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

highwaymaniac · 13-10-2018 8:47am

danny004 wrote: »

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

The alternative route wouldn't be through the quarry it would most likely be through the golf course. It's a minor change in the context of the overall scheme. An addendum to the EIS and CPO would have to be published. No doubt there will be objections so ABP would probably reopen the oral hearing. The same process as happened with the M20 and the Buttevant junction.

If Cork Co Co and their designers think a reroute will be required, they should start working on the details of the alternative route now, especially any winter environmental surveys. They'll allready have a lot of the info from the old alignment in 2008. They can move then move quite quickly if they have to in response to a negative JR outcome.

danny004 · 13-10-2018 10:30pm

But is that letter from ABP just telling the council to put the junction in after they agreed with local submissions in the oral hearing the same way they told them to do specific modifications to the M28 as part of the output from the M28 oral hearing. No judicial review required the board told the council do something and they did ,just essentially a planning condition.And even at that your example was withdrawn. Also on the first design of the M28 there wasnt an EIS even started it was essentially a line on a page with more detail around junctions at shanbally ,shannon park and Maryborough so they have nothing to lean back on there.

If the above is correct then that is light years away from where the M28 legally is at the moment where the plaintiffs are asking a high court judge to quash the planning order (which is all of it) because due process wasn't followed in considering the environment in Raffeen quarry. The request is pretty binary for the judge quash it or dont. And if he agrees with the request its back to square one

highwaymaniac · 13-10-2018 11:32pm

danny004 wrote: »

But is that letter from ABP just telling the council to put the junction in after they agreed with local submissions in the oral hearing the same way they told them to do specific modifications to the M28 as part of the output from the M28 oral hearing. No judicial review required the board told the council do something and they did ,just essentially a planning condition.And even at that your example was withdrawn. Also on the first design of the M28 there wasnt an EIS even started it was essentially a line on a page with more detail around junctions at shanbally ,shannon park and Maryborough so they have nothing to lean back on there.

If the above is correct then that is light years away from where the M28 legally is at the moment where the plaintiffs are asking a high court judge to quash the planning order (which is all of it) because due process wasn't followed in considering the environment in Raffeen quarry. The request is pretty binary for the judge quash it or dont. And if he agrees with the request its back to square one

Not binary at all I'm afraid, the judge has wide discretion in what he/she can order and there is precedent for referring the matter back to ABP for reconsideration based on judge's directions. ABP can then request the applicant to submit alterations, whether an EIS was prepared for the original route in 2008 is entirely irrelevant, it would be out of date in any case.

danny004 · 14-10-2018 12:04am

highwaymaniac wrote: »

Not binary at all I'm afraid, the judge has wide discretion in what he/she can order and there is precedent for referring the matter back to ABP for reconsideration based on judge's directions. ABP can then request the applicant to submit alterations, whether an EIS was prepared for the original route in 2008 is entirely irrelevant, it would be out of date in any case.

unlikely as its a review on the legality of the process followed not on the actual decision made and lets face it this is a winner take all JR. If the judge quashes the planning the steering group have won if he doesn't they haven't because any modifications would be at quarry /golf course which is no good to them so the steering group will win 100% outright or the wont and if they win lets face it at the pace gov bodies work and the planning system it will be 5 years.
The reason i mention no previous EIS was highlighting a counter view to your own point that the council would have a lot of work done about the alignment from then when in actual fact they have essentially nothing from then to give them a head start on realigning today

Cork Trucker · 14-10-2018 10:22am

The steering group on the face of it don't appear to have a case unless something drastic and unheard of to date comes out in the judicial review, now i am familiar with the location of Raffeen Quarry, but this isn't what they were banging the drum against. What is in there isn't what you could really call natural is it? the place was a dumping ground from what i was told and even the interior pictures of the quarry that have been posted aren't the greatest. Someone with better knowledge of it might kindly clarify?

highwaymaniac · 14-10-2018 2:16pm

danny004 wrote: »

unlikely as its a review on the legality of the process followed not on the actual decision made and lets face it this is a winner take all JR. If the judge quashes the planning the steering group have won if he doesn't they haven't because any modifications would be at quarry /golf course which is no good to them so the steering group will win 100% outright or the wont and if they win lets face it at the pace gov bodies work and the planning system it will be 5 years.
The reason i mention no previous EIS was highlighting a counter view to your own point that the council would have a lot of work done about the alignment from then when in actual fact they have essentially nothing from then to give them a head start on realigning today

Ok I think we have said all we can say on this.

