagreement between CIE/IE, the NRA and Meath County Council containingthe following provisions (my summary)CIE/IE will not compulsorily acquire the lands required for the railway

works that are owned by Meath County Council (MCC) and occupied byEurolink and NRA. These lands will be transferred to CIE/IE under theterms of the agreement dated 16 August 2007 between MCC and CIE/IE.

Modification 4I(b) of ABP approval of the M3 scheme requiresMCC/NRA to procure a footpath/cycleway. CIE/IE agree to makeavailable to the NRA and MCC for the purpose of providing the footpathsuch lands that may be considered excessive to their operational needs.

If this footpath/cycleway cannot be constructed by NRA as a direct resultof the railway works, CIE/IE will include the footpath/cycleway in therailway construction contract.

CIE/IE will ensure that the roundabout giving access into the Pace parkand ride facility will be designed and constructed in accordance with NRADMRB so as to allow future dual carriageway operation. The design andconstruction shall be subject to prior approval of MCC/NRA.

If IE works consequent to the Rail Order result in an adverse affect onlandscaping measures required under the M3 Scheme, CIE/IE shall usetheir reasonable endeavours to mitigate the adverse effects.

Inspector’s Comment: Condition 4 I(b) of the Board’s decision dated 25/8/03for the M3 Clonee – North of Kells Motorway Scheme 2002 (17.ER2014)stated that

Footpaths incorporating cycle-lanes shall be provided within theexisting or proposed verges along the following roads :-(b) From the end of the pathway being provided off the PaceInterchange at the southern end of Woodpark road northwards alongits eastern verge to join with the pathway being provided offBlackbull Roundabout, as generally shown on Drawing OH CPO5003 Rev.D01 submitted by Meath County Council at the oralhearing.

A copy of this drawing is enclosed with the submission made by MeathCounty Council to the oral hearing for the subject Railway Order. It is noted


that the condition refers to the area to the north and northwest of the proposedM3 Pace Interchange.

It is to be noted that this agreement satisfies not only the observation of theNRA but also the same issues identified by Meath County Council. In myview it is sufficient to note this agreement Schedule 11.

2.12.17. Barina Construction Ltd.This property issue concerns plots 003.T.13 and 003.T.13A. There is noobjection in principle to temporary acquisition. In written submission to theBoard received on 11/12/07 during the hearing (see Report Attachment 3),the observers requested that the RO be amended in the following way: The boundary treatment should be changed from post and wire fence to

palisade to protect the safety of livestock and prevent trespass. Future development of lands to the north and south of the railway may

require that drainage infrastructure and services traverse the line.Ducting should be provided adjacent to the proposed culvert – drawingssubmitted.

In ‘Responses to submissions’, CIE/IE noted the requirement for under-trackcrossings and expect to be able to facilitate the observer. They say that postand wire fencing will be utilised and will be cattle proof in keeping with allstandard fencing at agricultural boundaries to the railway.

Inspector’s Comments:- I consider that the boundary treatment proposed byCIE/IE is reasonable for agricultural lands.

2.12.18. Gerard & Moira McGrath, Stirling Bridge.This observation relates to Plots 004.P.20, 004.T.20 and 004.T.100. Mr.McGrath has a bloodstock business and according to his equine expert theland holding contains somewhere between 20 and 30 thoroughbred horses ofhigh value, so-called black type horses.

My summary of the written submission made prior to the oral hearing iscontained in section 1.5.24 of this report. The submission challenges thescheme in legal terms and argues that it is defective in many respects,including various aspects of the EIS. It identifies issues relating to thebloodstock interest, the impact on the house and questions not covered by theEIS. It requires a set of four pre-conditions as a minimum. These coverreplacement of trees, minimising noise, dust and vibration, providing suitableaccommodation for the McGraths and their livestock (specified as fourhorses requiring relocation) during construction, and carrying out a pre-construction condition survey and identifying suitable works in mitigation.

At the oral hearing, Dr. Kevin Dodd presented evidence on behalf of CIE/IEon Bloodstock Impact and responded to the written observation (see ReportAttachment 1). In summary, the following points were made:Construction Phase. During construction it is proposed to secure the site with a timber close

boarding fence about 2m high to guarantee that the animals will be


unable to gain access to the work in progress. A temporary stud post andrail fence will be erected outside the hoarding to keep the horses fromcontact with the hoarding.

During the removal of the existing hedgerows and erection of thetemporary hoarding it would be essential for the horses not to be in theimmediate vicinity for the duration of the work but the horses could bereturned as soon as the boundaries were secure.

Noise levels during construction will not affect the health and wellbeingof the horses. However, during demolition of Sterling Bridge there maybe short periods when the noise level will be high. It would be prudent toremove the horses from the field during such activity and timely noticeto the owners would facilitate this.

The loss of the screening and shelter effect of the existing hedgerow canbe replaced by the erection of open fronted wooden shelters. In time thereplacement hedge will recreate the lost hedgerows.

The exhausts generated by passing trains will be rapidly dispersed andwill not have any effect on the horses.

Disturbance of rats can be dealt with by bait points. Any pheasants in thearea will relocate.

Operational Phase.Horses vary in temperament but quickly adapt to changes in their

environment (e.g. horses travel by road and air). Horses quickly becomehabituated to the passing of trains with no ill effects.

The final boundary fence is to be triple tiered and consist of a 2.4m highmetal palisade, a planted hedgerow interspersed with trees and a standardtimber post and rail fence.

At the oral hearing, Mr. McGrath was represented by Mr. RaymondO’Malley (of Kieran O’Malley & Co. Ltd.) and Mr. Des Laydon, head ofClinical Pathology at the Irish Equine Centre. The evidence of Mr. O’Malleyis contained in the transcript for day 3 of the hearing (pages 11-18) and acopy of the submission was handed in at the hearing (see Report Attachment3). The main points may be summarised as follows:Loss of privacy from public road due to removal and non-replacement of

current mature and somewhat scattered landscaping consisting of treesand shrubs.

