M7/M8 Portlaoise-Castletown-Cullahill Motorway (incl. Abbeyleix Bypass)

CHAPTER 6 :CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 The EIS produced was a comprehensive document, and, coupled with the evidence and answers to questions given at the Hearing a complete description of the project was given.

6.2 The procedures followed were logical, generally well documented, and indicated a good emphasis on public consultation and interaction between specialist inputs.

6.3 I consider that the major problems concerning the scheme are junction provision and the possibility that a further route could have been put forward for review.

6.4 In relation to junction provision, I consider that for strategic reasons based primarily on the National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020 (NSS) as outlined in Section 1 of that document and particularly Section 3.8.1 in relation to linking corridors that the facility to effect all movements at the point of splitting of the M7/M8 should be provided. (Junctions Ref No 2 ,
4 and 6 taken together))

In relation to this interchange a form of junction facilitating this movement is indicated on Drawing C6078 which was circulated at the
Hearing and which is attached. I consider that failure to provide for the full range of movements could mitigate against achievement of the objectives of the NSS while also causing additional traffic with significant negative impact to use a ‘ratrun’ type route through Ballacolla to rejoin the motorway [my emphasis].

6.5 The failure to provide a grade separated interchange at the end point of the scheme would, in my opinion, have negative socio-economic impact on Cullahill and Durrow due to lack of access.(Junction Ref No.7) I conclude that, based on the EIS and evidence at the Hearing that at least a proportion of traffic with destinations in Durrow and Abbeyleix would exit the motorway at Grantstown (Junction Ref No 3) and this would impact negatively on Ballacolla and create undesirable traffic patterns on the link road off the R433 from Redhouse Cross Roads to Durrow. The absence of a junction means also that there would be a greatly reduced number of journeys within the study area in County Laois which could use the new scheme, e.g. Portlaoise to Cullahill which is 28 kms,
could not use the motorway.

6.6 Particularly in the context of a lesser level of access to the motorway than proposed up to the scheme review of August 2003, but not a direct result of that review, I am of the opinion that the choice of optimum or desirable maximum scheme length should not be a determining factor in relation to choosing a route with the least environmental impact. Therefore I consider that the absence of seeking to establish if a corridor which was further west before splitting while still keeping the objective of servicing Thurles and Cashel is a deficiency in the EIS. As stated in 4.2.7. above there is no positive indication that such a route exists.
However, it would appear to be necessary to do so if there was a possibility that a shorter overall route would satisfy the scheme objectives. It would also be necessary given that relatively significant impacts are encountered on the chosen route particularly in relation to the effectiveness of mitigation measures for ecology and drainage which might be lessened on an alternative route.

6.7 As I have made negative conclusions in relation to junctions and consideration of alternatives, detailed comments on proposed mitigation measures are not given in this report.

6.8 For the above reasons I recommend refusal of approval of the Motorway Scheme made by Laois County Council by letter of 15th January 2004 and proposed Road Development for the reasons set out below [my emphasis]:

1. The failure of the scheme to provide for all traffic movements between the proposed M7 and M8 at their point of divergence would be likely to lead to adverse environmental impacts caused by additional traffic using the regional road network in the vicinity of and through Ballacolla. The absence of this facility would also militate against the achievement of some of the objectives of the national Spatial Strategy 2002-2020, e.g. to support a better balance of activity and development between the regions and would limit the development potential of settlement centres in County Laois and in the area generally.

2. The failure to provide a grade separated junction at the southern end of the scheme in the vicinity of Cullahill would result in negative socio economic impacts on the communities of Cullahill and Durrow. It would also be likely to lead to adverse environmental impacts caused by additional traffic using the regional and local road network in the vicinity of Ballacolla and Durrow. The failure to provide access to the motorway at this location would reduce the opportunity to divert traffic onto the motorway network and would be likely to lead to adverse environmental impacts from traffic using the regional and county road network which would otherwise have used the motorway.

3. It is considered there has been inadequate evaluation of the possibility of combining the M7 and M8 for a longer distance than currently proposed and therefore it has not been adequately demonstrated that an alternative shorter route which would satisfy the scheme objectives at less cost and with less adverse effects on the environment is not possible.
_______________
Daniel O’Connor
Engineer Gd I
10th September 2004

In deciding not to accept the inspector’s recommendation to refuse approval of the proposed road development, the Board had regard to the provisions of the National Development Plan 2000-2006, the National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020 and the Laois County Development Plan 2000 as amended.

In particular, the Board considered:

(a) that the route selection had been properly carried out, with reasonable examination of alternatives;

(b) that omission of a grade separated junction at Cullahill would not lead to unacceptable environmental impacts; and

(c) that provision could be made in the future for all traffic movements between the proposed M7 and M8 at or near the point of divergence of the two routes.

Whilst the Board shared the concerns of the inspector regarding the need to provide for the full range of traffic movements between the proposed M7 and M8, having regard to the considerations set out above, the Board considered that it would not be appropriate to refuse to approve the proposed road development, as this would entail disproportionate delay in this critical element of the national road network, the urgent improvement of which (to motorway/high quality dual carriageway standard), with a completion date of 2006, is set out in the National Development Plan [my emphasis].

mysterious wrote: »

The Inspector probably never set foot in Laois, welcomes to todays world of paper plannners. Plan the world on a piece of paper.