1. Worst outcome - judge's quashes planning approval. 3-4 years delay.

2. Bad outcome -judge send it backs to ABP to reconsider. 1-1.5 years delay.

3. Best outcome - judge throws out the case and doesn't give leave for appeal. Scheme proceeds without further delay.

I can't 1. happening but if it does then it is a very sorry state of affairs.

highwaymaniac · 14-10-2018 2:19pm

Cork Trucker wrote: »

The steering group on the face of it don't appear to have a case unless something drastic and unheard of to date comes out in the judicial review, now i am familiar with the location of Raffeen Quarry, but this isn't what they were banging the drum against. What is in there isn't what you could really call natural is it? the place was a dumping ground from what i was told and even the interior pictures of the quarry that have been posted aren't the greatest. Someone with better knowledge of it might kindly clarify?

Could be the ugliest dump in the world, the only thing that matters if it contains species or habitats protected under EU law.

marno21 · 14-10-2018 2:25pm

There seems to be a widely held view amongst people, both on this forum, and elsewhere, that this is a wind turbine development or something that can be stopped and the developers will take a hike to somewhere else with less issues. This is not the case, this is a development which is going to have to be built one way or another and these repeated attempts to stop it are only going to cause delays. This project is enshrined in both local, national and European policy, and it is key to both the economy of Cork and the significant redevelopment planned in the city. There is far too much riding on this project for it to be "optional".

What's worse is politicians who are talking out of one side of their mouth about "housing" or "economic development" and aside from that rallying behind the NIMBYism. It is ridiculously cynical behaviour and this country needs to address these type of issues before they get out of control. It is not in the national interest to base policy decisions around protecting the property values of a small cohort of individuals in Rochestown, especially when you think that these people likely have no interest in selling their houses, and ramping up the values of their houses is only causing them to have to shell out more money on increased property tax (next year) and on inheritance tax down the road. It truly is daft.

Cork Trucker · 14-10-2018 4:30pm

highwaymaniac wrote: »

Could be the ugliest dump in the world, the only thing that matters if it contains species or habitats protected under EU law.

Have suitable qualified people with no connections to either group gone in to inspect it? I'd hate to be the one going in there. Are rats a protected species these days on top of what they allege.

Cork Trucker · 17-10-2018 12:43pm

Just had a look at the NIMBY Facebook Page.

Dan Boyle,Lorna Bogue,Mary Rose Desmond,Micheal Martin were just some of those who i seen were in attendance, they met their funding target on the night apparently.

AugustusMinimus · 17-10-2018 1:14pm

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Just had a look at the NIMBY Facebook Page.

Dan Boyle,Lorna Bogue,Mary Rose Desmond,Micheal Martin were just some of those who i seen were in attendance, they met their funding target on the night apparently.

Some cheek out of Michael Martin given he was the key note speaker at the American Chamber of Commerce lunch noting the need for infrastructural development in Cork.

marno21 · 17-10-2018 2:14pm

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Some cheek out of Michael Martin given he was the key note speaker at the American Chamber of Commerce lunch noting the need for infrastructural development in Cork.

More cheek that he is attending a small NIMBY party going against the needs of the rest of his constituency, his city and the country he is desperate to lead

In addition to this project being policy of and being pushed by a Government he holds the keys to and a project that the Government he was part of started

EnzoScifo · 17-10-2018 3:44pm

Cork Trucker wrote: »

Just had a look at the NIMBY Facebook Page.

Dan Boyle,Lorna Bogue,Mary Rose Desmond,Micheal Martin were just some of those who i seen were in attendance, they met their funding target on the night apparently.

Time to write to the public representatives I'd say.

mikeym · 17-10-2018 4:19pm

Lads Ive passed by the Quarry in Rafeen and there seems to be construction traffic in there which means the precious plants are being disturbed.

Objectors clutching at straws.

mikeym · 17-10-2018 4:21pm

marno21 wrote: »

More cheek that he is attending a small NIMBY party going against the needs of the rest of his constituency, his city and the country he is desperate to lead

In addition to this project being policy of and being pushed by a Government he holds the keys to and a project that the Government he was part of started

I have always called Cork South Central the Rochestown Road Constituency before the M28. These are wealthy people who have friends in high places.

