Since publication of the Draft Route Selection Report and the Public Exhibitions carried out for the Third Public Consultation process, members of the public proposed a number of possible variations to the preferred route corridor and to the road alignment within the route corridor that were presented in the Draft Route Selection Report. These alternatives were considered and evaluated. Those that were feasible were formally designed for further consideration.
Following the design work, the chosen alternative route alignments were examined in detail and compared against the corresponding section of the preferred route from the Draft Route Selection Report. The comparison process was finalised with recommendations made on the preference of route alignment and/or whether certain alternatives should be considered further during the preliminary design stage.
Summary matrices and drawings for comparing each alternative with the corresponding section of the preferred route from the Draft Route Selection Report are included in Appendix 23. For purpose of comparison, costs are compared on a per kilometre basis. The following sections of this chapter provide a commentary on each of the alternatives considered in the second route selection workshop. In each case the alternative is named after the townland(s) (in italics) through which the route runs and the approximate end chainages (based on the preferred route from the Draft Route Selection Report) of the alternative are given.
Drawings of the preferred option showing the full scheme, including any alternative alignments adopted, are included (in A3 format) at the end of this section and (in A1 format) in Volume 2 of the Route Selection Report.
(See Appendix 23.2.1 and Drawing 740/02/AL/001)
The alternative route involves a minor horizontal realignment of the existing route towards and slightly beyond the right-hand (southern) edge of the existing route corridor. The alternative, which is approximately 1,600m in length, ties into the existing N22 road at a point approximately 500m east of the existing tie-in point shown in the Draft Route Selection Report. The alternative route extends slightly outside the existing route corridor, which would necessitate widening the existing corridor by approximately 75m (maximum) over a length of approximately 400m.
This alternative route is preferred over the corresponding section of the existing route from the Draft Route Selection Report.
The alternative alignment would tie-in more favourably with the end of the existing upgraded section of the N22 west of Ballyvourney. Consequently, the alternative presents potentially significant savings equivalent to approximately 0.5km of new standard single carriageway.
Except for anticipated marginal increases in noise, air quality and visual impact there would be little, or no, other adverse impact on the various environmental criteria considered as a result of choosing the alternative alignment. The alternative route is closer to a group of dwellings facing onto the existing N22 and would require the demolition of one occupied house and one unoccupied semi-derelict building.
The alternative alignment contains a straight of approximately 1300m, which will provide a section of overtaking opportunity where previously there was none.
The underbridge strategy for the side road crossing in Cascade Wood would be the same for both the existing and alternative alignments.
There would little, or no, change to the amount or quality of agricultural land affected by the alternative alignment. However, the alternative alignment would significantly reduce the impact caused by farm severance.
(See Appendix 23.2.2 and Drawing 740/02/AL/002A)
The alternative alignment involves a moderate horizontal realignment of the existing route towards and beyond the left-hand (northern) edge of the existing route corridor. The alternative alignment is approximately 1,500m in length. The alternative route extends significantly beyond the northern edge of the existing route corridor, which would necessitate widening the existing corridor by approximately 125m (maximum) over an approximate length of 600m.
This alternative route is preferred over the corresponding section of the existing route from the Draft Route Selection Report.
An alternative alignment was necessary when the full extent of the combined ringfort and souterrain monument (AH162 and AH163) became apparent. The preferred route of the Draft Route Selection Report would have required demolition of part of the combined ringfort and souterrain monument. The new alignment avoids both monuments.
With respect to the important local cultural heritage, the alternative route travels notably further away from the following nearby monuments:- AH162, AH163 and AH164. In the case of the following monuments, the alternative would now travel closer:- NIS004 (St Gobnait’s Stone) and AH003. Given that the alternative now avoids monument(s) AH162 and AH163, a considerable benefit is gained.
