JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Tuesday, 1 Jun 2004

National Roads Authority: Presentation.

Chairman

The purpose of this meeting is to consider a presentation from the NRA regarding the development of the M3 motorway. The joint committee met on 28 April 2004 with representatives of the Save the Tara-Skryne Valley Campaign, and following that meeting it was agreed that the committee would meet with the NRA. I welcome Mr. Michael Tobin, the chief executive of the NRA, and the remainder of his delegation.

Before Mr. Tobin begins his presentation, I draw attention to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise, or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. Michael Tobin

We are glad to accept the committee's invitation to discuss with it the interaction between archaeology and the national roads programme, in particular how archaeological issues were dealt with in the selection of a route for the Clonee-Kells section of the M3. Before going further I shall introduce my colleagues. Ms Daire O'Rourke is an archaeologist with the National Roads Authority; Ms Geraldine Fitzpatrick is a senior project manager with us and responsible, among other things, for this M3 project; Mr. Michael Egan is our head of corporate affairs; and Mr. Oliver Perkins is director of service infrastructure, roads and transportation with Meath County Council.

First, I seek your guidance, Chairman. We sent to you in advance, as required, a three-page opening statement. I can go through that or, if you wish, I can foreshorten it on the assumption that committee members have already read it.

Chairman

There are only three pages so perhaps you might present the information.

Mr. Tobin

The authority supplied an information note on the M3 scheme to the committee in April, when it was preparing to meet the Save the Tara-Skryne Valley Group. Today we would like to make a short presentation on the extensive planning work over a period of more than three years that informed the route choice for the scheme, and also address the specific issues of archaeology. Before doing so, it would be informative to address the wider context in which the national roads programme and archaeology interrelate, and to identify some of the challenges that merit attention if the interests of our cultural heritage and the imperative of delivering much needed infrastructure are to be advanced in tandem.

Road planning and route selection is a challenging business. In the Ireland of today it can be difficult to thread a new road through the countryside. Dwellings and other developments abound, significant areas have been designated for protection because of their environmental value, and areas of cultural and heritage significance are everywhere. The situation presents considerable challenges to the NRA and to local authorities, who are expected to identify route corridors whose impact on dwellings and the wider environment are kept to an acceptable minimum.

In the case of archaeology, the official record of monuments and places contains 120,000 sites and features spread throughout the country. Indeed, there are thousands of them in County Meath alone, where the route is being dealt with. Every effort is made to avoid such sites, with considerable success. The M3 Clonee-Kells scheme, which runs for 60 kilometres through the Meath countryside, only impacts on two sites on the record of monuments and places. In both cases, there are no structures or other remains existing above the ground.

From our experience, it is worth mentioning that the 120,000 sites on the official record are like the tip of the iceberg. Numerous sites are regularly discovered when the topsoil is removed as part of our thorough investigation to identify possible archaeological sites and features prior to the commencement of road construction.

Much time and effort goes into locating archaeology during the planning process with a view to avoiding such sites to the maximum extent possible, or mitigating impacts as part of the route selection process. Scrutiny of old records, site walkovers and aerial photographs have in recent years been supplemented by techniques such as geophysical surveying to gain an impression of what may lie beneath the ground. However, this approach is not entirely conclusive and the full picture can only be determined accurately when the topsoil is removed or other intrusive investigation techniques are employed.

The authority has recently adopted extensive test trenching techniques in a further effort to determine more accurately what archaeology may lie below the ground. We cannot remove topsoil from all route options as part of the route selection process. Apart from the cost and likely objections of farmers and other property owners to such a wide-scale disruption, we are advised that such an approach would not be acceptable to archaeologists because of the extent to which archaeological sites encountered would be destroyed.

Excavations are a form of controlled destruction, so it is inevitable that some previous unknown archaeology will be discovered prior to road building. Only then will the nature and significance of such features be determined. There are significant shortcomings in the area of archaeology that are inhibiting the road planning effort of the National Roads Authority and local authorities. The legislation concerned, the National Monuments Act 1930 and subsequent amendment Acts, is outdated. The legislation places considerable emphasis on the regulation of excavation activities undertaken for the purpose of discovering archaeology. It is not geared to the realities of the present, nor does it cater adequately for conflicts that can and do arise when the interests of archaeology and the demands for the timely and cost effective delivery of development proposals, including major infrastructure of national importance, do not entirely coincide.

The national monuments legislation operates outside the main development process. It is not integrated with the consent process performed by An Bord Pleanála under the Planning and Development Acts in respect of developments proposed generally and under the Roads Act 1993 in the case of national road proposals specifically. As standing legislation, the National Monuments Acts have the capacity to stop or seriously delay previously approved projects. This situation is unsatisfactory and can be a source of frustration for developers in the public and private sectors alike.

Clearly, the preservation of our heritage to the extent that is both possible and appropriate in the light of the significance of particular features is a reasonable and legitimate objective. The challenge is to do this in a way that more closely integrates the cultural dimensions into the mainstream development consent process and that can resolve the sometimes conflicting demands involved in an informed and balanced manner. Progress in this direction offers the real prospect of bringing greater certainty and finality to the development consent process and would engender greater confidence among developers that a project, once approved, can proceed to completion in a timely and efficient manner.

Another shortcoming of the current situation is the absence of any record of national monuments where the highest level of preservation and protection is appropriate. Any site or feature can be contended to be a national monument and, under existing law, only the courts can adjudicate on such claims. The situation is most unsatisfactory and can entail long delays as the status of a site is debated and eventually determined.

