N2 - Slane Bypass [planning decision pending]

Despite the recent reclassification of some National Routes around the country, the N2 through Slane remains the N2 National Primary Route - this is in the context of the section of N52 from Ardee to Dundalk being totally downgraded (due to the presence of the N33 and M1 I'd imagine) - this does bode well for future prospects regarding the Slane Bypass eventually coming to fruition.

Regards!

According to today's Irish Times, there will be no judicial review of the decision of An Bord Pleanala to deny planning permission for the Slane bypass, and no alternative route proposed by Meath County Council. The Slane bypass has been completely abandoned.

Instead, the Council and the NRA are looking at introducing a long overdue HGV ban.

The locals were playing Russian Roullette with the ban, at the bequest of the NRA. Locals had always campaigned for both a HGV ban and a bypass. The NRA couldn't allow the ban to go into place, before planning was granted, because it would have reduced the traffic numbers through the village, and therefore negated the need for the bypass. This is bourne out by the timeline of events.



4 April 2009 – Locals protest for HGV ban in Slane

On 04 April, 2009, RTE reported that local protests had stopped traffic in the village of Slane:

Around 70 protestors blocked traffic through Slane this morning to highlight their campaign to have heavy goods vehicles banned from the Co Meath village.

9 April 2009 – Councillors unanimously vote for HGV ban

A few days later, on 9 April 2009, Meath County Councillors voted to implement a Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) ban in Slane – as reported in the Meath Chronicle story entitled – Slane pile up: Cllrs take first step to ban HGVs.

The motion to ban HGVs travelling north-south through the village was put to the floor and unanimously passed. Standing orders were suspended at Monday”s council meeting to discuss the issue and a motion put forward by Cllr Ann Dillon Gallagher calling for trucks travelling north-south through the village to be banned received the unanimous support of her fellow councillors.

9 April 2009 – Minister Dempsey says he will “actively facilitate” HGV ban in Slane

The Meath Chronicle also reported on 9 April 2009 that Minister Noel Dempsey said that the Department of Transport and National Roads Authority “would actively facilitate a HGV ban in the village“.

April 2009 – Bypass Slane Campaign Forms

The Bypass Slane Campaign is led by Fianna Fail Cllr Wayne Harding, who was elected in the June 2009 elections, and Thomas Byrne, TD for Meath. The group had been hurriedly formed in April 2009, a month before the elections, and the address of the group is the Village Inn in Slane, the premises owned and operated by Cllr Harding, who also uses it for his constituency office.


20 May 2009 – NRA tells councillors no funding for bypass

The NRA then informed Slane councillors by letter that there was no funding for the bypass in a 20 May 2009 meeting with Slane Electoral Area councillors, which was reported in The Meath Chronicle on 27 May 2009- . Incredulity in Slane as NRA says no funds for bypass:

In its explanation for a pause in progress on the construction of a bypass – delivered to councillors at the Slane Electoral Area meeting last Wednesday – the NRA said the Government”s national transport infrastructure investment programme, Transport 21, provided the framework for the development of the national road network over the 10-year period from 2006 to 2015. It said that, under the plan, the initial focus of the authority”s programme of works would concentrate on the completion of the five major inter-urban routes linking Dublin to Cork, Waterford, Limerick, Galway and Northern Ireland (via the M1) to motorway/high quality carriageway standard.

The plan anticipated the completion of these routes in their entirety by the end of 2010. Transport 21 also envisaged significant development of other key national primary roads, including the N2, N3, N4, N5, N21, N22, N24, N25 and N30, the Atlantic Road Corridor from Letterkenny through Sligo, Galway, Limerick, Cork and Waterford, as well as a number of national secondary routes which were identified in the plan as being particularly important for regional development, it said. Because of this, and the continued uncertainty regarding public finances, the NRA regretted that ‘it is not possible at this time to provide funding for the construction of the N2 Slane Bypass’.

The Minutes of the Slane Electoral Area May Monthly Meeting, which took place at the Chamber Duleek Civic Offices on Wednesday 20thMay 2009, states as follows:

7.0 Correspondence / Issues raised by the Area Manager

The following items of correspondence were circulated and noted by the Members:

7.1 Letter from NRA stating in essence that it was not possible to provide funding at this stage for the construction of the N2 Slane Bypass.

The Members unanimously expressed extreme disappointment with the contents of this letter. Cllr Cudden suggested that that the five area Members contact the area’s TDs and Senator in an effort to progress the delivery of this vital piece of infrastructure.

The Area Manager advised the Members that they raise this issue at the Full Council meeting to discuss the Slane LAP on the 25th May.

