JOINT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT debate -
Wednesday, 13 Jul 2005

National Roads Authority: Presentation.

Chairman

Item No. 4 on our agenda is a discussion with the National Roads Authority, NRA, on policy issues relating to service areas on motorways. In respect of item No. 5, which relates to any other business, Deputy Olivia Mitchell contacted the clerk this morning regarding the proposed visit by the committee to Hong Kong in order to examine its airport, ports and, in all likelihood, rail system. Is it agreed that the committee should undertake this visit? Agreed. What do members think would be a suitable time for the visit? Would October be acceptable?

Rules governing committee travel stipulate that any proposal for travel by a committee must be directly and explicitly linked to an area of work in which the committee has decided to become involved, pursuant to its orders of reference and in the context of its work programme. We are now required to state the reasons that travel is considered necessary. In light of the fact that the committee's role is to review major areas of policy falling within the remit of the Minister for Transport — infrastructural development is one such area — I suggest that a visit to the airport and ports in Hong Kong, which are regarded as the best in the world, would afford the committee the opportunity to outline its priorities regarding future development of airports and ports here. It is also important to improve members' understanding of the means employed in other countries for the successful operation of the port system. Is it agreed that these are the reasons for the visit? Agreed. I think the committee will agree on October as a possible date for the visit. It is the view of the committee that, given the long distance involved, business or economy class travel should be used for this visit. I will ask the clerk to seek sanction for the trip and to commence making the necessary arrangements.

I return now to item No. 4 on the agenda. The committee is joined by Mr. Fred Barry, chief executive of the NRA, and Mr. Michael Egan, head of corporate affairs at the NRA. On behalf of the committee, I welcome Mr. Barry and Mr. Egan and thank them for their attendance. I draw to their attention the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but that this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

We will commence with a short presentation by Mr. Barry, which will be followed by an open discussion with members. I apologise to members for the fact that audiovisual facilities are not available today. All documentation will be circulated. I call on Mr. Barry to make the presentation.

Mr. Fred Barry

I thank the Chairman and members. I wish to begin by saying that NRA policy on service areas is currently under review at the Minister for Transport's direction. I will discuss the NRA's current policy and members should take what I have to say in the context that this policy may be revised following today's meeting and the further review.

The NRA is conscious of road users' needs.

Chairman

As the fire alarm has sounded, I propose that we suspend the sitting for a few moments.

Sitting suspended at 2.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.53 p.m.

Chairman

Mr. Barry will now continue with the presentation.

Mr. Barry

The authority reviewed international practice for the purpose of determining the appropriate strategy to be pursued to cater for road user requirements. The review found that the practice varies internationally as regards the mechanisms used to provide service areas and the nature and extent of the involvement on the part of public agencies. While on-line roadside service areas are a combination of such locations and facilities, location of these some distance from major routes is the norm. Practice in some countries has changed in recent years from exclusive provision of on-line motorway facilities to the location of significant numbers of service areas at or close to interchanges. This approach achieves significant cost savings. By availing of existing interchanges, service area promoters need not incur the substantial costs involved in providing purpose-designed slip roads catering for the movement of traffic from motorways to service areas and back again. In addition, service areas located at interchanges can readily and safely cater for traffic travelling in either direction on motorways and dual carriageways. Such an arrangement avoids the need to duplicate service area facilities on both carriageways and the high costs involved.

In the UK, there is currently a 50-50 split between new motorway service areas that are located on the side of motorways and those that are located at junctions or interchanges. Practice in the USA is also to generally locate motorway or freeway service areas at ramps or interchanges. Our review of international practice shows that the most common approach is to have private commercial interests provide and operate service areas. In some countries, the State took on this role in the past but problems with poor levels of service resulted in operations being transferred to the private sector.

The approach taken in the UK has evolved over time. Prior to 1992, the UK Department of Transport would acquire the land and the provision of motorway service areas was then put out to tender and ground leases, typically of 50 years duration, were granted. After 1992, however, the market was deregulated. Private companies now identify locations for service areas, purchase them and subsequently obtain planning permission to develop and operate the service areas. Some countries make a conscious decision to exclude service areas from motorway construction contracts due to previous unsatisfactory experiences where two construction companies were involved and disputes arose about matters such as site possession, access and possible interference with either the road or the service area project.