There is no concerted proactive approach to the location and identification of previously unknown archaeological sites. The authority, in its approach to archaeology, is more active in this area than any other body or agency, or, indeed, the archaeological profession, and is adding significantly to the store of knowledge concerning our heritage. There also appears to be an absence of consensus and consistency as to how new archaeology sites, when discovered, should be dealt with. The authority is frequently criticised for excavating sites on the grounds that they should not be interfered with, but should be preserved in situ. On the other hand, when the authority adopts this approach, the criticism is that the site should be excavated so as to recover any artefacts present and to add to the store of knowledge on our past.

The authority does not have the luxury of focusing on only a single aspect of road planning such as archaeology. We must address all potential impacts, including effects on people, their homes, the implications for farms and how they operate, as well as the full range of environmental issues. An informed and balanced judgment must be made as to the best overall route choice. That judgment will have to withstand the scrutiny of An Bord Pleanála, including what can amount to very robust examination at an oral hearing, before development consent is secured.

The authority recognises its responsibilities to our heritage and the wider environment, and will continue to expend the necessary time, effort and money on seeking to come up with optimum route choices for new road schemes. Our success in this regard would be helped considerably by steps to address shortcomings in the area of archaeology and, in particular, efforts to achieve consensus and consistency as to the manner in which newly discovered archaeological sites should be dealt with.

Our presentation will now deal with the planning of the M3 scheme with particular reference to the Dunshaughlin-Navan section and then address the important issue of archaeology in some detail. I will now hand over to Ms Fitzpatrick.

Ms Geraldine Fitzpatrick

I will begin my presentation by giving some details of the route and will continue with the route selection process that was undertaken. The scheme runs from the end of the Clonee bypass. It consists of 49 km of motorway, 10 km of wide single lane, 15 km of link roads, six grade separated interchanges and two toll plazas. As members can see from slide No. 3, it comes from the end of the Clonee bypass, bypasses Dunshaughlin on the western side, swings directly across the existing road in the area of Tara and Skryne. It then swings back across the existing road, bypasses Navan on the western side and then bypasses Kells.

The design of the scheme commenced in 1999. The constraints study and route selection was carried out between June 1999 and June 2000. During this period, over 4,000 people attended the various consultations on the project. The motorway scheme and the environmental impact study, EIS, was published in March 2002. The oral hearing ran from 21 August to 21 November 2002, which, to date, was one of the longest ever periods of oral hearings. The scheme was approved in August 2003, without challenge, and it became operative in September 2003. As the approved route, it now forms part of the Meath development plan.

The scheme provides a bypass of Dunshaughlin, Dunboyne, Navan and Kells with very significant traffic reductions in these towns. It is estimated that there would be a 75% reduction of through traffic in Dunshaughlin, a 78% reduction in Navan and a 90% reduction in Kells. It also serves Dunboyne and Trim. The reduction in accident rates is also significant. It is estimated that the new route will reduce accidents by a rate of 30% to 50% of the number that currently occur on the existing road.

The bypasses also lead to major effects on the environment and other improvements as a result of taking all that traffic out of the towns. The capacity of a single lane standard road is 11,600. There is a slight mistake in the handout in that a figure of 13,800 is given, which is actually for a wide single lane, which is a wider road than the present one. The existing road is a standard single lane so it has a lower capacity than indicated in the notes.

The present traffic volumes on the section where Tara is located, between Dunshaughlin and Navan, is 21,700 vehicles. Taking into account the growth that is anticipated for the Dunshaughlin area and further up the N3, the predicted traffic level on this section of the scheme would be 36,500 in the year 2025. Clearly, the existing road is not able to cope with this predicted traffic increase which means that a considerable amount of traffic would go onto the non-national roads and side roads in the area.

The route selection was carried out on a 6 km wide corridor centred on the N3. Route selection was completed strictly in accordance with our own project management guidelines. As part of this process, both the "do nothing" and the "do minimum" arguments were considered. The "do nothing" approach was to leave the existing road as is. The "do minimum" approach was to widen the existing road.

The assessment of the Navan section resulted in a western bypass being selected for Navan. The reason we chose a western bypass for Navan was because of the high density levels of population on the eastern side. This side was much more effective at serving national traffic and there were considerable restrictions due to the Tara mines tailing ponds on the eastern side. A western bypass of Navan was selected.

Regarding Dunshaughlin, again, the preferred option was on the western side, where there would be less impact on people and communities. It was economically better and there were also poorer ground conditions to the east. The route selection process in the area between Dunshaughlin and Navan identified ten routes which fitted into four broad corridors. Each of these routes was looked at in environmental, engineering and economic terms, as well as considering policy. As a point of interest, the route that was selected was not the cheapest. In the EIS, 18 different areas were considered. The route that was selected was first or joint first in 14 of the 18 categories selected. It was first in areas like agriculture, community impact, ecology etc. A star is indicated after each category in which the chosen route came first or joint first.

Slide No. 10 shows the main route corridors that were considered between the Dunshaughlin and Navan area. The far-eastern corridor is known as the pink route. The route that is very close to the existing N3 and to Tara is the green route. The blue route is the selected route. The far-western route is the orange route. The orange route was not considered an option for a number of reasons, the main one being, it was very remote from the existing road network which would have resulted in very long links and the associated environmental impacts of those. It was also ruled out on the basis of it being very visible from Tara. The green corridor was ruled out immediately because of its impact on Tara. It was very close to the core Tara area.

The pink route, which is the route far over to the eastern side, was also ruled out because it had a significant impact on Skryne It too, was very remote from the existing road network with the associated long links and the environmental impact caused by them. It was extremely difficult to tie a route this far over to the Navan and Dunshaughlin bypass and keep the scheme viable. It would have had a significant impact on the local community and it would also have resulted in a very significant crossing of the Boyne. The reason for this is that it would have had to cross both the existing road and the Boyne at the same location which would have resulted in a high level bridge. In addition, it was a new crossing of the Boyne as opposed to being at an area where there was already an existing bridge.