The noise and vibration of the EIS is defective. The criterion of 60decibels is unreasonably high and does not accord with the EPAGuidelines that advise 55 decibels by day and 45 by night. The criterionin the EIS proposes a noise limit that is 15 decibels higher between 06.00and 08.00 hours and between 10.00 at night and midnight.

The noise assessment does not consider that worst-case scenario of 256trains per day. It does not include any noise level at the McGrath’s housebetween midnight and 06.00.

The calculated noise level of 52 decibels in table 11.5 is based on theMcGrath’s house being 40m from the line. The actual distance is 25m sothe 52 decibels is incorrect.

The methodology is incorrect. The noise impact during construction isunderstated as 60-65 decibels; it could be as high as 69 to 72 decibels.


The EIS does not properly consider the direct, indirect, punitive and long-term impacts from extending the line to Navan. The true impact ofelectrification has not been presented and the impact of criss-crossing thelands with underground electricity cables is not mentioned.

The evidence of Mr. Laydon is contained in the transcript for day 3 of thehearing (pages 21-27). Mr. Laydon outlined the temperament ofthoroughbred horses and their reactions. The main points of evidence may besummarised as follows:A significant portion of the stud farm is going to be compromised by the

activities which need to be carried out. It will involve a greatermanagement load and the movement and placing of mares on other farmsis expensive. It has been accepted that creating this division through thefarm is disruptive and causes management issues.

Landscaping of thoroughbred stud farms provides shelter and affectsprivate sales. The loss of maturity of the tree lines is significant for thisfarm and it will take many years to be in any way restored. Palisadefencing is no substitute for tree loss. Proposed field shelters tend not to beavailed of by horses except to escape from biting flies during summer.

Returning horses after periods of absence is a fraught undertaking. Inaddition, the population of a stud farm is dynamic and new horses need tobe accommodated to sudden and unfamiliar noises.

CIE/IE in ‘Clarifications & responses to points raised during oral hearing’responded to these issues. The issues concerning the adequacy of the EISraised by Mr. O’Malley, particularly in relation to noise, were consideredabove in section 2.4 of this report. In relation to overlooking from the publicroad, boundary treatments and bloodstock matters, the following is mysummary of the main points made by CIE/IE:Recent studies have determined that works will only be required at the

top of the embankment on IE property except in unforeseencircumstances. During construction a 2.5m solid timber hoarding will beinstalled. Once the roadside protection barriers are installed, the clearedportion of the embankment will be replanted with hedgerows and untilmaturity a 2m timber screen fence will be erected behind the protectionbarriers thus screening the McGrath’s house from the road.

As previously described by Dr. Dodd, on the railway line the permanentboundary will consist of a 2.4m palisade fence, a 3m strip of denseplaning including standard and extra heavy trees (species specified) and atimber rail stud fence.

In Dr. Dodd’s opinion, the horse enterprise will remain viable with goodmanagement and private sales would be based on the animals themselves.On the issue of temporary shelters, horses will suit themselves and theseshelters are to replace the effect of removal of hedgerows.

Dr. Dodd could find no documented evidence that the sight and sound ofpassing trains would panic horses and his personal experience confirmsthis. Mr. Laydon did not produce any evidence of this.

In discussions, Mr. Laydon expressed the opinion that the ideal boundarywould consist of a solid stone wall together with planted hedgerows and asafety fencing of wire mesh and wood that would cut off all sight of the


trains. Dr. Dodd accepted that some animals may be startled but not thegenerality of horses; such horses would adapt with no ill effects. Dr.Dodd sees no necessity for a solid wall.

The key element to the continued success of this horse enterprise isforward planning of each step during construction and operation so as tominimise disruption to daily routine. During specific construction stages,it is accepted by CIE/IE that horses will have to be removed from thefield currently under work and specific arrangements put in place toensure the health and welfare of the animals.

It was explained to Mr. McGrath that his recent communication from theESB regarding undergrounding of 10KV line only applies at the crossingof the proposed railway line and that no disturbance of the remainder ofhis lands will occur. The statement by Mr. Laydon that 75% of Mr.McGrath’s farm will be sterilised by the works is therefore incorrect.

In further discussions, Mr. McGrath rejected additional mitigationmeasures consisting of locating the temporary construction hoarding sothat planting would take place from the start of construction and remainin place until the planting reached maturity and that an acoustic fencecould be erected on the boundary of the railway line which faces theMcGrath residence.

On day 5 of the hearing (transcript pages 17 & 18), Mr. McGrath said therewere 3 points at issue(a) That negotiations with CIE/IE ceased because they refused to talk about

relocation of horses. Such relocation is essential as evidenced by Mr.Laydon and appendix K of the EIS.

(b) A permanent solid wall is essential because a palisade fence will have astrobe lighting effect per Mr. Laydon.

(c) The noise assessment for the house is defective because it does not takeaccount of the extension completed in 2006.

In his closing comments, Mr. Gaffney for CIE/IE said that interference anddamage to the McGrath’s horses and residence will be minimal and will beminimised and mitigated to the best possible degree (transcript day 5 page 9).He said that if it were necessary to remove horses at times, Mr. McGrath’sexpenses would have to be met by IE (transcript day 5 page 22).

Inspector’s comments: I consider that the mitigation measures proposed byCIE/IE are reasonable. Issues regarding boundary treatment and farmmanagement can be dealt with during accommodation works and by meansof compensation.

2.12.19. Overall conclusion regarding land take.I consider that the proposed land take, as revised, has been kept to theminimum. It would seem necessary that all the lands identified in theSchedules (as amended) are required for the construction of the railway.There does not appear to be any opportunity for varying the alignment orreducing the proposed land take.


2.13. Other Issues.

2.13.1. Water and drainage matters.Mr. Tim O’Leary of Meath County Council in section 2 of evidence to theoral hearing (see Report Attachment 2) recommended a set of 12 conditionsconcerning water and drainage matters. The first five conditions specificallyrefer to alterations to existing foul and surface water drains serving estatesbordering the line in Dunboyne and condition 15 of the Schedule ofConditions requested by MCC refers. In addition, condition 16 of theSchedule refers to maintaining embankments for the flood relief scheme ofthe River Tolka.