The authority's motorway and inter-urban dual carriageway schemes typically include purpose-designed interchanges at regular intervals to cater for local centres of population. We wish to avoid the unnecessary addition of slip roads and junctions to these roads due to the safety and cost implications involved and the potential effects on traffic speeds and operational efficiency. Based on these considerations, the authority favours the location of service areas at or close to interchanges on the inter-urban motorway and dual carriageway network. The authority is prepared to support such proposals from private interests by erecting suitable signage informing road users of the locations of such service area facilities. Provision of signage on motorways and dual carriageways would be linked to compliance with operational criteria concerning matters such as the period of opening of service areas and the nature and extent of services available at the particular locations.

The M1 Dublin-Border route will be the first to be completed to motorway standard. The authority is aware of seven proposals being pursued by private interests for the provision of service areas on or close to interchanges along the route. These proposals typically involve service stations, food outlets, toilets and extensive parking facilities. In some cases, they include accommodation and more extensive commercial outlets. Proposals for service areas on other major inter-urban routes are also being developed and the numbers involved are expected to increase as the private sector responds to the commercial opportunities involved.

The service area proposals currently under consideration are being progressed in accordance with normal planning requirements. The authority will continue to monitor developments and respond as necessary if sufficient suitable areas are not developed at the interchanges. In this regard, we would want to have service areas at approximately 30 minute intervals, or at 50 km to 60 km gaps. As I mentioned earlier, the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, has asked us to review the policy on service areas and we are so doing at present.

Chairman

I have one or two questions that I would like to put to Mr. Barry before I open the discussion to members. When the roads were being designed, was any consideration given to acquiring extra land at suitable sites along the routes? I ask this because 15 to 20 minute intervals are the norm on the UK's motorways, where approximately 20 miles is the UK average. In this submission, the authority is proposing something in the region of 30 minutes. Does Mr. Barry feel this is too long or too short? On a very warm day such as today, 30 minutes can be a long time to wait to go to a toilet or to get something to drink. I cannot understand why, in the designing of these motorways, the NRA did not acquire sufficient land so that it could sell the sites and recover a significant amount of money. Had it designated the sites, it would have prevented the many planning problems it will now face because people close to any slip road or major interchange have the right to apply for planning permission. Local authorities will end up making the decisions. I am not criticising local authorities but the net result will be that these sites will not be at the best locations as far as traffic movement and other considerations are concerned.

If action such as this is not undertaken, major commercial traffic will go through small towns and villages that do not have sufficient parking and overnight facilities because there will be no opportunity to go elsewhere. If one examines the Dublin-Sligo route, there are two or three places where people can pull off the road. At 11 p.m., the number of commercial vehicles parked for the night on those sites is phenomenal. The owners of these sites will tell one that these people only pull in because they have nowhere else to go. Tacograph rules and the eight-hour restriction leave them with no choice and they must pull off the road.

I cannot understand why a decision was taken to the effect that proper access from the motorways to various service stations should not be provided. Has the board decided what will be done to rectify the situation? The Minister asked for a review but has the board received a report on the problem? The N4 is the road with which I am most familiar. One is not able to pull off that road between Mullingar and the M50, a distance of 70 km. At present, drivers cannot pull directly off the road unless they enter the smaller villages. I am not suggesting that smaller villages be cut off or that commercial vehicles be prevented from entering them but most villages do not have the necessary facilities. It is crazy to leave such long stretches of road without facilities to allow people to set down.

Mr. Barry

I wish to refer to the decisions made against road schemes at an earlier stage. I do not have this information to hand. I apologise and obviously it is within our compass in the NRA.

Chairman

Perhaps Mr. Barry might write to the clerk with the information.

Mr. Barry

I will certainly do so. The board invested considerable time and effort in this area in the past year or so. It examined whether the provisions should be made by the NRA on-line or left to the private sector off-line. The decision was only made after much debate as a board and internal studies. The issue has gone to the board again in the past week and we confirmed with the board that we will talk to the local authorities along the routes and obtain updates on where the proposed private sector developments will be located. We stated previously that we would change the approach taken if it was not working. If there are schemes being developed along the motorways in the manner in which we planned, we would like to be informed.

There are seven schemes being considered along the M1 but I do not believe all of these will come to fruition. If several did, there would be suitable schemes along a 90 km stretch of road and this would be adequate. We understand that these schemes must have sufficient parking for trucks. I have described the status of the matter with the board. The board set the policy previously and that is now being revisited because the Minister said to do so. However, we were going to review the position in any event to see whether matters were working out as we had hoped.