The blue route, which is the confirmed route, was selected because it is outside the core Tara zone. It is the best route in terms of serving traffic demands and the impact on the existing networks. It provides the preferred option for crossing the River Boyne. It is the best option in terms of engineering impact and is the second best corridor in terms of archaeology. It is first or joint first in 14 of the 18 environmental categories assessed and has the least impact on properties and communities. Ms O'Rourke will deal with the archaeological section.

Ms Daire O’Rourke

I shall show again the map that Ms. Fitzpatrick just showed. The green line is the existing entry and the red line is the approved entry. As the committee can see, most of the line of the proposed entry is to the west of the existing entry. At Dunshaughlin it turns quite sharply to the east of the existing route. This was done to avoid the archaeological complex at Tara.

The map I am showing now is known as the RMP map, the record of monuments and places, which is the statutory archaeological map produced from the archaeological survey of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The black outline is the archaeological complex as defined in the RMP map. Again, the green line is the existing entry and the red line is the approved entry. The closest part of the proposed approved M3 is at the Blundelstown roundabout, which is about 1.2 kilometres from the archaeological complex at Tara.

I am now showing the same map again, but this time with a number of yellow dots. These signify the archaeological sites that were uncovered during the EIA phase of the process. Two sites are what are known as RMP sites — statutory archaeological sites that have been placed on the map by the archaeological survey in the Department. The others were six archaeological sites were uncovered during the geophysical survey conducted during the EIA phase. Of the six new geophysical sites that were uncovered, the route is realigned to avoid three of them.

I am now showing a small table indicating the research field survey and geophysical survey that was conducted on the entire 60 kilometres of the M3 in regard to archaeology. Only two RMP sites were impacted upon. On screen now is what the interpreted geophysical results look like post-survey. Three sites — Dowdstown, Roestown and Baronstown — will be impacted on by the approved route for the M3. With Dowdstown and Baronstown, what we are looking at is a circular enclosure in both instances and associated field systems. The lighter blue lines indicate associated field systems. In regard to Dowdstown we can see an annex associated with the circular enclosure. They are possibly early medieval farmsteads. The results of the testing still have to be confirmed.

Roestown is the third archaeological site uncovered during the geophysical survey. The existing M3 bisects the site. Again, there is a v-shaped enclosure and associated field systems, possibly early medieval and quite similar to ones we have found on the Kilcock-Enfield-Kinnegad scheme of the M4. That work was done during the EIS through non-invasive testing techniques.

I will now illustrate the archaeological invasive testing. What the committee is looking at are strict trenches, which have been excavated by machine. They are two metres wide and 20 metres apart. This is done by an archaeological company under licence and following consultation with the archaeological sections of the Department and the National Museum. The whole idea of this trenching process — it is one that we have developed and used extensively on all our road schemes — is to assess the archaeological risk of finding archaeological sites prior to construction and ensure that there is adequate time and resources to deal with the archaeological issue.

The position regarding the M3 was a radical departure. Prior to the code of practice which was signed by the NRA and the then Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands in 2000, the traditional way of dealing with archaeology on major infrastructure projects was for an archaeological company to be procured to monitor the work of the construction traffic. Following good practice, we have introduce new innovative methods of dealing with archaeology, involving the use of geophysics. The M3 was the first scheme involving the use of this in the EIA phase. Traditionally, geophysics has only been used in research. Also, the geophysical results used in research have generally not been tested by further archaeological trenching. We have moved this along to use the results of the geophysical research and update our testing strategies to take a robust strategy of finding archaeological sites by invasive test trenching.

A number of main issues have been raised in regard to the M3. One is the lack of consultation. Over 4,000 people attended public consultations. As can be seen from both maps — the discovery map, which shows the existing and approved new entries, and the RMP map — the road is outside the archaeological zone of Tara. It is further away from Tara than the existing road and is designed not to impinge on the sensitive landscape.

The other issues that have been dealt with are in regard to the known designated archaeological sites that have statutory protection. Only two of those on the entire 60 kilometres of motorway are being dealt with. Another of the main issues that has been raised is in regard to excessive costs and resources. Again, the cost for the archaeological investigations and resolutions on the M3 is similar to other schemes we are dealing with at present. It is completely in line. It will provide value for money and is a responsible way of dealing with archaeology prior to construction, allowing ample time and resources. There is never any guarantee that another route would reduce costs because of the unknown archaeological quantities.

Some issues have been raised in regard to the methodology being employed. The methodology at this stage of non-invasive and invasive testing strategies followed by coherent and sophisticated archaeological excavation has a proven track record on a number of our road schemes, including the M2, the M4 and the Sligo inner relief road. It is recognised as best practice and is done fully in accordance with any requirements by the Department.

The archaeology programme for the M3 is currently at a testing phase. Testing is underway and reports shall be due around mid-July. All testing is done following consultation with the Department and the National Museum. Once reports are in, the next phase will be excavation. Again, this will only be done following consultation with the Department and the National Museum in regard to further excavations. Following on from that will be post-excavation and publication. Post-excavation involves the writing up of the findings of the report and the publication, which will be done electronically and in book form. The NRA is proposing to develop a new website for the M3.

In conclusion, throughout the entire process archaeology was one of the major factors considered in regard to the M3. The route was confirmed by An Bord Pleanála following one of the longest oral hearings in the history of the State. Meath County Council and the NRA made a commitment at the oral hearing to provide the resources required to deal with the archaeological issues, and all results will be made widely and publicly available.