2.13.2. CIE/IE in document ‘Conditions Requested’ received 14/12/07 accepted theseconditions. Regarding condition 16, they confirm that the proposed workswill not damage or negatively affect any of the flood alleviation works.

2.13.3. In my opinion it is not necessary to set out all the matters contained in Mr.O’Leary’s recommendation, as most are standard type conditions. Instead, Ihave included the standard type condition used by the Board and the contentof Condition 16 of MCC.

2.13.4. Mr. Sean Boylan.It is to be noted that Mr. Kilty S.C, representing Mr. Boylan, formallyapplied for costs on day 4 of the oral hearing (see transcript page 4). This is amatter outside my remit and I refer this to the Board for the appropriateconsideration.

2.13.5. Railway Order Schedules.There are 10 schedules in the draft Railway Order submitted by CIE/IE. In theRailway (Glounthaune to Midleton) Order 2007, article 4 contained sub-article(3) requiring the railway works to be executed and the railway to be operatedin accordance with the understandings reached at the public enquiry as set outin schedule 11 (extracts of this RO are attached). I have added a similarSchedule 11 based on the document ‘Agreements reached with IarnrodEireann’ received by the Board on 14/12/07 and submitted to the oral hearingby CIE/IE. I have also added an additional Schedule 12 containing myrecommended conditions.

2.13.6. Conditions generally.Under section 43(1)(h) of the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001, theBoard is empowered to consider the matters referred to in section 143 of thePlanning and Development Act 2000 as inserted by section 26 of the Planningand Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006. This covers the policiesand objectives of the Government, State authorities, the Minister, planningauthorities, other bodies, the national interest and the NSS.

2.13.7. In most of the conditions that I have drafted, I have inserted a clause requiringthe matters contained in the condition to be referred to the Board fordetermination in default of agreement with the relevant local authority. This isnecessary, in my view, because I believe that the Board cannot delegate its


responsibility to another authority. Mr. Gaffney for CIE/IE expressed the sameview in his closing statement (see transcript day 5 pages 38 and 39).

2.13.8. Plans attached to the Railway Order.Should the Board make the Railway Order, the accompanying plans willconsist of those three volumes submitted by CIE/IE as the application, togetherwith the amendments submitted to the oral hearing, and the furtheramendments required by the conditions in Schedule 12. The legislation doesnot appear to envisage the making of a consolidated set of such plans. I notethat the Board included a consolidation condition in the Hansfield SDZ.However, such a condition would be inappropriate in the context of a RailwayOrder, in my opinion, as consolidated plans drawn up after the making of theOrder would not form part of the Order.

2.13.9. In relation to the amendments made to the alignment andarchitectural/structure plans, I have referred to these in amendments to thedraft Railway Order Schedule 1, but many of them are also referred to in thenew Schedule 11. In relation to amendments to the property plans, I haveinserted a reference to the revised plans in the ‘observations’ section of therelevant entry in Schedules 2 and 10. If the Board make further amendments, itwould seem to me that they should be inserted into Schedule 12.


Section 3. Recommendation.

Having examined the draft order, the documents accompanying the application, theEnvironmental Impact Statement, the written submissions, the submissions made tothe oral hearing, and my site inspection, I recommend that the Board make a RailwayOrder for the reasons and considerations, and subject to the amendments to thearticles and schedules to the draft order, and the addition of schedules 11 and 12, asset out hereunder:

Reasons and Considerations.

Having regard to(a) National policy contained in the provisions of Transport 21 (November 2005) and

the National Development Plan 2007-2013,(b) Regional policy contained in the provisions of A Platform for Change – DTO

Strategy 2000-2016 (November 2001), and the Regional Planning Guidelines –Greater Dublin Area 2004-2016 (July 2004),

(c) The provisions of the Fingal County Development Plan 2005-2011 and the MeathCounty Development Plan 2007-2013,

(d) The provisions of the Hansfield Strategic Development Zone (2006), and theIntegrated Action Area Plan for Lands east of the Railway Line, Dunboyne(Meath County Council 2005),

(e) The draft order and documents submitted with the application, including thecontent of the Environmental Impact Statement, and

(f) The written and oral submissions made by the observers and the responses by theapplicant,

It is considered that the re-opening of the railway line between Clonsilla and Pacewould not have a significant effect on the environment and would be consistent withthe proper planning and sustainable development of the area.


Amendments to Articles of Draft Railway Order.

The original draft Railway Order was submitted with the application and is containedin four volumes. CIE/IE submitted a revised Volume 1 at the oral hearing. Taking theoriginal draft as the starting point, the following changes were made to the reviseddraft Volume 1:

Part II - Works and Related Provisions, Article 4 - Construction of Railwayand Railway Works: ‘the Minister’ was replaced by ‘the Board’ in sub-article2, and sub-article 5 was deleted.

Part II - Works and Related Provisions, Article 19 – Expenses of An BordPleanala: ‘a Bord Pleanala’ was replaced by ‘An Bord Pleanala’.

The following new typographical errors or corrections should be made to the originaldraft:

Arrangement of Articles – PART IV – MISCELLANEOUS and GENERAL,Article 19 – change ‘Expenses of Minister’ to ‘Expenses of An BordPleanala’,

PART IV – MISCELLANEOUS AND GENERAL – ARTICLE 16 –Interference with Apparatus – there are two subsections ‘(a)’ in sub-article 1.Change the second one to ‘(b)’.

SCHEDULE 1 – THE RAILWAY AND RAILWAY WORKSAUTHORISED BY THIS ORDER. The first bullet point should be amendedto read as follows:The construction of 7.5km of dual track from Clonsilla to Pace along theexisting discontinued alignment for 2900 Diesel Multiple Unit trains. The linewill not be electrified but provision for future electrification has been made inspace requirements and land take.