25 May 2009 – Taoiseach Brian Cowen and Dempsey met Bypass Slane Campaign

The leader of Fianna Fail, Taoiseach, Brian Cowen was welcomed to Slane on 25 May 2009 by Minister for Transport, Noel Dempsey, and his local Fianna Fail allies, Thomas Byrne TD and Cllr-to-be Wayne Harding. This was part of the Fianna Fail European and local election campaign.

The Taoiseach came to Slane to support the candidates running in the local elections in Meath and South Louth.


9 July 2009 – County Manager announces he cannot implement the HGV ban

On 09 July 2010 The Meath Chronicle reported that the County Manager, Tom Dowling, said he could not implement the ban, for commercial and legal reasons, according to a ‘report’ circulated to councillors, on the implications of the HGV ban:

The banning of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) from the streets of Slane could have huge financial consequences for Meath County Council in terms of possible exposure to legal claims, delays to deliveries and business frustration, a council official said this week. The report reaches the conclusion that the banning of HGVs would have national and international implications and, if implemented, could have serious consequences for the council in terms of possible legal exposure, delivery delays and business frustration. ‘

As it is the general duty of the NRA under the Roads Act to secure the provision of a safe and effective network of national roads, it is considered the responsibility of the NRA to have the above mentioned study carried out in order to ascertain the full impacts that such a ban would have on Slane, the county in general, and settlements and infrastructure in other jurisdictions.

It should be noted that Meath County Council is fully supportive of a HGV ban in the village and is willing to work with the NRA in the implementation of whatever proposals that emerge from the study.’

15 July 2009 – NRA announces reversal of Slane bypass decision

On 15 July 2009 the NRA announced to the Transport Committee that they had changed their mind and wished to proceed with the N2 Slane Bypass, as planned:

The National Roads Authority believes that Slane should be bypassed on economic, environmental and safety grounds. The planning is well advanced and the compulsory purchase order, CPO, and environmental impact statement, EIS, documentation will be available to submit to An Bord Pleanála by October this year. Subject to Department of Finance approval, CPO and EIS applications will be submitted to An Bord Pleanála as soon as the documentation is ready.

This was a complete turn-around by the NRA, and there is no doubt that there had been an intervention at Cabinet level, to secure the funding for the bypass.

On 15 July 2009, Meath County Manager, Tom Dowling also made a presentation to the Oireachtas Committee on Transport, along with the NRA and Bypass Slane campaign, alleging that the HGV ban in Slane would be unworkable:

A resolution to implement a ban on HGVs travelling north-south through Slane on the N2 was passed by the elected members at the council meeting on 6 April 2009.

A report was circulated to the full council on 6 July 2009 on the potential implications that such a ban would have and I fully support the elected representatives in their desire to ban HGVs through Slane. However, it would be remiss of me not to draw attention to the fact that whereas the banning of HGVs from Slane will resolve some of the problems associated with the inadequacy of the existing route, it may well create a multiplicity of other problems.

These will have wide ranging impacts which will extend beyond the borders of County Meath, largely because of the need to give HGV drivers, who would otherwise pass through Slane, sufficient warning so that they can plan alternative routes.

The banning of HGVs in Slane may have wider implications which could have serious consequences for Meath County Council in terms of possible legal exposure, delivery delays and business frustration. These should not be dismissed lightly and could also apply to other affected local authorities and agencies. Apart from the impact on the local commercial interests, any restriction of HGVs through Slane could bring significant local difficulties for the residents along other roads, villages and towns that diverted vehicles would use to avoid Slane and minimise journey times.

In addition, the use of these local roads by HGVs could result in the rapid and serious deterioration of the local road infrastructure and increase the risk of accidents. Consequently, it is vital to consider this matter carefully and to ensure that whatever we do will be done in the proper manner.

Then Fine Gael Spokesperson on Transport, Deputy Fergus O’Dowd, said:

A resolution has been passed by the county council. As the elected Members have called for it, notwithstanding everything the county manager said, I presume the position is he must effect that policy now.

The County Manager responded that “Obviously it is a reserved function to pass the resolution and so on, which has been done. While the resolution has been passed, members are aware that one must find a way to implement such a resolution.” Deputy O’Dowd responded:

However, the law states the local authority must do it. It does not have a choice because the council has passed a resolution and its officials must carry that through.

8 December 2009 – Dempsey cuts national roads programme – not Slane bypass

On 8 December 2009, with the financial crisis deepening, the Minister for Transport, Noel Dempsey, announced that there were to be severe cuts to the national roads programme – as reported on 9 December 2009, The Irish Times – Major road plans put on hold due to cutbacks.