Mr. Tobin

Much time and effort has been devoted to determining a route through the sensitive Dunshaughlin to Navan section of the M3 scheme in the environs of the Hill of Tara. The chosen route goes to the east of Tara so as to mitigate effects on the hill and the landscape of the area. The route was selected following investigation of four broad corridors containing ten route options. Possible routes to the west of Tara and to the east of the Hill of Skryne were both ruled out because of concerns about archaeology and the particularly serious visual intrusion problems that would have affected both hills. The eastern option would have involved a River Boyne crossing at a new location with significant visual impact. This was an aspect of special concern to Dúchas, now part of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, because of the high archaeological potential of the area close to the Boyne.

The chosen route was evaluated as the best choice or equal best under 14 out of 18 assessment headings. The evolving process leading to this conclusion was highly transparent and was characterised by extensive public involvement. As has already been said, more than 4,000 people attended consultation sessions organised by Meath County Council. A detailed route selection report setting out the basis for the chosen route was produced and this was supplemented by a comprehensive environmental impact statement.

The route of the new motorway is twice as far from Tara as the existing N3 Dublin to Navan road. The road proposal was examined closely with particular attention being paid to archaeology and the Tara-Skryne Valley in the course of the 28 day oral hearing by An Bord Pleanála. The board, in approving the scheme, concluded that it is necessary to provide adequately for the existing and projected traffic growth; it would be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, and it would not have significant adverse effects on the environment.

The authority has brought a new level of sophistication to the efforts to identify previously unknown archaeology sites along the route of the M3 and to adjust the proposed route to reflect findings and avoid archaeology, where possible. Extensive use has been made of geophysical surveying and test trenching. We are continuing to strive to improve our techniques and use of technology, as well as our methods of operation. The authority is receptive to the guidance and advice of recognised experts in this field whether in regard to our approach to the M3 scheme or as regards archaeology and the roads programme more generally.

Statutory responsibility to protect archaeology and to regulate investigation and excavation activities lies with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Controls are generally exercised by means of licences issued by the Department following consultation with the National Museum of Ireland. The surveying and testing techniques used for the M3 scheme were authorised in this manner. Both the Department and the Museum will be informed of the results of the test trenching along the route and will be consulted as regards methods to be employed so as to satisfy their requirements for further measures in respect of archaeology. The authority and Meath County Council are fully committed to complying with all requirements imposed.

Calls to move the road or to put a bend in the motorway, as was the solution demanded by some in the case of the M50 South Eastern Motorway, reveal a lack of understanding of the legal framework within which decisions approving road scheme proposals are made. Even what might be considered relatively minor variations to an approved scheme carry a risk of legal challenge, with all attendant delays, on grounds of alleged departure from what An Bord Pleanála has authorised. There can be demands for the preparation of a new environmental impact statement and even to commence again the entire statutory approval process. In the authority's opinion, the situation warrants examination with a view to providing for some flexibility, under defined criteria, to vary or depart from an approved road scheme where the circumstances so warrant without the need to again undergo the full statutory approval process.

I wish to assure committee members that the authority is fully conscious of its responsibility to archaeology. We continue to perfect our practices and procedures in this area. The authority is the largest investor in archaeological research and investigation in the State. In 2003, archaeology related expenditure exceeded €1 million in each of six road schemes, with total expenditure reaching almost €3 million in one case.

The expenditure is bearing results and the authority is anxious that the public generally should be apprised of the findings. With this in mind, the authority's annual report for 2003 includes a chapter dedicated to archaeology. Our website currently contains details of archaeological finds on 15 national road schemes throughout the country. It is our intention to hold a seminar in September as part of our ongoing efforts to promote awareness of the contribution of the National Roads Authority to archaeology and to the enhancement of our knowledge and understanding of our history and cultural heritage.

We need to bear in mind that we are progressing this road on the basis of having secured the statutory consent as set down in law, that is, approval of An Bord Pleanála In so far as we have and are continuing to encounter archaeology, we are acting at all times under the control and diktat of the authority who in law is responsible for this area, namely, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Deputy McCormack

How much longer is the proposed new M3 route from Dunshaughlin than the existing route? It appears to be a more indirect route than the existing route. The NRA proposed to spend approximately €1.3 billion this year on motorways and approximately €55 million on primary routes. This appears to be very unbalanced spending. I would like clarification on this matter.

Chairman

Members should stick to the task in hand.

Deputy McCormack

It is part of the €1.3 billion expenditure by the authority.

Chairman

We are dealing with a particular route.

Deputy McCormack

Has the NRA fulfilled its agreement with the IFA regarding the €20,000 per acre promised to landowners, particularly in the Dunshaughlin area, and what is the state of progress in regard to compensation? Why was the Dunshaughlin bypass not opened? It was promised in 1999 that this would be an untolled road and now it is part of the motorway, which will be tolled. Should a scheme be introduced whereby landowners affected by a bypass would get a percentage of the tolls? Should there be a written-in percentage instead of companies creaming off all the money obtained from tolls?

Mr. Tobin

In reply to the first question, I do not have the length of the existing and new road. I repeat that the exact location of the new road was the subject of a 28 day inquiry. It has been approved by An Bord Pleanála, the body which the Oireachtas has set up to give such approvals. We must assume that we have satisfied our colleagues in Meath County Council and An Bord Pleanála in this regard.

Deputy McCormack

I did not suggest otherwise. I asked about the length of the route.

Mr. Tobin

I will send the Deputy a note on the length of the route. I assumed he was questioning whether it might be a shorter or longer route. The body set in law to determine what route we should take has examined it over 28 days and agreed with the route selected.