The following new amendment should be made to the original draft:

Part II - Works and Related Provisions, Article 4 - Construction of Railwayand Railway Works: a new sub-article should be inserted as sub-article 3 withre-numbering of the remaining sub-articles. Sub-article 3 to read as follows:

3. The railway works authorised by this Order shall be executed, and therailway shall be operated, in accordance with the understandings reached atthe oral hearing, as set out in Schedule 11, and in accordance with theconditions, as set out in Schedule 12.


Amendments to SCHEDULE 1THE RAILWAY AND RAILWAY WORKS AUTHORISED BY

THIS ORDER.

The fourth bullet point should be amended to read as follows:The provision of car parking spaces for 300 cars at Dunboyne station on the

east side of the rail.

The following should be added after the last bullet point:

The works described on the Alignment Plans and Architectural/Structural Planssubmitted with the application shall be amended in accordance with the revisionsdescribed on the following plans:

1. Dunboyne Station Proposed Car Park Alternative Option – drawing number011506-49-SK-0407

2. Proposed Dunboyne Footbridge (OB290A) – revised Structure Plan NumberB009 received 11/12/2007.

3. Clonee Road, Dunboyne,- Revised Alignment Plan No. A006 received 14/12/2007.- Property No. 32 Accommodation Roads Sheet 1 of 2 drawing number

011506-49-DR-2405.- Signs, markings and setting out – drawing number 011506-49-SK-0408.

4. Property No. 23 Sterling Bridge – drawing number 011506-49-SK-0404.

5. Existing Barnhill Bridge Approach Road, Cross Sections – drawing number011506-49-Sk-0126.

6. Pace Station Proposed Park and Ride – Existing and Proposed Services Sheet2 – Drawing Number 011506-49-DR-0843.

7. Hilltown Accommodation over-bridge – revisions to Structure Plan 004received 14/12/2007.


Amendments to SCHEDULE 2.LAND TO BE ACQUIRED.

1. Property Plan 002, Property Number P.03.Replace quantity ‘19708’ by ‘19908’In ‘Observations’ insert ‘Shape of plot to be in accordance with revision

shown on drawing Plot ID No. 002.P.03. received 14/12/07’.

2. Property Plan 004, Property Number P.23.Replace ‘Virgina’ by ‘Virginia’.

3. Property Plan 005, Property Number P.32.Reduce quantity from ‘12053’ to ‘11935’.In ‘Observations’ insert ‘Shape of plot to be in accordance with revision

shown on drawing Plot ID No. 005.P.32 received 14/12/07’.

4. Property Plan 005, Property Number P.101.Reduce quantity from ‘1461’ to ‘660’.In ‘Observations’ insert ‘Shape of plot to be in accordance with revision


5. Add new Property Plan 005, Property Number P.120.Owner or Reputed Owner ‘Swanward Enterprises Ltd.’Quantity ‘693’. In ‘Observations’ insert ‘Shape of plot to be in accordance with revision


6. Property Plan 007, Property Number P.42.Increase quantity from ‘783’ to ‘921’.In ‘Observations’ insert ‘Shape of plot to be in accordance with revision

shown on drawing Plot ID No. 007.P.42 Revision B dated 21/11/07 received14/12/07’.

7. Property Plan 007, Property Number P.49.Remove Padraig Bermingham.


Amendments to SCHEDULE 3.ROADS TO BE CLOSED PERMANENTLY.

No amendments.

Amendments to SCHEDULE 4.ROADS TO BE CLOSED TEMPORARILY.

No amendments.

Amendments to SCHEDULE 5.ROADS TO BE ALTERED.

No amendments.

Amendments to SCHEDULE 6.NEW ROADS TO BE CONSTRUCTED.

No amendments.

Amendments to SCHEDULE 7.LAND OVER WHICH RIGHTS INCLUDING RIGHTS OF

WAY AND OTHER RIGHTS AND EASMENTS ARE TO BEACQUIRED.

No amendments.

Amendments to SCHEDULE 8.PART 1.

PUBLIC RIGHTS TO BE EXTINGUISHED.

No amendments.


Amendments to SCHEDULE 8.PART 2.

PRIVATE RIGHTS TO BE EXTINGUISHED.

1. Property Plan 006, Property Number E.32.Change ‘Sean Boylan, Castlefarm, Dunboyne, Co. Meath’ to ‘Meath County

Council’.

2. Property Plan 006, Property Number E.32A.Change ‘Sean Boylan, Castlefarm, Dunboyne, Co. Meath’ to ‘Meath County

Council’.

SCHEDULE 9.PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RIGHTS OF WAY TO BE

TEMPORARILY INTERRUPTED.

No amendments.


Amendments to SCHEDULE 10.LAND OF WHICH TEMPORARY POSSESSION IS TO BE

TAKEN.

1. Property Plan 003, Property Number T.21.Increase quantity from ‘1662’ to ‘ 2622’.In ‘Observations’ insert ‘Shape of plot to be in accordance with revision

shown on drawing Plot ID No. 003.T.21 Revision B dated 21/11/07 received14/12/07 and revised Property Plan No. P003 received 14/12/2007’.

2. Property Plan 004, Property Number T.23.Replace ‘Virgina’ by ‘Virginia’.

3. Property Plan 005, Property Number T.32.Increase quantity from ‘6024’ to ‘6890’.In ‘Observations’ insert ‘Shape of plot to be in accordance with revision

shown on drawing Plot ID No. 005.T.32. Revision B dated 13/12/07 received14/12/07’.

4. Property Plan 005, Property Number T.101.Reduce quantity from ‘1851’ to ‘955’.In ‘Observations’ insert ‘Shape of plot to be in accordance with revision

shown on drawing Plot ID No. 005.T.101 received 14/12/07’.

5. Add new Property Plan 005, Property Number T.120.Owner or Reputed Owner ‘Swanward Enterprises Ltd.’Quantity ‘835’In ‘Observations’ insert ‘Shape of plot to be in accordance with revision

shown on drawing Plot ID No. 005.T.120 received 14/12/07’.