The question of the intervals of service stations, and if this should be 25 km or 60 km, needs to be considered on a case by case basis. In earlier studies, the board examined major facilities at intervals of 50 km or 60 km and lesser ones at midpoints. This would cater for emergency stations but to function properly, the facilities need large parking areas, particularly for trucks. These could be put in place at short intervals but this is a very expensive proposition so the answer lies with a combination of major facilities, of which truckers would be aware and could plan for, and rest stops at shorter intervals to deal with emergencies. That would be the best solution.

Deputy O. Mitchell

I thank Mr. Barry for his presentation. It is good that we are having this discussion because many changes are taking place in motoring and in the oil market that require review. One of the troubles of my being involved in politics too long is that I recall this subject being discussed when construction on the M50 commenced. The argument was put forward that service stations should not be provided because the motorway was not long enough to justify their being put in place. It was anticipated that they would interfere with traffic flows, which is ironic in light of the current situation. Is an interval of 60 km, to which Mr. Barry referred, the international norm?

There may have been some misunderstanding when the NRA stated that it was against service stations. I assumed that it was not opposed to them but to the idea of having them on slip roads on one-directional roads. I was surprised at the outcry, although I can understand people being upset at large vehicles entering villages. I assumed that this was not what was intended and that the intention was to capture traffic at two-way interchanges. This may be necessary on some roads to make them economically viable. Despite the fuss we make about building motorways, neither our distances nor our volumes are huge and cannot be compared with those of Germany. Perhaps we should consider this matter as well as other changes.

The margin on petrol is tiny — Esso is pulling out of the country — apart from the counties on the east coast. The NRA or the Government may have to take an active role in ensuring that petrol is available nationally if it is available internationally. The market is changing and this matter must be examined.

Petrol alone will not encourage any entrepreneur to provide a service. The Chairman referred to the need for overnight facilities and these are required in some parts of the country, although not every 20 km. What is needed to make these service stations viable if there is little profit in petrol? Mr. Barry referred first to other countries and then to the M1 Dublin-Border route, and stated:

These proposals typically involve service stations, food outlets, toilets and extensive parking facilities. In some cases, they include accommodation and more extensive commercial outlets.

This is a Pandora's box and may be a route we do not want to pursue. However, there is a tension between having viable service stations and allowing large scale development at interchanges. This matter needs to be discussed to see how we can progress. I recognise that different parts of the country have different needs but someone should take a hands-on approach and not let this develop on an ad hoc basis.

Deputy Shortall

I thank Mr. Barry for his presentation. Having listened to him, however, it is not clear whether the NRA has a policy or strategy for this area. Mr. Barry stated that he would prefer service stations to be close to interchanges and that he is leaving the matter to the private sector. The service station is a fundamental aspect of building motorways. It seems incredible that there is no clear strategy on this and that a preferred location for these stations has not been decided.

There was an outcry when it emerged recently that there was no plan to locate service stations along the motorway. The NRA is now reviewing the situation. I wonder why it has not had a clear strategy from the beginning, given that its remit is to build motorways.

Mr. Barry peppered his presentation with information on what is happening in other countries. Are there EU standards on the interval between service stations and on whether these should be located on a stretch of road or at an interchange? Presumably there are EU guidelines that should direct NRA policy and I would like information on this. It seems the NRA has left these matters to the private sector. That is not good enough because the National Roads Authority has responsibility in this area. In the end, such decisions are made purely at the whim of individual local authorities. Many other issues, principally those relating to safety and whether areas are adequately served, also exist. The NRA should decide on these matters and should at least roughly identify the locations. Did it give any consideration to making provision for service stations in the original design of motorways? Was that omission for cost reasons? It seems that the NRA is washing its hands of an important aspect of motorway building.

Reference was made to a number of proposals being developed at present. Will the NRA outline its role in terms of the planning process? Does each local authority automatically consult it? With regard to possible new openings on to motorways, I presume the original designs would not be amenable to the construction of such openings. What is the NRA's exact role in terms of advising local authorities in considering such applications?