When Douglas Court Shopping Centre was built they objected to the Blue Clock and when there was Apartments being built for Asylum Seekers up in Norwood Court they objected to that aswell years back.

Not in my back garden.

TheChizler · 17-10-2018 4:35pm

mikeym wrote: »

Not in my back garden.

Newsflash: people all over the country object to everything.

Cork Trucker · 17-10-2018 5:08pm

EnzoScifo wrote: »

Time to write to the public representatives I'd say.

Quick, call Jerry Buttimer.

Oh wait :rolleyes:

MrDerp · 17-10-2018 11:27pm

marno21 wrote: »

More cheek that he is attending a small NIMBY party going against the needs of the rest of his constituency, his city and the country he is desperate to lead

In addition to this project being policy of and being pushed by a Government he holds the keys to and a project that the Government he was part of started

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/specialreports/special-report-its-too-tough-to-call-in-corks-constituency-of-death-839938.html

The cynic in me has this as divide and conquer. One sways either side of a contentious issue - it typically won’t cost them a core vote.

Rural cork south central interests loosely supported by Coveney and McGrath, city by Martin and Buttimer. The former 2 also we’re against repeal, the later pro.

For the most part they have solid bases, makes sense to split on contentious issues for a smaller number of undecideds

Cork Trucker · 16-11-2018 11:09pm

The NIMBY's are holding another fundraiser next week as per their Facebook page.

betistuc · 18-11-2018 6:24pm

Was on the N28 for the first time recently to catch the ferry to Santander. It was a wet dark night and this road isn't that well lit. Found it a little unsafe The volume of commercial traffic heading to and from the port for this and other ferry services would alone justify an M28 . Not to mention the planned development of this port.
I doubt the NIMBY's would ever stop to consider this. The mindset of these people staggers me.

Cork Trucker · 18-11-2018 6:52pm

betistuc wrote: »

Was on the N28 for the first time recently to catch the ferry to Santander. It was a wet dark night and this road isn't that well lit. Found it a little unsafe The volume of commercial traffic heading to and from the port for this and other ferry services would alone justify an M28 . Not to mention the planned development of this port.
I doubt the NIMBY's would ever stop to consider this. The mindset of these people staggers me.

The chairman of the group is on record as saying that they are not opposed to the motorway, just not through the mulcon valley. It is poorly lit, and the county council are unlikely to do anything about thaty at this stage unless the judicial review goes in favour of the NIMBY's.

It is no secret that the road is a death trap, as per Carrs Hill in the past.

The steering group want the route to go up the airport road and through Ballygarvan and double back to ringaskiddy via a flyover at the shannonpark roundabout if that went ahead we'd have the ring of Cork.

ianobrien · 19-11-2018 11:41pm

Cork Trucker wrote: »

The chairman of the group is on record as saying that they are not opposed to the motorway, just not through the mulcon valley. It is poorly lit, and the county council are unlikely to do anything about thaty at this stage unless the judicial review goes in favour of the NIMBY's.

It is no secret that the road is a death trap, as per Carrs Hill in the past.

The steering group want the route to go up the airport road and through Ballygarvan and double back to ringaskiddy via a flyover at the shannonpark roundabout if that went ahead we'd have the ring of Cork.

Did the NIMBY's ever look at the traffic heading to and from the airport in the morning and evening? Traffic is often blocked up from the Kinsale Road to half way up the hill. The Kinsale Rd Junction cant handle the current traffic, how is to handle the increase if the motorway goes to Ballygarvan?

Just look at Google Maps and the traffic flow? Often the whole road from the airport to the roundabout is all black!

marno21 · 20-11-2018 3:06am

ianobrien wrote: »

Did the NIMBY's ever look at the traffic heading to and from the airport in the morning and evening? Traffic is often blocked up from the Kinsale Road to half way up the hill. The Kinsale Rd Junction cant handle the current traffic, how is to handle the increase if the motorway goes to Ballygarvan?

Just look at Google Maps and the traffic flow? Often the whole road from the airport to the roundabout is all black!

The people involved here don't care as long as it's inside their local area. Traffic down Airport Hill is not their problem

kub · 21-11-2018 7:48pm

So Councillor John Buttimer informs all that the N40 has capacity issues, which we are all well aware of, thanks John.

https://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Over-capacity-N40-a-major-issue-8f5c9eff-1e0e-42e8-8481-e78a77965325-ds

While his brother Jerry supports the NIMBY's hair brained idea of re routing the M28 out through the Ballygarvan direction so that it can join up with the N40 at the Airport Road or Bishopstown.