SCHEDULE 11.UNDERSTANDINGS REACHED AT THE ORAL HEARING.

Agreements reached with Iarnród Éireann

ReferenceNo.

Name andAddress

Agreement Reached

1 James Reeves8A Millfarm

No signed agreement, see Millfarm Residents no. 5

2 Thomas Potterton Agreement reached to utilise the existing accessinto the Potterton field and locate the road as perrevised plan no. P003 submitted to An BordPleanála.

3 James McGrath No signed agreement, see Millfarm Residents no. 5

4 John ConnaughtonLtd

It has been agreed with Meath County Council thata 300 space car park is to be provided at DunboyneStation. This is revised from 420 spaces. Seedrawing 011506-49-SK-0407.

5 Millfarm Residents Boundary Treatments

End of cul-de-sacsThe ends of the open cul-de-sacs will be closed offby joining the existing garden walls across the openspace, at a height to match the existing(approximately 1.8m high). The wall constructionwill be 215mm solid block, rendered, dashed withbrick capping, with brick piers at 4.5m centres.

End of open space at Willow ParkThe boundary with the railway line shall be closedoff by the construction of 2.5m high block wall,construction as described above for the cul-de-sacs.No additional timber fence is required in this area asthe acoustic properties of the block wall areequivalent to those of the timber fence.

Side walls to front gardensSubject to the agreement of the residents allowingIarnród Éireann onto their property, it is agreed thatthe side walls to the front gardens will be raised tomatch the existing (approximately 1.8m). It wasnoted that the current construction of the side wallswould not allow additional block courses to beadded, and that it will be necessary to remove theexisting side walls. The new raised wall will beconstructed as per cul-de-sacs.

Planting and landscapingAt the ends of the cul-de-sacs on the Millfarm Estateside, a mixture of shrubs and standard trees (2.4mhigh) at 5m centres will be planted in a matrix ofwhips (1.5m height) at 1.2m centres.

Any planting which is removed at Willow Park open


space to allow construction of the wall, will bereplanted.

Noise AttenuationIt is proposed to raise the existing and newboundary walls to a height of 2.5m with a proprietarytimber acoustic fence along the full length of theMillfarm Estate, except at Willow Park where thenew block wall will be 2.5m high.While the noise study only identified two of thehouses at Millfarm as needing acoustic screening,this proposal is preferred to allay any perceivedconcerns of the residents and for visual consistency.

Potential light pollutionThe designers are investigating recessing thelighting on the bridge into the floor of the bridge, sothat light pollution will not be an issue, i.e. the lightsource will not be visible from ground level. Lightswhich are to be mounted on the face of the lift shaftto further illuminate the bridge and stairs will befitted with 'cut-off' devices to ensure light is directedto where it is required and not beyond. These lightswill only be on during the hours of operation of thestation.

Potential Impact from Public AddressWhile customer information display (CIS) screenswill announce arriving and departing trains, it is arequirement of Accessibility Legislation (for thevisually impaired) to announce arrivals anddepartures on a public Address.These will be directed towards the station and willonly be used during operating hours.

Impact of Pedestrian BridgeThe bridge is sited on the southern limit of themiddle third of the platform, which is the maximumdistance away from the station exit. The siting of thestation itself has been constrained by the existingold station building and could not be movedsouthwards.The side panels of the bridge will be 1.8m high andwill be formed by a perforated metal screen whichlimits visibility. The bridge, lift and stairs arecontemporary in design, using simple forms and amuted palette of materials. The choice of coloursand materials is made bearing in mind issues inrelation to safety, vandalism and maintenance. Thelift shaft will be clad in dark grey brick in a 'stackbond' to tie in with the station building. The bridgeand stairs design will express the structure, haveinfill perforated steel panels

Mitigation of Construction Impacts

The working hoursThe working hours will follow the general practice of08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday, and 08:00 to


13:00 on Saturday. Work outside these hours willbe by agreement. Iarnród Éireann agrees to a starttime of 9am on Saturday mornings in the vicinity ofMillfarm Estate. Millfarm Residents Association hasagreed to works proceeding later than 13.00 onSaturday afternoon.

Noise during constructionChanges to the existing boundaries, which involvethe construction of block walls, will be implementedas the first construction activity and form security tothe site. This will also offer screening from theconstruction activities. Particular constructionactivities which exceed the permitted noise levelswill be screened as explained in the EIS.

Rodent ControlDetails will be set out in the construction contractwhich the contractor must strictly adhere to inrelation to rodent control. Iarnród Éireann will havesupervisory staff on site to ensure adequatemeasures are in place in this regard. If any issuesarise the appointed liaison officer can be contactedby residents and appropriate action will be taken.

Contingency during Realignment of the sewersThe sewers serving existing dwellings will continueto be operational during the realignment of theoutfalls sewers. This is usually achieved by carryingout works in sections and by the use of overpumping.

Vibration ImpactCondition surveys of houses within 40m of the linewill be carried out prior to the commencement ofconstruction activities. These will be monitored forany detrimental effects during construction.

Community LiaisonA liaison officer will be appointed for the project,who will be accessible by residents duringoperational hours.

6 The HilltownPartnership

It has been agreed that the accommodation bridge atHilltown will be constructed in accordance with therevised Structural Plan No. B004.

7 SIAC Agreement reached as per revised plan no P007 asper:

- Toe of embankment edge to be 2m fromexisting northern boundary

- Area of land take to be 921sqm- Road dimensions are 1m verge plus 4m

roadway plus 1m verge, with fence at toe ofverge

- Lands to be fenced off


8 Menolly Homes Note agreement made 13th December 2007between Menolly Homes, Manor Park andCIE/Iarnród Éireann. Submitted separately to AnBord Pleanálá for noting.