MORE THAN a decade of budget allocations to begin major road schemes is expected to come to a close today, when reductions in annual funding for the National Roads Authority (NRA) are announced by Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan. For the first time since December 1999 the roads authority is not planning to match its budget allocation with early announcements of new road schemes to go to construction within 12 months.

The N2 Ahsbourne to Ardee, which is to link on both north and south ends of the Slane bypass, was “suspended,” but the bypass itself has miraculously kept its funding.

15 December 2010 – Public consultation for Slane bypass begins

The following week, on 15 December 2009, a public notice announcing the selection of the preferred route for the N2 Slane bypass, and the Compulsory Purchase Order for the land along the route, was published in national newspapers.

At the oral hearing, the Council and the NRA refused to give copies of the study that had been performed, which stated the HGV an was unworkable. However, they were forced to produce it. And it was a joke.

Now, there is really going to be a proper study done, for the first time, on actually implementing the HGV ban. About bloody time!

MYOB wrote: »

There won't be any HGV ban implemented as there isn't a suitable alternative route.

There'll be a new application put in for the bypass in time - this does not require a judicial review or, indeed, another route.

Thanks for your opinion, and you may well be right about them not implementing a ban, but I find it hard to believe that local residents, and all of Meath County Councillors would have campaigned for, and voted for, something that was impossible.

We'll see what the new studies say, assuming they are independently performed.

Otherwise, it will be years before there is a bypass application - and anyone being injured in the village in the meantime will have a good cause of action against the council, for failing to take reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of drivers and pedestrians.

MYOB wrote: »

I'd counter that anyone injured can look at an inexplicable ABP decision more than anything else.

Have you realised yet that the reasons it was rejected don't tie, at all, with what you came on here and claimed it was rejected for? E.g. have you actually read the decision yet?

Sounds like sour grapes to me. I am afraid your post is very jumbled, and difficult to respond to. First you say it is inexplicable. Then you say you know why it was rejected, and its not the reasons I gave.

I actually don't recall giving any reasons, other than the ones in the paper - ie because of the importance of the World Heritage Site it is vital that all alternatives be examined, and they weren't.

JupiterKid wrote: »

Tuathal - for some reason, the words strawman and troll come to mind when I read your posts.

A HGV ban at Slane is unworkable. It has been shown that much of the HGV traffic at Slane is generated locally and therefore cannot be redirected via the M1 bridge at Drogheda.

IMO the only workable solution is a bypass of Slane.

+1

...or soap-boxing!

tuathal wrote: »

Sounds like sour grapes to me. I am afraid your post is very jumbled, and difficult to respond to. First you say it is inexplicable. Then you say you know why it was rejected, and its not the reasons I gave.

I actually don't recall giving any reasons, other than the ones in the paper - ie because of the importance of the World Heritage Site it is vital that all alternatives be examined, and they weren't.

Have you read all of the ABP Inspector's report???

To answer a couple of posters, I have read the Inspectors Report, and the Order. I agree they are difficult to digest, and indeed the Inspector does ask the council to come back with a new proposal. But the Inspectors Report is just that, and there have been numerous cases where the Board has acted against the advice of the Inspector. We could go on and on about that, but the reality is that the NRA has no money to make a new proposal, and also interprets the Order as being a block to any future bypass plan for the Slane area.

That only leaves two alternatives.

1. Do nothing.

2. Implement a HGV ban.

I would like to see them implement the HGV ban. Now, there are a lot of people on here who seem to have it all figured out, and are cock sure that it won't work. But what is the harm in testing it? That is the only way we will know for once and for all if it will work.

What is wrong with spending a small amount of money on developing the best HGV ban possible, if it has a chance of saving lives?

If it fails, then the case for the bypass is enhanced, and work should begin on a new route.

But to say it won't work, when there has been no definitive study, and no attempt to implement a trial version, makes no sense at all. Frankly, it smacks of some other agenda.

MYOB wrote: »

Consider it all you want, there is no alternative route. If trucks want to avoid the tolls - and "rob" a private firm as that toll has been run by the PPP that built the Dundalk Bypass since roughly 2005 - they go through Julianstown and Drogheda, not Slane.

Why you seem to think the result of the "consultation" MCC are undertaking will be anything other than "can't be done, apply again" astounds me.

If you feel the route is "too close" to Newgrange, maybe you can convince UNESCO to extend their standard boundaries. Its outside it, hence it is not too close.

You obviously don't know much about toll roads in Ireland. The State gets a share of the toll revenue. Normally, the contracts aren't published, so we don't know the exact terms of the agreement for the M1, but we do get indications from time to time.

Last June the Irish Times published an article about the cost of the M3 motorway, due to shadow tolling. It contained the following statement from the NRA:

The subvention on the M3 for October to December that year cost €547,000. Utilising the revenue from the M1 and M4 for the entire year still left a shortfall of €317,000.