An IFA deal is now in operation. It has been slow getting off the ground in that a referral panel has just recently been set up. The Deputy can take it that a deal is in place which will be used in regard to all schemes going forward.

On the question of why the Dunshaughlin bypass was not proceeded with on its own, the fact is that with the arrival of the Celtic tiger and the improved economic circumstances, we were in a position to be able to deal with longer stretches of road rather than short and close-to-town bypasses. This is what we have been doing. We hope we can move on quickly and deliver the Dunshaughlin bypass as part of the larger project.

Deputy McCormack

The Dunshaughlin bypass was promised as an untolled road and now it is a toll road. How does Mr. Tobin balance this?

Mr. Tobin

Part of the national development plan was that we should seek to achieve IR£1 billion from the private sector, remunerated by toll. It is one of the projects we have identified as a possible source of that income. I am not sure I have an answer on whether landowners should get a percentage. Perhaps, if they think the companies doing this business are "creaming it off", to repeat the Deputy's phrase, they should buy shares in them. It is my opinion that they are not creaming it off and that it is our job to ensure in the assessment of bids that creaming off does not arise. We are satisfied that is not the case in the deals we have done so far. Indeed, we have won a number of awards for having struck very competitive deals on the PPP projects we have concluded to date.

Deputy McCormack

What about the expenditure of €1.3 billion versus €54 billion?

Mr. Tobin

The Chairman indicated that matter was not on the order of business today. I am not sure those figures are accurate and suspect the Deputy has not counted in the money we put into pavement work. I will send a note to the Deputy, if that is agreeable, to provide the breakdown of where our money is going.

Deputy Cuffe

I hope that at some future date I, or my party, will be in a position to radically change the NRA's terms of reference as an organisation because it fails to take into account any meaningful definition of sustainability, as, for example, in this particular road scheme.

Could Mr. Tobin outline the basis on which the roads project of upgrading the N3 between Clonee and Kells to motorway status was prioritised for funding? Does he have any views on the possible duplication in service provision in this part of the country, in view of the significant increases in roads capacity provided on the M1, the N2 and the N3, all of which are within a 30 km radius of each other?

Did the NRA consider any route west of the orange route? One of the slides in the presentation showed we could draw a direct line between the area due south of Navan and the Dunshaughlin by-pass, from south of Navan to west of Dunshaughlin. It appears from the slide that a more direct line, as the crow flies, west of the orange route might have warranted further examination. The NRA may well have technical difficulties with that route. Could Mr. Tobin expand on that?

Did the route planning take into account the possible reinstatement of the Dublin-Navan rail line in the future or does the scheme as currently proposed allow for the reinstatement of that line? Does the NRA have any concerns that the current legislation appears to allow no flexibility once An Bord Pleanála has confirmed a route? Regardless of what is found, even if it is the most important archaeological site in the country, there appears to be no flexibility once the board has confirmed a route. Has the NRA any concerns about that or is it open to changes in the legislation regarding that provision?

Mr. Tobin

I hope to cover all of the issues raised by Deputy Cuffe. On prioritisation, slide 6 shows a route with a capacity of 11,700 vehicles per day but part of which currently carries 28,000. If that does not justify the need, I am not sure what would. The traffic ranges from 15,000 vehicles per day north of Kells to 28,000 at Clonee-Black Bull. This, to me, offers a good reason for something to be done with the route.

The N2 route runs roughly parallel to the N3 but apart from providing a new route from the M50 to Ashbourne, and the link beyond Ashbourne, no major upgrade in terms of capacity is proposed for it. The major capacity increase in the eastern corridor has been on the M1 which we have completed. We believe there is still a need for upgrading capacity on the corridor, bearing in mind the projected traffic 20 years hence, which runs as high 52,000 vehicles a day. We are satisfied on this, and the Government has bought into the concept we are running.

Deputy Cuffe suggested an obvious alternative route which, taken at face value, sounds ideal. Instead of crossing over the existing N3 to the eastern side and then reverting to the west he asks why we do not just join the two points. Unfortunately for archaeological reasons that was not feasible. The question was also asked as to why we do not have a wider corridor. We looked at a six-kilometre wide corridor, but it was considered that on its extremes routes would not attract traffic and would, therefore, be of little benefit to relieving the problem of congestion that exists on the present N3.

We agree totally with the Deputy that the present system is very inflexible. Even minor changes are impossible because of the approval process we now have. I touched on that matter from two points of view in my opening remarks to the committee. First, there is a difficulty with the current legislation dealing with archaeology. When an item of archaeological interest is found there is no straightforward way of determining whether it is a national monument, the level of protection it requires or how it should be handled. In effect, we find the question answered, in a number of cases, by the courts.

With all due respect to the courts, they are a cumbersome mechanism by which to decide whether something is a national monument in the context of archaeology. We believe and hope legislation will be brought forward to simplify the process. We hope somebody gets the job of determining swiftly whether something is a national monument and how it should be handled. We will follow that. If it is determined that it is not a national monument, it will be handled differently.

It is a similar case with regard to the approval mechanisms existing under roads legislation. This probably reflects the constitutional arrangement we have with regard to private property. When a local authority gets its approval through An Bord Pleanála, it brings with it the right to buy the land expected to be required. However, if something crops up that requires even a minor move, we do not have the right to compulsorily acquire the adjoining land. We may in some instances manage to acquire it by agreement which is fine, but we may not manage to do that.

I agree with the Deputy that the current mechanisms we have, both in the context of archaeology and the development consent process for our roads generally, leave us with an enormous amount of inflexibility if anything crops up along the process. The Deputy asked specifically about the rail corridor to Navan. I will ask MsFitzpatrick to address that question.