The alternative alignment runs marginally further away from nearby dwellings/receptors and therefore presents slight benefits with respect to impact due to noise and air quality. However, the deeper cutting associated with the realignment will likely produce greater visual impact than the existing route. One farmyard/dwelling is located significantly closer to the alternative alignment, however at this point the route would be in substantial cutting, which will help to minimise the associated adverse impacts
There are both benefits and disadvantages for agriculture associated with the alternative alignment.
From an alignment perspective, the alternative incorporates gentler curves with little change to overtaking opportunity anticipated. The alternative alignment’s crossing point of the side road (Ch3+500) would be more favourable for sighting a junction than the existing route’s due to the greater distance from nearby dwellings.
(See Appendix 23.2.3 and Drawing 740/02/AL/002B)
The alternative alignment involves a moderate horizontal realignment of the existing route towards and beyond the left-hand (northern) edge of the existing route corridor. The alternative alignment is approximately 1,700m in length. The alternative route extends significantly beyond the northern edge of the existing route corridor, which would necessitate widening the existing corridor by approximately 75m (maximum) over an approximate length of 550m.
This alternative route is preferred over the corresponding section of the existing route from the Draft Route Selection Report.
The alignment of the alternative is superior to that of the existing and would potentially offer more overtaking opportunity.
There would be fewer dwellings/buildings in close proximity to the alternative, therefore noise and air quality impacts are likely to be improved. Due to the location and nature of the alternative route, it is anticipated that fewer receptors would have views to the route, therefore the impact on the landscape and aesthetics are likely to be improved as well. There is one existing dwelling on the Toonlane road that is located significantly closer to the alternative route, which is in cutting at this point, therefore helping to minimise the resultant adverse impacts.
The alternative route travels closer to two (2) known archaeological monuments (AH167 and AH168).
The Toonlane side road crossing by the alternative route is at a greater skew than the existing, which will complicate any crossing or junction required for access to the building(s) at Ch5+750 (approximate). This will need further examination during the preliminary design.
The alternative would provide slight cost savings due to its somewhat shorter length and less extensive earthworks.
During development of the existing route alignment at the townlands of Ballymakeery, Toonlane and Coolnacaheragh, limited knowledge available about the archaeological monuments AH167 and AH168 led to the decision that the route published in the Draft Route Selection Report (RSR) should significantly avoid these sites. Further examination of the archaeological monuments and other constraints in the area since publication of the Draft RSR highlighted the possibility and benefits of the alternative route in this area.
(See Appendix 23.2.4 and Drawing 740/02/AL/003)
The alternative alignment involves a minor horizontal realignment of the existing route towards the left-hand (eastern) edge of the existing route corridor. The alternative is approximately 3,500m in length with the maximum deviation in the alignment being approximately 50m. The alternative route does not extend beyond the edge of the existing route corridor, and therefore no adjustment to the existing corridor is necessary.
This alternative route is preferred over the corresponding section of the existing route from the Draft Route Selection Report. However, since the alternative involves only minor realignments from the existing route no adjustment of the existing corridor is required.
Both the existing and the alternative alignments are extremely tight in terms of horizontal curvature as well as proximity to the River Sullane and the farm property at Ch10+400. The entire lengths of both alignments are non-overtaking. The alternative is however (on average) located further away from the River Sullane and known areas that are prone to flooding.
The alternative runs closer to ecological site 17 and cultural heritage site AH174 and these are therefore marginally more impacted upon.
Despite involving only minor realignments from the existing route, the alternative greatly reduces impact, due to severance, on agricultural land running along the River Sullane and avoids a slatted unit building at Ch11+800.
The alternative route runs closer to some dwellings, which would worsen impact caused by noise and air quality. However, it is recommended that a further and more detailed examination of the alternative will be required during preliminary design to assess how the minor alignment changes affect the visual, noise and air quality impacts on nearby receptors in the area.
(See Appendix 23.2.5 and Drawing 740/02/AL/004)
The alternative alignment involves a minor horizontal realignment of the existing route towards the left-hand (northern) edge of the existing route corridor. The alternative is approximately 2,300m in length with the maximum deviation in the alignment being approximately 30m. The alternative route does not extend beyond the edge of the existing route corridor, and therefore no adjustment to the existing corridor is necessary.