So, it is clear that there is state income from the M1 toll -and income that is being lost due to the toll being avoided in Slane.

I agree with you that MCC is unlikely to give a thumbs up to the HGV ban, because the HGV ban will reduce traffic through the village, and undermine the economic argument for the bypass. That is why the study needs to be done independently. It may even require HGV bans in other villages as well, which would not be a bad thing. We paid billions for motorways, so why should secondary roads be bombarded unecessarily, when we don't now even have the money to maintain them?

I think pressure needs to be put on the Minister to ensure that a proper HGV study is done, and it will be pretty obvious if the MCC study is a whitewash.

Your view of the UNESCO boundary is simplistic. Yes, there is a case for extending it, and that was already under consideration by a review group, working on the management plan, before the route was published. The case was strenghtened by various discoveries of sites that were related to the main sites.

In Irish law, the definition of a national monument includes the "setting" of the monument - which extends well beyond the actual property line. That same principle applies here to the World Heritage Site.

MCC picked an independent heritage consultant, Dr Comer, from the US to evaluate the scheme.

His opinion was that "no other outcome (other than rejection of planning permission) was possible" on the basis of the application.

You can cry aout it all you like, but that was the correct decision. This is bourne out by the fact that MCC is not taking judicial review.

By the way. one not so obvious reason for the denial of planning permission is the concept of "cumulative effects", in the EIA Directive. Objectors argued that the bypass must be seen in the context of other developments in the area - the big one being the M1, which shaves the other side of the World Heritage Site. When that was built, the Site was not even mentioned in the EIS - and An Bord Pleanala gave permission on a flawed application. The Board clearly had egg on their face after that stroke by the NRA and MCC.

UNESCO came over on a fact finding mission afterwards, were appalled, and gave a damning report. The bypass would have been a step too far, and risked the Site losing its status as a UNESCO site.

MYOB wrote: »

I know plenty about them. The income the state gets is a tiny fraction. Not enough to justify some hyperbole about "robbing the state". They get more from the VAT. Probably actually make more from the extra fuel duty from the extra fuel the trucks dodging the M1 toll - through Julianstown and Drogheda - use in the process.

MYOB wrote: »

That's not agreeing with me, thats pretending to agree with me.
A HGV ban cannot be implemented due to no alternative route - not due to it "undermining" anything.

You keep using your conclusion as your argument. Your opinion is that there is no other route for north south HGVs. That is your opinion, and not based on any definitive study. You don't know exactly how many HGVs are cross-Border, Dublin to Belfast and other long distance routes - for which there is no alternative route needed.

MYOB wrote: »

If a report is done and states that a ban can't be done due to no alternative route, what are you going to pretend the report says then?

Given that a large proportion of HGV traffic is Dublin to Belfast, for which there is no alternative needed, then it is not a question of whether a ban will help, it is a question of how much it will help alleviate danger in Slane. There is really only one way to find that out - and that is to put in the ban. Why are you so against that, when it can only help, and not hurt the traffic situation in Slane?

MYOB wrote: »

If the case was strenghtened, why is it not being extended then?

Because it takes a long time. UNESCO only meets once a year, and the process is still under way. For some reason, I don't think it is a big concern for the current Government...any more than it was for the last...

MYOB wrote: »

You've seen the balloon test photos I presume? It impacts not one bit on its "setting". Vehicles using it will be less visible than those on the N2.

I think the massive bridge proposed, which was going to be highly visible - was of more concern than the cars themselves, which were of course going to be louder, since they were much closer.

MYOB wrote: »

Why would you take a judicial review when you can just reapply after showing there's no other suitable routes? You're really trying to invent a strawman here.

The cost of taking a judicial review is much much less than reapplying. If they were convinced of their case, they would be running into court, believe me.

MYOB wrote: »

You're the one crying here - because the planning decision didn't agree with any of your claims at all.

The Inspectors Report doesn't agree with all of my objections, but it does with most. And the Order does reflect my objection, so you are certainly grabbing at straws there

MYOB wrote: »

"risked" - as in, it wasn't actually going to lose it. Let UNESCO be appalled all the want - the bypass is not in their boundary zone.

I said risked losing its status. This whole exercise has been a risk assessment process. The other main risk was that it would be too significant an impact on the environment, when other alternatives were available.

MCC won't be able to prove that the HGV ban won't work without actually putting it in and trying it. If they think the Board is simply going to fall for another of their self-serving reports, I think they are about to waste a few more million of our taxpayers' money, and risk more lives in the process.

But obviously you are OK with that.