Ms Fitzpatrick

All through the route selection process we were in discussion with Iarnród Éireann about the existing corridor and its plans for the Navan area. We ensured we did not encroach onto the existing corridor and in areas where we actually crossed it provision was made for Iarnród Éireann to include whatever structures were required. This was evident at the oral hearing. An added cost to the project of approximately €6 million was included to provide the outside structures that would allow the railway to come along at a later stage. The corridor is there, remains viable, and was taken fully into consideration.

Deputy Cuffe

I am glad we were able to agree on one issue.

Deputy Morgan

I thank the chief executive for suggesting we buy shares. However, I do not wish to be part of a scheme that rips off people who are already forced into motor cars because of a lack of public transport. Therefore, I will not take up that suggestion.

I accept the NRA has a difficult job and we all know it is not easy to create development. However, when we look at the track record, at the M1 in Dundalk, at the proposed M3 in Meath and at the M50, the NRA has encountered serious objections. Are the objectors cranks or headcases? Do they have nothing better to do with their time? Why does the NRA encounter such serious levels of objection in respect of major schemes? Could the objections be related to the lack of consultation? A speaker mentioned earlier that 4,000 people attended consultations — what value was placed on their opinions? It seems to me that those who are objecting are quite conservative in many cases. I would not describe the academic objectors, for example, as radicals. I do not mean to offend such people by saying that and I hope I have not done so.

The NRA mentioned in page 11 of its briefing paper that the motorway will provide value for money because it will help to avoid delays. Such an argument was made previously in respect of at least two of the major schemes to which we have referred. Does the NRA accept that the objective of eliminating delays has been missed completely? There have been threats of legal action in many cases and legal action has been taken in some instances.

Does the NRA consider that it was wise to abandon its 1999 national roads needs study, which recommended the upgrading of existing roads rather than the construction of large motorways? Who decided to over-ride the document? Was the decision to over-ride the study taken by the NRA or was it taken at a political level?

Mr. Tobin

I share the Deputy's concern about the level of objection. The NRA and its colleagues at local level have almost gone overboard in respect of consultation in recent years, to the extent that we are beginning to think we are undertaking too much consultation. Under the system that has been pursued in recent years, route options are made public when they have been identified. The public is given an opportunity to comment, positively or negatively, on the options. People who are affected by four or ten routes may consider that a road will be built on their lands, farms, homes or businesses. A significant number of people who think the project will land on them start to get into a tizzy, despite the fact that just one route will be pursued.

The emerging view is that we are ruffling many feathers to no great gain. The NRA may publicly state that it is considering between six and ten routes, but many people prefer to believe in a conspiracy theory instead. They are convinced that somebody in a back room has placed in a drawer a map that outlines the route that is eventually to be pursued. They think that the consultation process is a lot of palaver and of no meaning. It is hard to know how we can win. We engage in a very extensive level of consultation, if anything.

Deputy McCormack

Is there any truth in the bottom of the drawer theory?

Mr. Tobin

I assure the Deputy that there is no truth in it. There was a time when it may have been true, however. I refer to a time when road projects could be pursued with far less objection and opposition.

Deputy McCormack

Funny things happen in this country now.

Mr. Tobin

I can assure the Deputy that I am satisfied about the procedures followed in the schemes in which the NRA has been involved in recent years. The route options that were outlined as part of the public consultation process were genuine. They were the possibilities we considered when the preferred route was not yet known. The NRA is concerned about the number of objectors, but I suppose that is democracy. Statutory procedures are in place because people have the right to make known their views. The NRA and individual local authorities cannot decide, entirely without consultation, to build a road here, there or wherever — through one person's land or somebody else's house. An Bord Pleanála hears the case that is made by the NRA and the local authorities, before listening to the views of those who feel aggrieved by what is being done. As an independent body, An Bord Pleanála can decide whether the project should go ahead.

Deputy Morgan asked why we do not use existing routes, as proposed in a previous NRA road needs study. The NRA always examines the option of using such routes, but it is just one option. Capacity was increased along the existing road at the Glen of the Downs because of its environmental importance and other reasons relating to the special nature of that area. Would members of the committee like the disruption associated with the Glen of the Downs project to be replicated throughout the country? The idea of developing existing routes is fraught with danger for reasons associated with the passage of time, the fact that many roads are coming quite close to their capacity, the extent of the disruption and the number of houses that would be affected.

Deputy Morgan

I wonder if the Glen of the Downs project was worth it, given that one cannot travel faster than 50 mph on the reconstructed road. That is a separate issue, however.

Mr. Tobin

That is a different issue. Those who advocate the option of improving existing routes should contemplate the problems that arose in the case of the Glen of the Downs. Improving an existing road is not a realistic option in many cases, because it involves difficulties such as those I have mentioned. We will attempt to pursue it in the few cases in which it is viable.

Deputy Cuffe

The NRA made significant changes in the Glen of the Downs route arising from the public consultation process.

Mr. Tobin

A much wider central median was proposed when the Glen of the Downs route was initially put forward. The road was narrowed in response to people's concerns about its impact on the beauty of the Glen of the Downs area. I do not wish to crow, but it would be interesting to compare a photograph of the area taken before the road was improved, looking south down the glen from one of the hotels in the area, with a photograph taken from the same spot now. One could try to spot the difference. There is not an enormous difference. I assure the committee that it will be virtually impossible to tell that the glen has been interfered with, other than the fact that the road is of dual carriageway rather than single carriageway standard, when the flora that has been planted in the area starts to come to maturity.

Deputy Morgan

Can Mr. Tobin say who made the decision to over-rule the 1999 document? It is clear that the principal features of the document were dramatically altered. I asked whether the decision was taken by the NRA or at a political level. I also asked about the principle ofavoiding delays.