9 Virginia Kerr Boundary treatment along the railway lineThe boundary line between Ms. Kerr’s Property andthe railway shall be secured by a 2.4m high steelpowder coated black palisade fence, Type 3, asindicated on Drawing No. D 001. The palisadefence will run from Sterling Bridge to the northeastcorner of the property and return approximately 20malong the northern boundary to close access to MsKerr’s property. Outside this fence, in Ms. Kerr’sland, a 3 metre wide strip which will be a temporaryland take to facilitate construction, will be reinstatedby planting. The planting shall consist of aprotective hedgerow of hawthorn, blackthorn, hazel,field maple, guelde rose and holly, planted in adouble staggered row with 3no. plants per metre perrow. These will be interspersed with standard trees(2.4m high) comprising of Italian Alder at 5mcentres.A timber rail stud fence shall be erected to separatethe horses from the screen planting.

Road Embankment SlopeThe construction of containment barriers at theapproaches to the bridge may necessitate theremoval of trees and vegetation growing on theembankment and the re-grading of theembankment. There will be no permanent land-takerequired for the re-grading. The extent of theregrading of the slope will be minimised insofar asthis is possible, but in no case will the slope worksextend closer than 7 metres to the root protectionarea (RPA) of the cherry trees, as per drawings no.011506-49-SK0404. While the cherry trees willremain outside of the construction hoarding,protective measures will be put in place inconformity with BS: 5837:2005 “Trees in Relation toConstruction”. These include not allowing workswithin the root protection area of the trees anderecting a protective fence defining the crownspread, and within which no work will be permitted.In the event that vegetation is removed from theembankment, reinstatement planting as describedbelow will be implemented. The proposed plantingon the embankment consists of a mixture of shrubs,whips and standard trees. The whips will be1.5metres high and planted at 1.2m centres,consisting of ash, willow, sycamore, elm and beech.These will be interspersed with standard treesplanted into the matrix of whips at 5m centres andwill be 2.5m high at planting.In response to concerns regarding security andvisual intrusion, CIE/IE propose to install a 2 metrehigh temporary timber fence, comprising of rough


sawn planking, on CIE land, at the top of theembankment which will screen the house from theroad. This fence will remain in place until theplanting on the embankment slope is wellestablished and provides screening.Methods for the mitigation of construction nuisanceare detailed in the EIS and address noise, dirt, dustand general construction housekeeping. Theserequirements will be written into the constructioncontract.The planting contract specification shall provide fora maintenance and defects liability period of 18months inclusive of one growing season duringwhich the landscape contractor will be responsiblefor maintenance and defects. In the event ofreplacement planting exceeding 10% the contractorwill maintain for a further 12 months. Access formaintenance will be through Ms Kerr’s lands, andtimes will be agreed in advance.

Boundary treatment during constructionDuring construction, a 2.5 metre high solid timberhoarding shall be erected to enclose all constructionwork. This shall run along the railway alignmentembankment to Sterling Bridge. The hoarding shallcontinue along the top of the embankment, asshown on Drawing no. 011506-49-SK0404. Thisarrangement supercedes that shown on the RailwayOrder alignment drawings.Protection for bloodstock will be provided by atimber rail stud fence outside the hoarding.The location of the construction hoarding adjacentto the cherry trees shall be finalised on site beforeerection.CIE / IE believe that these measures will make itunnecessary to relocate the horses duringconstruction.

A Baseline Noise SurveyFollowing the discussions with Ms Kerr, and a visitto her house, the special noise sensitivity of hermusic studio at the rear of her house was noted.If the incident construction noise levels are limited toless than 55dB(A) at Ms Kerr’s studio, it is believedthat there will be negligible impact, as this is thelevel of existing traffic noise at the studio, which isreported to be acceptable.Taking account of the distance from the bridge, andthe screening provided by buildings, preliminarycalculations indicate that this noise level may bemarginally exceeded for a relatively short period oftime while the existing bridge is being taken down.Additional mitigation in the form of local noisescreening at the works site, or through scheduling ofthe works for non-sensitive periods by agreementwith Ms Kerr may be required.

The Working HoursThe working hours will follow the general practice of08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday, and 08:00 to


13:00 on Saturday. Work outside these hours willbe by prior agreement. Iarnród Éireann agree todiscuss the programming of the demolition of thebridge with Virginia Kerr in advance of the workstaking place. The contractor will also be madeaware that the property is used as a place of workand is extremely sensitive to noise interference ingeneral.

Eircom telephone lineThe location of the Eircom telephone line servicingthe residence of Ms Kerr is noted, and relocation ofthis service during reconstruction of Sterling Bridgewill be coordinated with Eircom to maintain anuninterrupted service.

10 Sean Reilly The landowner will have the option to require CIE toacquire less than the freehold interest in the landsconcerned. If called upon to do so, CIE will acquirea lesser interest provided that the provision inperpetuity of the same number of parking spaces asshown in the Railway Order is secured, in whichcase the compensation payable will be appropriateto interest acquired. At the request of Meath CountyCouncil, IE have confirmed that it will operate thecar park at Pace.

11 Sean Boylan Bridge EmbankmentThe temporary land take on the bridge embankmentalong the north western boundary to Mr Boylan’slands as included in the Railway Order submissionis for any remedial works that may be required tothe embankment as a result of the upgrade works tothe bridge and approach roads containment system.It is intended to restrict works to the upper 3-4m ofthe embankments along Mr Boylan’s property andthat no works are required to the lowerembankments. Any vegetation that needs to beremoved will be replaced.

Permanent Land TakeThe permanent land take at the castle streamcrossing and at Dunboyne Bridge has beenamended to minimise the extent of permanent landtake required as shown on plan 005.P.32. In theevent that works are required to the embankmentsubstitute car parking will be provided in agreementwith Mr Boylan.

AccessThe access to Mr Boylan’s property shall bemodified as shown on drawing no. 011506-49-SK408. The junction of the station access and MrBoylan’s access with Station Road shall haveducting provision for future traffic lights, if required.There is agreement to provide the additional landrequired for this modified scheme which is shown ona revised property drawing.