Following the questions asked by Deputy Olivia Mitchell on the costs of developing service stations, it strikes me that the most cost-effective method of putting in place feeder or slip road infrastructure is to do so while motorways are being built. Does providing for these afterwards create substantial additional costs? Do the costs stack up commercially for an individual or company to develop a service area if the cost of the access road off the motorway must be included? What does the current review to which Mr. Barry referred entail? How long will that review take? With whom is the NRA consulting and when does it expect conclusions?

Deputy Connaughton

I have some observations. I assume the NRA's problem — this is one of the reasons it does not have a clear-cut policy — is that it is waiting to see if private enterprise will take it over. I foresee some problems because the motorway winds its way through rural areas. No one here wants to give the impression that we would not want to see as much traffic as possible coming off the dual carriageway and bringing business to local towns. One of the selling points for bypassing many villages and towns is that once the through traffic is removed, much of the passing traffic would bring extra business as there would be no difficulties relating to parking.

I assume we are discussing heavy vehicles such as lorries. If one takes any of the radial roads out of Dublin, one would not have that far to drive, particularly in a car, before reaching towns and villages that would be able to supply what is necessary to those travelling. Is the argument that there is not enough private enterprise to take this on from the point of view of heavy vehicles? If there was money in this, there would be one every 50 yards. That is how it works in this country. If there is money in a business, there will be no shortage of takers.

Is the problem that service areas do not make commercial sense if they only deal with lorries and heavy vehicles? If that is the case, the NRA has an important role in this in light of the restraints and restrictions on the drivers of those heavy trucks. For reasons we will not go into they must have adequate stops for safety. The board must seriously examine the main radial routes out of Dublin. The delegation mentioned that it is consulting local county councils. Will this eventually evolve to become policy? People in private enterprise that want to become involved must apply to their local authorities for planning permission for their business enterprises. Will the same set of rules apply throughout the country, from Leitrim to Galway to Dublin? If not, different instructions will be required for different local authorities. Will our guests give us an indication of what they think on that?

Senator Morrissey

I am slightly disappointed with the presentation. I do not know if the NRA has a policy or what precisely it is reviewing. Some months ago, the NRA announced it was reviewing this issue. I am disappointed that we do not have figures to support the policy the NRA had and to prove why it should be reviewed, such as the number of cars on the radial roads approaching Dublin and the growth in the car population. I am surprised the delegation does not have those figures to justify its statements.

Money is no longer made through selling petrol. We can see that by the number of petrol stations closing down throughout the country. The two things necessary to drive are petrol for the car and rest and toilet facilities for the driver. The two must be divorced. The NRA has been remiss in not ensuring that such rest facilities were provided along our roads, not at time intervals but at mile or kilometre intervals, such as every 40 km. I do not think it can be calculated at every 30 minutes or the way it is presented in the delegation's document. If that proposal were to work, it would not be economically viable because petrol would not be sold. In any event, petrol is no longer the major seller it used to be. The margins are no longer there for the retailers. We require rest areas.

The middle paragraph of the second page of the delegation's document states:

We are aware that certain elements have chosen to describe this strategy as forcing traffic into bypassed towns and villages. That is, of course, nonsense.

I take what is written as nonsense. The only example that can be suggested is Athlone and that is not a great example. It is on a roundabout. I pulled into it on several occasions. If it was to be built now, it would not be build there. That is not just a petrol station. It has a restaurant, a shop and other commercial facilities, the provision of which Mr. Barry questioned. The sale of petrol is the least important aspect of that site's business.

I am surprised the delegation's international comparisons have not provided us with the information the NRA must possess regarding who owns what, and what are the margins on various sections. Since 1992, when the toll bridge was proposed in the Dublin county development plan, provision was made for motorway services at the toll plaza on the M50. I am aware an oil company took out an option on it at the time. That option went unused throughout its ten years lifespan and was revoked last year. I want a clear answer to this question. Has the NRA received submissions from the oil company stakeholders against the provision of such services along our motorways?

Mr. Barry

I will try to answer all of those questions. Members must excuse me if I do not answer everything in the first round but we can have a second round if that happens. The question was asked as to whether the 60 km distance is appropriate. There is nothing fixed about the 60 km distance; it could be more or less than that. I am not aware of any standards applying anywhere on this issue. In several places in the United Kingdom, service stations are closer together but on many of those British roads, there are four or more lanes each way and, consequently, the volumes of traffic are higher, thus necessitating more stations. We are not fixed on the figure of 50 km to 60 km and are unaware of any European standards applying in this area.