Rather than the free flowing junction at Bloomfield and 3 lanes to and from a free flowing Dunkettle.

Chris_5339762 · 21-11-2018 10:21pm

Just one correction: There is no plan for 3 lanes to Dunkettle. That would require widening the tunnel, which is likely to never happen.

realitykeeper · 21-11-2018 10:40pm

Does anyone know if the container shipping will be moved to Ringaskiddy before the completion of the M28 motorway? As far as I know, it will but that is likely to result in a lot of congestion south of the river. Would it not make more sense to continue using Tivoli until the motorway is ready. I think the motorway should go ahead by the way. Obviously, Brexit will mean a lot more shipping will need to be done with the EU and Ringaskiddy is well placed to cater for these trade routes to France, Spain and through the channel.

It would be foolish for businesses to continue sending freight to the UK and then by road or rail to the tunnel. The UK will have to be bypassed and that may add some additional shipping to Ringaskiddy over and above what Tivoli currently handles.

realitykeeper · 21-11-2018 10:47pm

Middle Man wrote: »

Looking at the traffic volumes and the end destination amid EU requirements for strategic access, I think the case is closed. However, public transport solutions must also be pursued. The proposed M28 will have a capacity of around 44k so as a short term solution, it's right to build this road. Medium term solutions must be rail/BRT based (perhaps light rail or BRT to Carrigaline via Douglas for example) and if such prove successful in creating a modal shift, the M28 given its capacity can be recycled as a long term solution.

Carr`s Hill might be an impediment to a light rail project. Progress is good but it is also a bit sad. I used to cycle between Douglas and Carrigaline back when traffic was a lot lighter.

marno21 · 21-11-2018 11:01pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

Does anyone know if the container shipping will be moved to Ringaskiddy before the completion of the M28 motorway? As far as I know, it will but that is likely to result in a lot of congestion south of the river. Would it not make more sense to continue using Tivoli until the motorway is ready. I think the motorway should go ahead by the way. Obviously, Brexit will mean a lot more shipping will need to be done with the EU and Ringaskiddy is well placed to cater for these trade routes to France, Spain and through the channel.

It would be foolish for businesses to continue sending freight to the UK and then by road or rail to the tunnel. The UK will have to be bypassed and that may add some additional shipping to Ringaskiddy over and above what Tivoli currently handles.

I believe the plan is to relocate to Ringaskiddy but operations are restricted until the M28 and Dunkettle are complete. Dunkettle won't be an issue as it opens in late 2021

realitykeeper · 22-11-2018 10:56am

marno21 wrote: »

I believe the plan is to relocate to Ringaskiddy but operations are restricted until the M28 and Dunkettle are complete. Dunkettle won't be an issue as it opens in late 2021

If operations are to be restricted, it might be prudent to keep Tivoli going until the roadworks are finished.

On another matter, does anyone know how is Ringaskiddy fixed regarding rising sea levels in future? I think the consensus is for a 6 foot rise by the end of the century.

This flood adjustable map shows how a 2 meter sea level rise will impact Ringaskiddy: http://flood.firetree.net/

Perhaps the tidal defense project at Ringaskiddy would be preferable after all. The cheapskate quay wall defense earmarked for the city center seems a bit foolish to be honest. If cost is a factor, the state could do the project directly without using a contractor. This option has been used in the past when the state was new and it is used as a fallback option in other countries. For example, Uganda got messed around by contractors who were not serious or who tried changing the terms after preliminary agreements. Consequently the Ugandans have started developing their first oil refinery themselves without an outside contractor. Norway did well with Statoil so it is not just a third world option.

neiljung · 22-11-2018 4:52pm

marno21 wrote: »

I believe the plan is to relocate to Ringaskiddy but operations are restricted until the M28 and Dunkettle are complete. Dunkettle won't be an issue as it opens in late 2021

The planning for the new port extension is in three phases IIRC. The first 2 can be completed in advance of the Motorway being in place but the third phase which caters for additional RO-RO ferries cannot be opened in advance of the Motorway.

It's all logical enough from a development point of view and should allow both to progress in parallel. There's no RO-RO into anywhere other than Ringaskiddy at the moment so the planning condition shouldn't impact moving container shipping out of Tivoli as soon as the replacement is ready.

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

Comments