Water WellIarnród Éireann undertake to replace Mr Boylan’sexisting well with a new well on his property that willprovide a source of potable water equivalent to theexisting supply in quantity and quality and incompliance with all best practice standards andlegislation. The location selected on the RailwayOrder drawing is based on a reasonableprofessional assumption that a well of equivalentstandard can be provided here due to its proximityto the existing well. Iarnród Éireann will carry outsite testing to ensure this location is suitable. In theevent that the location is not suitable, an alternativesite will be agreed with Mr Boylan. Installation ofthe new well will be carried out in advance ofremoving the existing well to allow smoothchangeover and therefore minimise the impact onthe domestic residence and clinic.

A preliminary desk study carried out by specialistgeotechnical Consulting Engineers on the project,indicate that a suitable supply of water would beavailable within the lands under the control of MrBoylan.

Noise BarrierA 2.5m high acoustic barrier (Timber Buffalo type orsimilar) will be installed along the railway lineadjacent to the clinic. The extent of this barrier isshown on the plan A006

Existing Services to be relocated/reroutedIarnród Éireann undertake to carry out the followingworks:

Foul drain from Clinic to be diverted acrossrailway line and new connection made tothe existing foul sewer to the west of therailway line, adjacent to Larchfield Estate.Iarnród Éireann will provide a wayleave toMr. Boylan for this crossing.

The foul drain shall be installed in a 300mmdiameter pipe to accommodate futurechanges to the foul drainage system,provided such changes are agreed inadvance with Iarnród Éireann.

Local diversion of existing gas main withinMr Boylan’s property including his privateconnection to be agreed with Bord Gais.

A new water supply well will be provided.

Drainage DitchIarnród Éireann agree to construct a second ditch tothe south of Castle Stream along the privateaccommodation road with a new outfall to the CastleStream, all within Mr Boylan’s property to facilitatedrainage of his agricultural lands, subject toagreement with Meath County Council. Amendedplan 005.T.32 refers together with drawing no.011506-49-DR-2405 showing a cross section of the


accommodation, roads and ditches.

12 Ian Pringle The upper section of the embankment will beexcavated to install the foundation for the concretesafety barrier. This will require removal ofvegetation in this area (approximately the upper3m). The majority of the trees fall outside this areaand will remain. CIE/IE also agree to install a 2.4mhigh permanent timber fence behind the length ofthe proposed safety barrier.

The existing tree canopies may need to be cutback to erect temporary security fencing for theduration of the works. Any works to the trees willbe carried out with advice from the tree specialistin order to ensure the continued growth of thetrees. If considered necessary protective hoardingwill be erected around trees which are in closeproximity to the works. Where vegetation isremoved these areas will be landscaped.

If localised areas of the embankment requireworks, this will be limited to works required toensure the continued stability of the embankment.Such unforeseen works will not involve the removalof trees on the lands. As discussed on site, thetemporary land take will not be used as aconstruction access road to the site.

13 Betty Larkin,Stationhouse,Dunboyne, Co.Meath

CIE/Iarnród Éireann agree to acquire the whole ofMrs Larkin’s property if requested to do so.

14 Manor Home BuildersLtd

Note agreement made 13 th December 2007between Menolly Homes, Manor Park andCIE/Iarnród Éireann. Submitted separately to AnBord Pleanálá for noting.

15 Gerty Gregan,Bennetstown, Co.Meath

A 2.7m high block wall, faced with real stone on theretained side, will be built along the CPO boundarybetween the property and the car park at thecommencement of the works. The remainingboundary will be palisade.

The proposed landscaping will consist of a mixtureof the following, or similar suitable species;whitethorn, hazel, field maple and wild plum.

The L-shaped outbuilding being demolished will berebuilt to a similar size, within the boundaries of theretained lands and in good and workmanlikemanner, by CIE at its own expense.

CIE/IE will compensate Ms Gregan for therelocation of the Well and Bio unit that will becarried out by her in advance of the railway works.

The landowner will have the option to require CIE toacquire less than the freehold interest in the lands


concerned. If called upon to do so, CIE will acquirea lesser interest provided that the provision inperpetuity of the same number of parking spaces asshown in the Railway Order is secured, in whichcase the compensation payable will be appropriateto interest acquired. At the request of Meath CountyCouncil, IE have confirmed that it will operate thecar park at Pace.

16 NRA CIÉ/Iarnród Éireann agrees that it will notcompulsorily acquire the lands required for therailway works that are owned by Meath CountyCouncil [MCC] and occupied by Eurolink and NRA.These lands will be transferred to CIÉ/IarnródÉireann under the terms of the agreement dated 16August 2007 between MCC and CIÉ/IarnródÉireann by or on 1 January 2009, or such later dateas may be agreed between the parties anddetermined in accordance with the aboveagreement.

Modification 4I(b) of An Bord Pleanála approval ofthe M3 scheme requires MCC/NRA to procure afootpath/cycle way. CIE/Iarnród Éireann agree tomake available to the NRA and MCC, for thepurposes of providing the footpath such lands thatmay be considered excessive to their operationalneeds (Iarnród Éireann’s requirements are 4.5m tothe bridge abutment and 3m to the fence boundaryelsewhere)

If this footpath/cycle way cannot be constructed byNRA as a direct result of the railway worksCIÉ/Iarnród Éireann will include the footpath/cycleway in the railway construction contract, in whichevent; CIÉ/Iarnród Éireann will agree

the design of the footpath/cycleway with NRAand MCC in advance of tendering theconstruction contract.

NRA and MCC will use theirbest endeavours including the use of Statutorypowers to procure any additional lands that arerequired In the event that MCC/NRA cannotprocure additional lands CIE/Iarnród Éireannshall have no liability with respect to thefootpath/cycleway

NRA will pay CIE/IarnródÉireann the full costs associated with thisadditional work, such costs to be subject toindependent third party assessment in defaultof agreement.

CIE/Iarnród Éireann will ensure that the roundaboutgiving access into the Pace park and ride facility willbe designed and constructed in accordance withNRA DMRB so as to allow future dual carriagewayoperation. The design and construction shall besubject to the prior approval of MCC/NRA.If Irish Rail works consequent to the Rail Order


result in an adverse affect on landscaping measuresrequired under the M3 Scheme CIE/Iarnród Éireannshall use their reasonable endeavours to mitigatethe adverse affects.