I have observed in other countries that in service areas along motorways, petrol prices tend to be higher than they are off the motorways. In those circumstances, there are some margins there for petrol providers but whether they are sufficient to support a service area on their own is doubtful. The petrol providers would need shops and other services also. It could be that if we decide to develop service facilities in Ireland, we may find that the State will support petrol providers by providing the sites free or for a nominal rent to make the facilities viable. That can be worked out through the tender process.

I appreciate the view, expressed by several people, that we have no policy or strategy in place but I would argue that it is more a case of them not agreeing with our strategy. We do have a policy in place. We have not simply ignored the issue. The stations and interchange facilities have not come along as we expected. When we say that we are going back to the local authorities, we are not trying to pass the buck. We want to get an up to date report from the local authorities because they deal with the planning issues relating to interchanges and can determine whether the service facilities are coming onstream. If the local authorities say that the facilities are coming through, then that is fine. If, however, they say they are not, that is another matter.

Deputy O. Mitchell

Mr. Barry stated that the viability issue will be dealt with in the tendering process. That implies that the NRA will select sites and seek tenders rather than respond to suggestions from the private sector. Is it the case that the NRA will decide the location of the service facilities or am I jumping the gun?

Mr. Barry

It would be jumping the gun for me to say what we will do. We may revise the policy as to how we structure the service facilities. If we move in the direction of on-line services, we have a problem, at least with the motorways because they are dealt with by the local authorities. In that case, the NRA, in conjunction with the local authorities, will have to choose the sites and run them through the planning process.

Deputy O. Mitchell

Even if that is not done, the NRA must prevent a situation arising where trucks are entering villages for services. It must be proactive in some sense and select sites or, at least, general areas.

Mr. Barry

Yes, we must be proactive. We had approaches from potential developers who have offered to develop in certain locations and have requested support from us in the form of providing signage on the motorways to direct drivers to the stations, indicate distances and so forth. We have told such developers that while we want to undertake such work, we will only do so if there is sufficient truck and car parking space, as well as a range of other required facilities. We will not provide signage directing vehicles to a fast food outlet that does not provide the rest areas that would also be required.

Chairman

If one is referring to an operation which is a basic restaurant, the viability would be marginal. Will the NRA not have to allow much bigger developments, relating to warehousing for logistics, etc., at or adjacent to the sites? The idea would be to develop a proper complex with proper facilities, rather than developing Mickey Mouse style facilities every ten or 15 miles along a route. The NRA should select two or three locations on a stretch of motorway and seek tenders from people who are prepared to provide an overall package of facilities rather than waiting to see if the private sector will come into the market. There could easily be a situation where four or five private individuals set up at each turn or slip road off a section of motorway and they might all be within ten miles of one another.

Deputy Shortall

That is why the NRA needs a strategy.

Deputy O. Mitchell

I do not agree with the Chairman because we could end up with our spatial strategy — to the limited extent that we have one — completely turned on its head by the existence of even one such large facility in that it would drag all of the business out of the surrounding towns. We must be careful to strike the right balance on this matter. Service areas must be viable but that viability must not be at the expense of every town in the vicinity.

Deputy Shortall

Can Mr. Barry clarify whether there is a tender process in place because he made several references to tendering? Is there a question of tendering, for example, for the seven proposed developments along the M1 or its that happening entirely at the initiative of the private sector?

Mr. Barry

The conversation is jumping around a little and I apologise for the confusion. We have no tender process whatsoever under way. The proposals that are mooted along the M1 are being dealt with by individuals and consortiums with the relevant local authorities. There is no tender process involved there. I was skipping forward to possible circumstances where the policy might be changed and where the NRA would provide on-line services. I do not anticipate that the State would run such services but that it would arrange for the provision of the land and facilities, with the services run by the private sector. In those circumstances, we would obviously need to have a tender process in place.

Deputy Shortall

I think all of us would expect the NRA to have a role in such a process.

Mr. Barry

We would have a role.

Deputy Shortall

It appears that the NRA has washed its hands of the issue and left it entirely to the private sector. The M1 is a major motorway and the NRA has no policy on service areas along the route. It seems that whoever happens to acquire land or come up with a proposal——

Mr. Barry

We are getting a bit reiterative in that members have already said that the NRA has no policy and I have explained what it is doing. I understand that there is very little agreement with our policy and I understand that we will review it.