Mr. Tobin

I am at a loss. I understand that the Deputy is referring to a change in the policy, as expressed in the road needs study, of attempting to use existing routes.

Deputy Morgan

I asked about roads generally.

Mr. Tobin

I am afraid that the answer to the Deputy's question is glaringly obvious — the Celtic tiger arrived. The national development plan proposed major investment in our national roads. I was asked earlier why the NRA did not pursue the Dunshaughlin route. There was a time when all we could aspire to was a short bypass of a urban area like Dunshaughlin, but that has changed. We can now develop more logical long routes. That is what changed.

Deputy Morgan

Therefore, the policy is to let the rest of the country go to heck.

Deputy McCormack

Are those plans obsolete now? Is it the case that the moneys that were spent have been lost? I refer to routes that were planned in the last five or six years but have not been pursued because of a change in policy.

Mr. Tobin

Very few plans have been altered. That is one of the difficulties we had——

Deputy McCormack

No, I am talking about plans that will not go ahead now.

Mr. Tobin

There were no great numbers of such plans in existence. I think I referred at other joint committee meetings to one of the big difficulties we had. When the Celtic tiger arrived and the national development plan was announced, one of the greatest difficulties——

Deputy McCormack

Does Mr. Tobin refer to the first or second arrival?

Mr. Tobin

I refer to the first arrival. When the national development plan was announced, the greatest difficulty faced by the NRA and its colleagues in the local authorities was that we were on the back foot in terms of being ready for projects. The notion that we suddenly had to scrap a large number of projects is wrong. We faced a major task and are proud to have managed, with local authorities. to overcome it. We did this by changing direction with regard to our regional design offices by effectively putting them in charge of outsourced road design and planning. The idea that we abandoned many plans we had is wrong; we did not have lands. The plans, with few exceptions, are those prepared in the context of the national development plan.

Deputy Cregan

I welcome Mr. Tobin and thank him for his presentation, which brought balance and considerable clarity to the argument. As regards the fears and concerns which arise from the selection of a corridor until a single route has been chosen, I agree with the comments made thus far. This causes considerable fear, not only from the point of view of having a motorway on one's land but also because it leaves local authorities hamstrung as regards planning. Corridors are frozen for planning purposes, possibly for a long period, which deters potential applicants from making applications whether for once-off rural housing or commercial developments. It also deprives local authorities of their role of adjudicating fairly on planning applications, all matters being equal.

To return to the question of bypasses versus motorways, we all welcome the arrival of the Celtic tiger, which has clearly made a major difference to the level of funding. In some cases, including the one under discussion, it has made possible the provision of a long stretch of motorway, rather than a bypass. I assume bypasses already planned, including the Adare and Newcastle West bypasses in my county, will proceed, given that motorways have not been planned to replace them. While corridors have been selected, no routes have been chosen and, therefore, no financial loss should be incurred. For this reason, if motorways are not planned I ask that the NRA proceed as quickly as possible with planned bypasses to ensure we free up corridors, which are causing considerable difficulty.

Objectors and objections, of which there has been a high level with regard to the M3, have been mentioned. Did the NRA allay some of the fears of objectors during the consultation period? Mr. Tobin mentioned the lack of discretion available to the NRA as a result of legislation. Would amended or new legislation allay the concerns of objectors? Mr. Tobin stated that making minor changes involved the risk of having to go through the whole process again. If amended or new legislation afforded the NRA additional flexibility or discretion, would it be able to allay the fears of objectors by making further minor changes? As regards value for money and delays, what delays have occurred and at what financial cost?

Mr. Tobin

I will answer the Deputy's questions in reverse order. We have not really experienced any delays. We hope to proceed without any significant delay, provided we can make arrangements on archaeology with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, acting in consultation with the National Museum, which, please the Lord, will not land us in court. Finding ourselves in court has been a possibility.

The motorway network, the major inter-urban network connecting Dublin to Belfast, Galway, Limerick, Cork and Waterford, is given a high priority in our programme. In parallel, we aim to bring the balance of the network of national primary roads up to level of service "D".

Members will be aware that the Minister for Finance announced a multi-annual budget for the NRA in last year's budget, the formalities of which are being addressed. With a multi-annual budget of slightly less than €7 billion and allowing that we can generate another €1 billion from the private sector, we envisage completing the major inter-urban networks by 2010. In the same year, 95% of the balance of the national primary network will be delivering the target level of service. That is progress.

We have also put to the Minister a number of options for increasing funding. If found acceptable, they will speed up the process. Decisions have yet to be taken on the various options which, if approved, would foreshorten some of the timeframes.

Would additional discretion help to allay the fears of some people? It is possible that it would, in some instances, allow us a little latitude to resolve minor difficulties. Deputy Cregan's acceptance of the difficulties we face is welcome. Our decision to involve as many people as possible in the consultation process for determining routes appears to have backfired on us a little. While we are willing to continue with this process on condition that we believe it will be beneficial or it is really wanted, the feedback we have received suggests we may have caused more difficulty and anxiety than was allayed through consultation. We are re-examining the matter.

Deputy Cregan

I ask Mr. Tobin to respond to my question regarding the designation of broad corridors which freeze planning.

Mr. Tobin

It is part of the process involved in determining a single corridor. Where a number of corridors have been selected, the relevant local authority would be wise to prevent development until a single corridor is approved by An Bord Pleanála. A local authority could opt not do so but at the risk of one corridor being dropped for some reason, forcing the NRA to revert to one of the other options. A multiplicity of route options on drawings is a problem for land and property owners in that the local authority effectively finds itself disbarred from granting planning permissions on any of the corridors until a definitive route is agreed and approved.

