Should the M28 Cork-Ringaskiddy motorway be built? [project approved]

marno21 wrote: »

I can understand it too, I would prefer if the quarry wasn't used either but there is no alternative so it will have to be - save ploughing through the golf course which would have its own problems.

I wasn't at the Oral Hearing but the objections related to the quarry are outlined in the Inspector's Report here: http://www.pleanala.ie/documents/reports/MA0/RMA0014.pdf

Thanks for the link. Had a read through and I would be a lot more concerned about the environmental issues in Raffeen Quary than anything else that the M28 Steering Group put forward.

From the inspectors report:(the NPWS) "pointed out that Peregrine Falcon is an Annex I listed species in the Birds Directive and that the destruction of a known nest site was contrary to European law and that there was no guarantee that the mitigation would be successful."

The inspector has somewhat addressed this but I would venture that this is the main reason why the JR went to a full hearing. Hopefully not another Galway City Ring Road mess.

kub wrote: »

So the NIMBY brigade have taken a case about environmental concerns about Rafeen quarry.

I will laugh if the judge finds in their favour for the sake of some weeds, worms and some bog land all as a result of industrial waste.
So the judge will say to 're route the road slightly away from the industrial waste land but leave it as it is in Mulcon Valley.

That would be a brilliant out come to this. I must admit it would be very funny.

Funny or not European environmental law trumps all. There are no protected species or protected habitats in the Mulcon Valley. The N6 Galway City Bypass was overturned in the Supreme court because of a very minor impact on some bog cotton and limestone pavement. €2 Million has been spent relocating the Kerry Slug to make way for the N22 Macroom Bypass.

The importance and priority that these environmental laws have is a debate for another thread, but they are not going anywhere soon.

kub wrote: »

You are correct, but am I correct in saying that the NIMBY's case is regarding the Raffeen Quarry ?

So am I right in thinking that the Judge could find in there favour and rule the road cannot go through the quarry but that has nothing at all to do with their whole reason for existence, being the proposed M28 routing through the Mulcon Valley?
Indeed there are no environmental concerns with the Mulcon Valley section

My reading of it is they are latching onto the Raffeen Quarry issue, as it is potentially a much stronger case than - we don't like the route through the Mulcon Valley because it is too near our homes.

Even if the judge finds some conflict with the european environmental law I believe he can refer it back to ABP who will likely ask for a revised route avoiding the quarry (i.e. original route through the golf course) or worse still he could say start again and lodge an new application. Its all just a delaying tactic - the project will inevitably go ahead, fingers crossed sooner rather than later.

Wonder if it would be possible at this stage for the project to be split in two for planning/legal purposes, i.e. Phase I from Bloomfield to Shannonpark Roundabout and Phase II continuing onward to Ringaskiddy. The quarry falls within the latter. The NIMBYs wouldn't be arsed funding the appeal then seeing as the section affecting them would be built anyway.

One irony that occurs to me about the quarry being their strongest grounds to appeal is that the quarry was also on the alternate route they proposed which, insofar as I'm aware, was identical to the chosen route east of Shannonpark.

kub wrote: »

You are correct about their farcical alterate route, they had no issues with the Quarry then of course.
Great suggestion about the 2 phases, but will the courts allow that at this stage?

Nope Judges only decision here is to uphold the original planning decision or not based on the process the board used to arrive at that planning decision. Its all or nothing and if its nothing people on here can whinge about NIMBY all they want but truth of the matter would be in order to reduce costs by not CPOing a golf course the road designers have put their project at risk and an amateur self funding group of residents have exploited that. Im sure it wont come to that though Im certain these highly paid Government funded richly resourced designers have thought this through.

marno21 wrote: »

The quarry issue is simply a tool to progress the judicial review, it's being used simply because "I don't want a motorway running through my area" is not valid grounds for challenging a project like this.

Alls fair in love and war and planning matters its a pretty run of the mill legal everyday tactic of picking the weakest spot and attacking that and it is a valid reason because no matter how strong your opinion that it isn't the law says it is

marno21 wrote: »

If they had gone with the golf course routing then people would be wondering why a local amenity was being ripped apart instead of a disused quarry.

Its a private business not a local amenity and even though I suspect you wont believe me I know for fact it was a cost cutting measure to divert from original plan of going through the golf course

marno21 wrote: »

The planning and design of this project was put to a competitive tender and the best candidate won, which would've been at or close to market rate for this type of work.