This alternative route is preferred over the corresponding section of the existing route from the Draft Route Selection Report. However, since the alternative involves only minor realignments from the existing route no adjustment of the existing corridor is required.
The impacts on the surrounding dwellings/houses as well as other environmental constraints are largely unchanged. The alternative alignment is intended to balance the distance of the route between nearby dwellings/houses in Clonfadda.
(See Appendix 23.2.6 and Drawing 740/02/AL/005)
The alternative alignment involves a minor horizontal realignment of the existing route towards the right-hand (southern) edge of the existing route corridor. The alternative is approximately 3,300m in length with the maximum deviation in the alignment being approximately 80m. The alternative route does not extend beyond the edge of the existing route corridor, and therefore no adjustment to the existing corridor is necessary.
This alternative route is preferred over the corresponding section of the existing route from the Draft Route Selection Report. However, since the alternative involves only minor realignments from the existing route no adjustment of the existing corridor is required. Due to the minor nature of the realignments, the impacts on the surrounding dwellings/houses as well as other environmental constraints are largely unchanged.
The alternative alignment is slightly further away from dwellings in Ballyveerane and in Coolyhane. In the later case, the alternative alignment was produced to avoid the existing driveway access to five (5) separate dwellings and farmland, but in so doing the route has moved marginally closer to another group of three (3) dwellings.
The alternative provides slightly improved horizontal alignment over the existing route while maintaining existing junction strategy.
(See Appendix 23.2.7 and Drawing 740/02/AL/006)
The alternative alignment involves a minor horizontal realignment of the existing route towards the right-hand (western) edge of the existing route corridor. The alternative is approximately 1,200m in length with the maximum deviation in the alignment being approximately 40m. The alternative route does not extend beyond the edge of the existing route corridor, and therefore no adjustment to the existing corridor is necessary.
This alternative route is preferred over the corresponding section of the existing route from the Draft Route Selection Report. However, since the alternative involves only minor realignments from the existing route no adjustment of the existing corridor is required.
The most significant benefit provided by the alternative alignment is that it reduces the impact on the existing Coolyhane Road and the R618, such that these roads are left untouched by the alignment and there is a single distinct crossing point over the former at Ch19+400 (approximate).
With respect to cultural heritage, the alternative now travels closer to AH079 and AICDP025. In the case of the former site, the detailed design will need to ensure that there is no significant effect on this important monument. All other cultural heritage sites in proximity of the alternative are now less impacted upon.
(See Appendix 23.2.8 and Drawing 740/02/AL/007)
The alternative alignment involves a minor horizontal realignment of the existing route primarily towards the left-hand (eastern) edge of the existing route corridor. The alternative is approximately 1,500m in length with the maximum deviation in the alignment being approximately 60m. The alternative route does not extend beyond the edge of the existing route corridor, and therefore no adjustment to the existing corridor is necessary.
This alternative route is not preferred over the corresponding section of the existing route from the Draft Route Selection Report.
Whilst the alternative alignment achieves its intended purpose, which was to avoid the Macroom picnic area (a former rubbish tip) adjacent to the existing N22 at Coolcour, it worsens the impact on a number of constraints in the nearby area.
The alternative route travels closer to both Coolcower House and its gate house dwelling. The severance of farmland surrounding Coolcower House is also marginally worse as a result of the alternative alignment.
The alternative route would have a greater impact on ecological area 40c, with little benefit for other adjacent areas surrounding the reservoir.
Lastly the alternative route is of a poorer alignment than the existing route with two (2) tight combined bends.
Further examination of this alternative alignment may be required during preliminary design if revisions to the vertical alignment are necessary as a result of the findings of a flood study and the need to maintain access on the existing N22 after completion of any new road. Preliminary and detailed ground investigations of the former tip site will provide sufficient information to fine tune the design of the alignment at this location.