Deputy Shortall

The policy is a hands-off one, is it not?

Mr. Barry

Yes.

Deputy Shortall

It is not acceptable that the NRA has not given any consideration to this matter.

Mr. Barry

In fairness, if more of the developments had come through as we had expected, we would not be having this discussion. The committee would be happy enough with what the NRA has done. However, the developments have not come through as we had hoped.

Deputy Connaughton

Obviously, there is no money in such developments.

Mr. Barry

It is not so much that there is no money in it as that those who own land around the interchanges are seeking to maximise their take. There is much toing and froing between the landowners and the local authority planners in order to arrive at proposals with which the NRA and the local authorities would be satisfied. The NRA wants to ensure that sufficient land is dedicated to car and truck parking and so forth and the local authorities want to be certain that any new development would not drag business out of surrounding towns, which is in nobody's interests. These issues are at the heart of the problem.

Deputy Glennon

I apologise for arriving late. I have only been present for the latter part of the discussion but my understanding is that Mr. Barry has stated that the NRA has a hands-off policy regarding to the provision of service facilities general. However, on the M1, which by my estimation is approximately 60 miles long, there are seven proposals for development. Is that correct?

Mr. Barry

Yes.

Deputy Glennon

Does the NRA not have a policy on that stretch of road, where there are seven proposals? Following on from that and regardless of the answer to my first question, will the NRA be taking an active role with the planners in the relevant local authority areas regarding those proposals or has it taken a role in this to date?

Mr. Barry

The position of the NRA on the proposals for the M1 is that if they are put forward and have appropriate parking facilities, commitments to keeping service areas open and so forth, we will support them in the sense that we will erect signs and indicators to inform motorists of where the stations are located and provide advance notice at a distance of 20 or 30 miles. The NRA is not directly engaged with or is not a participant in a three-way conversation involving the schemes' proposers, the local authorities and ourselves. The conversations are going on between the proposers and the local authorities only.

Deputy Glennon

In other words, it is an issue to be resolved between the relevant local authority and the individual proposer and the NRA will facilitate it in the same way that it would any major facility off the motorway.

Mr. Barry

If it meets certain criteria. When the board made the decision on the policy as it stands, it was expected that of the seven or so active proposals at the time, several would come to fulfilment in a short period. This has not happened as fast as we would like. We will talk to all the local authorities along the roads to ascertain whether, in the opinion of planners dealing with these issues directly, the proposals are likely to come to fruition. If they are likely to come to fruition, the issue of that stretch of road will be solved. If the proposals do not do so, some other action will need to be taken.

Deputy Shortall

If somebody applies for planning permission in the Fingal County Council area, for example, would the NRA have any role in that?

Mr. Barry

We have no role in the planning process.

Deputy Shortall

Is the local authority not obliged to consult——

Mr. Barry

We are consulted on it. The planning authorities are the local authorities and we have no statutory role.

Chairman

If a person applies for planning permission at present on a national primary road, the first clearance I must get is from the NRA.

Deputy Shortall

Yes.

Chairman

The local authority will inform an applicant that the planning application is subject to NRA approval before it can proceed.

Mr. Barry

The NRA will give approval or will object if no approval is there to put new openings on national primary routes. In order to put a development on a non-primary route——

Chairman

The NRA operates a corridor policy within a certain distance of the national primary roads. Either that or the local authorities are fooling us all. They have informed us that any development within a certain distance of a national primary road must obtain clearance from the NRA.

Mr. Michael Egan

We are aware of comments or beliefs to that effect in certain parts of the country. I assure the committee that the NRA does not have any criteria on distance or set-backs from national primary roads. Local authorities may, from an overall planning perspective, adopt certain local rules. The authority is a statutory consultee under planning and development legislation for any development that would involve direct access to or from national primary and secondary roads — motorway and non-motorway — as well as major development that would generate significant traffic close to the national road network. These roads may, as a consequence, have implications for safety, the efficiency of the network and the ability of the road network to cope.

When the authority is consulted on in these cases, it assesses the potential impact on safety and network efficiency of the development proposal. It submits a response to the planning authority. This response carries the same weight as any other statutory consultee and perhaps slightly more than those received from private individuals. The authority, in exercising its role as a planning authority, is quite free to accept, ignore or partly accept the NRA's submission.