Deputy Cregan

With additional funding now available, does Mr. Tobin envisage that the period between designating corridors and obtaining approval for a single route will be reduced?

Mr. Tobin

I am not certain there is much scope for such a reduction. The process appears to have been considerably foreshortened in recent years and is being completed at a reasonable pace. Again, a balance must be struck. If the NRA went into a corner and put a line on the map, we would have no problems with development being held up on a number of routes. On the other hand, no one would be consulted or have an input. I am not sure we want to proceed that way either. A balance must be struck between giving people an opportunity to comment, express views and draw our attention to problems, as is currently the case. I believe we have struck a reasonable balance, notwithstanding the need to reduce the number of times we engage in public consultation. If we reduce the number of public consultations, I do not believe it will draw much fire.

Deputy Cregan

I welcome that.

Chairman

Has the NRA become truly democratic?

Mr. Tobin

I hesitate to make that claim but there are times when I believe that to be the case.

Deputy Kelleher

I apologise for being late. It has nothing to do with the absence of a motorway from Cork to Dublin but I encourage the NRA to expedite that road. When compared to other countries, does Ireland have excessive consultation or a democratic deficit with regard to road projects? Most European countries undertook major infrastructure projects in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s before environmental awareness campaigns began. Ireland is trying to play catch up. How does the level of consultation here compare with other European countries? Does Mr. Tobin think we oversubscribe to consultation? Is there enough activity on the ground in terms of constructing motorways and roads? Is consultation an obstacle to the NRA in rolling out its plan over the next number of years?

Deputy Cuffe

Does the NRA have a multi-annual budget?

Mr. Tobin

Yes.

Deputy Cuffe

How many years does that cover?

Mr. Tobin

Five, until 2008. I cannot be specific about a comparison between ourselves and others in terms of public consultation. I cannot swear on oath on this but we probably err on the side of having more consultation than is generally the case. If we are ahead of ourselves in terms of having time, there is nothing wrong with consultation. A balance must be struck.

We like to give people as much opportunity as we can to influence and make known their views on projects but, at the same time, it can be frustrating that, even having gone thorough that lengthy process, which is probably more extensive than in many other EU member states, people who have not involved themselves in the process suddenly decide to object through our own courts, Brussels and so on and, thereby, holding up projects. That can be frustrating where we sit. This is a democracy and people have rights and, in one sense, one should not say they should not exercise them but it can be frustrating where people who have not taken an interest in the process previously go to the courts or to Brussels to object.

Chairman

It was the longest oral hearing, even longer than the one that concluded in Portlaoise last week. Why was that scheme approved without challenge?

Mr. Tobin

The authority did not say it was confirmed without challenge.

Chairman

It was stated the scheme was approved in August 2003 without challenge.

Mr. Tobin

I am sorry. There has been no legal challenge to date. Those who objected and offered evidence at the inquiry challenged the scheme. Their views were weighed by An Bord Pleanála in reaching a decision and the board took nothing from the scheme. The scheme, as proposed, obtained the consent of An Bord Pleanála, which recognised the various issues involved and indicated, in taking its decision, that the road met all the requirements for development consent.

Chairman

I agree but Mr. Tobin emphasised in his presentation that the oral hearing took a long time. The scheme was approved in August 2003 without challenge, with the oral hearing having been concluded in November 2002. Was he surprised it was approved without challenge?

Mr. Tobin

What I mean by that is it has not been subjected to a judicial review in the courts.

Chairman

I know that. Was Mr. Tobin surprised it was not challenged?

Mr. Tobin

Given the publicity it has received, I am, in a way, surprised it has not gone to the courts.

Chairman

Mr. Tobin stated options would be presented to the Minister to improve the authority's funding and he referred to concerns about the present approval process because it is not as flexible as he would like. Has he indicated to the Minister the changes he would like made in this respect?

Mr. Tobin

I have in the context of archaeological sites. Leaving aside the M3 project, most people are aware of Carrickmines where the archaeological issue came to a head. It has emerged that under the legislation no body can give consent to the authority or a private developer who finds himself on the site of a national monument. That problem must be addressed and we have indicated to the Minister issues we want taken on board during the legislative drafting process.

Deputy McCormack

Why was the issue of tolls not discussed at the oral hearings given that they effect everybody using the road and all local people? This is one of the most important aspects of road projects from the point of view of motorists.

Mr. Tobin

A draft toll scheme has been published and five objections have been received. An inquiry and a hearing will be held and people who have objections——

Chairman

Will Mr. Tobin increase that to six objections?

Mr. Tobin

Yes.

Deputy McCormack

Mr. Tobin stressed that 4,000 people were interviewed at oral hearings but they were not allowed to discuss tolls. That was a drawback to the process.

Mr. Tobin

Is the Deputy saying the statutory approval and toll scheme processes should be combined? It should be borne in mind that the approving authority is different. The NRA is charged with the approval of tolls on national roads. Two different bodies are involved and I am not sure how the processes could be combined. Tolls on this route will be the subject of another inquiry. People will have the option of coming forward to make their views known and have them considered.

Deputy McCormack

The authority is gone past the point of no return in regard to tolls.

Mr. Tobin

No, we are not. The fact that we have tolls does not mean we have gone beyond the point of no return.

Deputy McCormack

That is good.

Deputy Cregan

Members of the public are good to pay tolls and they often do not wait for their change.

Deputy Kelleher

Keep building.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Tobin and his colleagues for their presentation. We did not expect shared recommendations but we will take the one we were given on board.

The joint committee went into private session at 1 p.m. and adjourned at 1.05 p.m. sine die.