SCHEDULE 12.CONDITIONS.

1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with all mitigationmeasures contained in the Environmental Impact Statement.

Reason: To limit the environmental impact of the development.

2. Prior to commencement of construction of the park and ride facilities and thestation buildings at Pace and Dunboyne, details of access arrangements for themobility impaired and of walking routes for all pedestrians between the carparking spaces and the stations, and the avoidance of substandard footpathsimmediately adjoining the station buildings, shall be submitted to MeathCounty Council for written consent, and in default of agreement, shall besubmitted to the Board for determination. Such details shall be implemented aspart of the railway works.

Reason: To provide safe and convenient pedestrian access to the stationbuildings and the park and ride facilities.

3. Prior to commencement of operation of the park and ride facility at Pace andin consultation with the NRA, a variable messaging system shall be providedat the entrance to the facility, to inform users about the quantity of car parkingspaces available. Details shall be submitted to Meath County Council forwritten consent and, in default of agreement, shall be submitted to the Boardfor determination. Such variable messaging system shall be implemented aspart of the railway works.

Reason: To avoid traffic congestion and in the interest of the proper planningand sustainable development of the area.

4. Prior to commencement of development, details of the following shall besubmitted to Meath County Council for written consent and, in default ofagreement, shall be submitted to the Board for determination:(a) Ducting to facilitate possible future traffic signals at the junction of R156

with Dunboyne Station access.(b) Reconstruction of ramped section of road at Dunboyne Railway Bridge.(c) Signage in accordance with Part 8 of the Traffic Signs Manuals and

diversions advertised in local newspaper and radio.(d) Maintenance of pedestrian bridge/ cycle bridge at Dunboyne station and to

ensure it remains open to the public at all times.

Such details shall be implemented as part of the railway works.

Reason: In the interest of orderly development and the proper planning andsustainable development of the area.

5. (a) Water supply and drainage arrangements, including the disposal of surfacewater, shall comply with the requirements of the planning authority for suchworks and services and shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the


planning authority prior to commencement of development. In default ofagreement, the matters shall be referred to the Board for determination. Suchdetails shall be implemented as part of the railway works.

(b) Existing embankments provided as part of the River Tolka Flood ReliefScheme shall be maintained where possible and any breaches of flooddefences shall be made good with appropriate temporary measures pendingpermanent repair.

Reason: In the interest of orderly development and the proper planning anddevelopment of the area.

6. Prior to demolition of the Bennetstown and the Sterling Farmer’sAccommodation over-bridges, the demolition of the damaged remains of anunder-bridge just west of the Royal Canal crossing, the demolition of the twostone arched under-bridges spanning the Tolka River at Bracetown, thereplacement of the arch of Sterling over-bridge, and alterations to the over-bridges at Barnhill and Dunboyne,(a) A record of the structures shall be made in the following manner:-

(i) Photographs indicating the scale of the structure by inclusion ofcalibrated ranging rods within each photograph,

(ii) A written description of each structure,(iii) An assessment of the architectural heritage merit of the structure,

and(iv) A map identifying the location of the structure and the location of

photographs taken of it,

and a copy of such records shall submitted to the Department of theEnvironment, Heritage and Local Government, the Irish ArchitecturalArchive and to the respective planning authorities of Meath CountyCouncil and Fingal County Council.

(b) The applicant shall prepare a conservation method statement and shall submita copy of it to Meath County Council and Fingal County Council.

(c) All works to the heritage railway bridges shall be supervised by aconservation architect.

(d) All stonework from the demolished bridges and other structures shall bereused in the repair of the railway bridges to be retained.

Reason: To record the structures of architectural heritage value that will bedemolished, to ensure that conservation principles will guide the alterations andrepairs to other such structures, and to reuse materials in the interest ofconservation.

7. Prior to commencement of works to the Dunboyne and Barnhill over-bridges,revised designs and finishes for the proposed replacement parapets andtransition walls shall be submitted to Meath County Council and Fingal


County Council respectively for written consent, and in default of agreementshall be submitted to the Board for determination.

Reason:- In the interest of conserving the architectural heritage value of suchstructures as the proposed design and finishes would significantly affect thecharacter of these structures.

8. The water tower located to the south of Dunboyne over-bridge shall beretained and repaired as necessary.

Reason:- In the interest of conserving the architectural heritage value of thisstructures conservation.

9. (a) The applicant shall engage the services of a suitably qualifiedarchaeologist to monitor the construction of proposed stations, park andride facilities, construction compounds, access roads and removal oftopsoil along the horizontal clearance on both sides of the rail line.

(b) Should archaeological material be found during the course of monitoring,the archaeologist may have the work on the site stopped pending adecision as to how best to deal with the archaeology. Advice shall besought from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and LocalGovernment and all necessary mitigating action shall be implemented andthe applicant shall facilitate the archaeologist in recording any materialfound.

(c) A report describing the results of monitoring shall be submitted to theDepartment of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, MeathCounty Council and Fingal County Council.

Reason: In order to conserve the archaeological heritage of the site and tosecure the preservation of any remains which may exist within the site.

10. (a) The Royal Canal shall remain open to navigation from 1 March to 31 Octoberwith no canal closures between these dates.

(b) During construction, the towpath, which is a public right of way, should beopen to pedestrians. Where this is not feasible, a suitable diversion route shallbe established.

(c) During construction, the applicants shall provide an access route formaintenance vehicles to Waterways Ireland.

(d) The steel bridge shall be painted in a subdued colour in keeping with thecanal setting. Any retaining walls facing the canal shall be clad in a stone inkeeping with the stone on the existing abutments.

Reason: To limit the impact of construction on the use of the Royal Canal and inthe interest of visual amenity.

__________________David Dunne, DPO.4th February 2008.

an bord pleanála inspector’s reportna 0001. an bord pleanála page 2 of 2 list of observers. 1....

Documents