The NRA does have a state of preference to protect the transport function of the national road network. It accounts for 6% of the total public road network in the country. If, therefore, a question of development arises, our strong preference is for it to be located on the 94% of other non-national roads. There are 90,000 km of the latter throughout the country. We make this preference known and, in expressing these views, we take account of a policy formulated in the early 1980s by the then Department of the Environment. This policy has been reiterated and strengthened to some extent by guidelines produced in April of this year by the Minister on sustainable rural housing. These guidelines suggest that local authorities should assess inter-county development plans with the objective to protect national roads from ribbon roadside development.

Our role is to make submissions but the planning authority determines the outcome of a particular planning application. If the NRA is aggrieved and feels sufficiently strongly about a decision to grant permission where its believes the latter inappropriate, it has the right to appeal to An Bord Pleanála. We exercised that right in a limited number of situations throughout the country to date.

Chairman

This is exactly what we were trying to get at. The representative from the NRA stated that his authority had no role in the planning process. It has now been admitted that the NRA objected to projects that were off the national roads where it felt the development was inappropriate.

Mr. Barry

The developments were on the national roads network.

Chairman

Has the NRA objected to any adjacent to the network?

Mr. Egan

None of which I am aware.

Chairman

Local authorities have said on occasion that the NRA was not happy with planning applications and that planning permission was refused as a result. Local authorities in one case were prepared to grant permission but were told that the NRA had an objection and that the applicant was better off not continuing the application. The NRA has clarified that the only time it objected was when a planned development accessed directly a national primary route or motorway.

Deputy P. Power

I apologise because, like Deputy Glennon, I was committed to another meeting. From reading the submission, either an active route or a passive route can be taken. It appears that the policy, if one exists, is passive. What we, as policy-makers and public representatives, would like to hear is whether the body charged with rolling out inter-urban routes has a policy which states that it, as a statutory body, supports the roll out of lay-by stops. In other words, does a policy exist on the particular issue?

I accept Mr. Egan's statement that it is ultimately a function of local authorities to make planning decisions. If I was a planner making a decision and collating all the information, and if I was aware that the NRA's policy was that it did not believe that such lay-bys are a good idea, the NRA view might be the paramount consideration in making my decision. On the other hand, if the NRA had a policy stating that such lay-bys would be an addition to the national road network and that it supported them, where appropriate and subject to local planning considerations, that would be a paramount consideration. As the authority responsible for national roads, the NRA has either a passive or active role. It should have an active role. I do not know if it is one way or the other but a more active role should be evident.

Mr. Barry

Deputy Peter Power's statement is at the heart of the review being undertaken by the NRA. The authority has had a passive approach. I am not sure how much of the earlier discussion the Deputy heard but a review process is being undertaken by the authority, the decision made by the board previously is being examined and so on. This review will include a decision on whether the authority should have an active rather than a passive role. That idea is at the heart of today's discussion.

Deputy Shortall

Mr. Egan referred to consulting a local authority and forming a view on an application. How can a view be formed on an individual application if criteria, such as a clear policy on where service stations should go, have not been clearly set down? Each application is surely not considered on its individual merits. Deputy Peter Power indicated that it would be helpful if a clear position was set down. This is undoubtedly true. I disagree with the Deputy in that the views of the NRA are not necessarily the only, or primary, views taken into consideration by a planner. Other concerns arise about the planning process, depending on who makes the application or what land the application relates to. This is why it is important to create clear policy and set down guidelines for local authorities. Does the NRA accept that a need exists to produce these guidelines and set down a clear position? This would lead to a national strategy which local authorities could adhere to.

Mr. Barry

I accept that.

Chairman

May we take it that Mr. Barry's report, when it is submitted to the Minister and the board, will reveal that strategy?

Mr. Barry

The next step for the NRA is to revert to the board. The board will decide on the adoption and publication of our strategy.

Chairman

Is Mr. Barry telling us that the NRA will, after meeting the board, make proposals on the needs that should be addressed and the best means for doing so?

Mr. Barry

That is correct.

Deputy Shortall

What will the review entail?