Then no one has anything to worry about the design is bullet proof and will stand up to all challenges and all of the government money spent to date in choosing this design through the quarry will be well worth it. As a side note these are the second contractors to be employed after the first designers RPS fell off the face of the planet and the design has always been shadowed and approved by the project lead who is Cork Road Design Office employed

marno21 wrote: »

I disagree with the Quarry being used as a pawn to try and stop this.

The project runs through the edge of Raffeen Quarry, and the justification for doing so is outlined here: http://www.n28cork-ringaskiddy.com/MCT0597PC0008aD01.pdf

It's either take out the edge of the quarry or a golf course. There is no ideal solution here due to space constraints. It's a question of which is the lesser of two evils, CPOing part of the golf course or running it through the quarry? Ideally neither but unfortunately that's not an option here.

Have you read the The Friends of Rafeen Quarry funding page?
They aren't trying to stop the project. The want the alternative route to be used.
Quote: "We are pressing for an alternative route to be used for the motorway, a few hundred metres to the south of the quarry; this alternative route had indeed been proposed in the original planning application for the motorway some years before"

A golf course can be readily replicated elsewhere. (Is there still an over-supply of golfing facilities?). The quarry seems like a gem of biodiversity that can be saved.
Plus it seems only a corner of the golf course is required.

marno21 wrote: »

These "environmentalists" would be happy to plough through the quarry if the route continued at Shannonpark to Ballygarvan.

[Edit]...

Why the quotation marks? Take a look at the signatories on the funding page. They seem like well-qualified natural scientists.

And unless there's an enclave of academics living in Rafeen I suspect they can't be classed as NIMBYs.

Kevwoody wrote: »

Not familiar with the quarry myself, but another poster on here mentioned it was full of waste and other crap.

Why have this group not been cleaning it up if they are that worried about it?

Maybe you should familiarise yourself with the location and get some facts before you start accusing other people of inaction.

I'm not familiar with Rafeen Guarry either but I recognise one name on the list of signatories on the Friends group who has been central to organising the clean-up of another disused Cork quarry. Hauling skip-loads of rubbish, co-ordinating with the council, offering nature classes to local people. Contributing to their community and protecting the environment.

In any case this is a discussion of the total destruction of a special habitat. The presence of some industrial waste - if that is the case - is irrelevant.

danny004 wrote: »

And if the environmental argument (its secondary who drives the argument) holds up then by the time of redesigns and re-submissions it will be at least a 5 year delay at which point they will be CPOing residential land which it wasn't at this design stage.
If planning is overturned on the basis of Rafeen quarry the designers need look no further then their penny pinching mantra as a root cause

Certainly wouldn't be 5 years, 12-18months max.

highwaymaniac wrote: »

I am well aware of the likely timeframes accociated with the Statutory Approvals Process for Strategic Infrastructure Developments. I should have included the rationale for my statement.

In the event of a negative judicial review outcome, the judge will set aside the approval by ABP and remit the matter back to them for further consideration. ABP will then need to consider the direction from the judge, they have the power to request the applicant to submit alterations to the previously submitted
scheme. This was done on the M20 back in 2010 for the addition of the Buttevant junction. If ABP decide based on the JR that the route through Rafeen Quarry needs to be altered it is highly unlikely that they would refuse the scheme outright rather than use their powers under Section 217(4) (b) of the Planning and Development Act. This is the basis for 12-18 months max statement.

which is all correct if the alteration was through the quarry but thats unlikely and the alteration would be through the golf course where there is no planning ,wasn't debated at the oral hearing and no submissions made on a substantially new material fact. Where would the owner or anyone have their say where would the EIS statement be ,anyone could say they saw protected species in the golf course and no EIS to challenge or debate that claim. I dont know about the M20 maybe opponents to the design were looking for a junction ,here they are looking for no road and are using all means necessary and if they win and the road needs to be rerouted then it is new planning ,new EIS ,new design and on top of all that I suspect if steering group win the designers will also be anxious to work with them to placate them with design modifications to keep them quiet and hence my view of 5 years and on the basis now we are 14 years into and the older I get time seems to go faster it doesn't seem that long.
Of course all of the above is based on a negative review which brings me round to my original point which is the designers themselves and not the steering group have left themselves open to this by penny pinching where they could but like everything else accountability would be thin on the ground