Mr. Barry

The review includes catching up and finding out whether the private sector approach is providing solutions. It also involves examining draft plans relating to service areas. I mentioned that we examined large scale ones at certain intervals and smaller ones at shorter intervals. We will update these plans and their costings and will explore appropriate locations without immediately making decisions on precise placement. If the private sector approach does not provide solutions within a reasonable timeframe, we will return to the board with specific suggestions regarding approximate locations, spacings and the nature of service areas. I use the term "service areas" rather than "service stations" because the petrol aspect is in many ways the least important. Rest areas are the most important components.

Deputy Shortall

It sounds as if Mr. Barry is making this up as he goes along. There may or may not be interest in the M1 from the private sector but there is still a need for a policy and for the NRA to play an active role in determining what will happen to the motorway network throughout the country. It is not simply a matter of whether interest exists at this point.

Chairman

In fairness to Mr. Barry and Mr. Egan, they stated that they will review the entire situation and will then produce a strategy to address it.

Mr. Barry

That is correct.

Deputy Shortall

Will they be consulting any interested parties?

Chairman

I am sure that, if anybody wishes to make a submission, they will be glad to accept it.

Deputy Shortall

That is not what I asked. I inquired whether a plan exists to consult interested parties.

Chairman

Mr. Barry said that the NRA intended to consult the local authorities involved.

Senator Morrissey

I asked earlier whether the NRA had received submissions from the major stakeholders. I refer particularly to oil companies. Mr. Barry said that the NRA would object at present to any new openings between motorway interchanges. Am I correct in that regard?

Mr. Barry

Yes.

Senator Morrissey

Mr. Barry remarked that petrol retailing is the least important aspect of this matter. Will the NRA's review include the provision of rest areas between interchanges? A rest area located at the top of an interchange will not provide an incentive to pass through traffic while entering or exiting an interchange. It is suggested in the NRA's document that, for example, one may cross to the other side of the road if travelling from Limerick along the N7. The argument seems to be that, because an interchange is being used, services will not have to be provided on both sides of the road. Some of the interchanges are large. The sole use of interchanges means that areas will be in certain predetermined locations because interchanges are built according to the distance between towns. The distance between interchanges will, therefore, vary, as against a policy of specifying the distance between areas at 20 miles or kilometres. In my opinion, pit stops are required, if for no reason other than road safety, to allow people to pull in for rest breaks. If petrol retailing is being excluded as a major component, locating rest areas at the top of interchanges does not seem to make sense.

Mr. Barry

I am not aware of any submission from oil companies on this. In principle, we are opposed to new openings on motorways or dual carriageways. In the past, many roads have become degraded, inefficient and unsafe because of the quantity of openings directly on to primary roads, where traffic moves at high speed. We are being asked in some cases to replace roads in their entirety at huge expense because this has transpired. It does not mean that these openings cannot be created. In the case of motorways, they can be created by means of slip roads in order to address safety issues.

While we will not exclude petrol sales in any sense, I am not looking to these, even if the margins are higher, as a source of funding. I may be proved wrong but I do not believe petrol sales will provide sufficient financial support. I hope that petrol sales will be available in most cases. However, in situations where no basis exists for commercial or petrol outlets, it remains sensible to ensure that rest areas are available at the minimum. I completely concur on that issue.

Deputy P. Power

I thank Mr. Barry and Mr. Egan for their responses. May I suggest that, while the policy is being prepared but before it is finalised, it should be presented to this committee in some form? Are the Chairman and the delegates agreeable to this?

Chairman

It could pose problems because the NRA hopes to have it ready for the board meeting. Is that correct?

Mr. Barry

I do not think we can present our proposals to this committee before the report is accepted.

Deputy P. Power

I acknowledge that.

Chairman

As soon as the board has considered the report, Mr. Barry might circulate it among members of the committee.

Mr. Barry

Certainly.

Deputy Shortall

Given the importance of this issue, it cannot be rushed. I asked earlier whether the NRA proposed to engage in formal consultation. It would be remiss not to consult with, for example, hauliers, who have vast experience of this topic and could provide advice. They should have an input, as should the AA. I am disappointed that a clear framework for the review, including consultations with different interests, was not set out. This seems to be a rush job to catch up in an area for which the NRA has inadequate policies. It would be worthwhile, even if it takes a further couple of months, to have these consultations in order to resolve the issue properly.

Mr. Barry

I take that point.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Barry and Mr. Egan for their contributions. They have been helpful on every occasion on which they appeared before this committee. We will appreciate the circulation of their submission to members of this committee when their board has considered it.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.48 p.m. sine die.