(See Appendix 23.2.9 and Drawing 740/02/AL/008)
The alternative alignment involves a moderate vertical realignment of the existing route with negligible horizontal adjustment. The alternative is approximately 2,000m in length with the maximum vertical deviation in the alignment being approximately 10m. The alternative route does not extend beyond the edge of the existing route corridor, and therefore no adjustment to the existing corridor is necessary.
This alternative route is not preferred over the corresponding section of the existing route from the Draft Route Selection Report.
The lower vertical alignment of the route would provide benefit for landowners adjacent to the existing large fill between Ch22+000 and Ch22+250 (just south of the river crossing), but the associated disadvantages of the alternative contribute to it being less preferred.
As a result of lowering the alignment just south of the river crossing, the necessary underpass for property access at Farranavarrigane is no longer possible and would have to be replaced with a more costly and intrusive overpass for access to this property. Furthermore, the consequent deeper cuttings south of Ch22+250 (approximate) would increase the visual impact of the route, would necessitate the acquisition of significantly more agricultural land, would have greater impact on geology/hydrogeology and would effectively be closer to a number of dwellings and other buildings.
Further examination of the river crossing height needs to be carried out during preliminary design.
(See Appendix 23.2.10 and Drawing 740/02/AL/009)
The alternative alignment involves a minor to moderate horizontal realignment of the existing route towards the right-hand (western) edge of the existing route corridor. The alternative is approximately 1,600m in length with the maximum deviation in the alignment being approximately 90m. The large cutting resulting from the realignment onto high ground would extend beyond the edge of the existing route corridor. This would therefore necessitate widening the existing corridor by approximately 50m (maximum) over an approximate length of 200m.
This alternative route is not preferred over the corresponding section of the existing route from the Draft Route Selection Report.
The major benefits achieved by the alternative alignment is the reduced cost and construction impact associated with having avoided the clash with the existing N22 at Ch24+100 (approximate). However these cost benefits would be eroded by the greater cost of earthworks required for the large cutting.
By realigning this alternative through higher ground there would be a reduced impact on level agricultural land used for production of cattle feed. However resulting from this realignment is a large, very deep cutting, which would greatly worsen the visual impact of the route and have a significant effect on the geology/hydrogeology of the area.
Finally, the alternative alignment would have a greater impact on cultural heritage by requiring the destruction of an important site (AH180).
There were four (4) separate alternative alignments considered for this stretch of the route. However each of these was linked such that without the preference of one alternative another would also not be possible (or preferred). The four options are analysed in the following three sections.
(See Appendix 23.2.11 and Drawing 740/02/AL/010)
The alternative alignment involves a moderate horizontal realignment of the existing route towards and beyond the left-hand (north-eastern) edge of the existing route corridor. The alternative alignment is approximately 2,500m in length. The alternative route extends significantly beyond the northern edge of the existing route corridor, which would necessitate widening the existing corridor by approximately 125m (maximum) over an approximate length of 950m.
This alternative route is preferred over the corresponding section of the existing route from the Draft Route Selection Report.
The existing route was aligned on a large curve with the intention of avoiding the designated Area of Archaeological Potential at Carrigdarrery (AAP19). Despite the prospect for aligning a far straighter route through Area AAP19 (that would have avoided all known archaeological monuments), this measure was taken in order to avoid the geometric centre of the Area where it was suspected the greatest potential for sub-surface archaeological monuments might exist.
The alternative route has been designed with a favourable alignment that would potentially offer greater overtaking opportunities.
There is a possibility that the alternative route may have a greater visual impact than the existing due to the reasonably large cutting required at Ch26+500 (approximate) through a prominent rock outcrop. However, due to the location of this cutting, an overbridge crossing of the alternative route would potentially be made simpler and lower profile. Also, being in close proximity to the rock outcrop, the bridge could be partly concealed from view, having an overall beneficial effect on the visual impact.
Despite now travelling straight through the Area of Archaeological Potential (AAP19), the alternative alignment does not clash with any known cultural heritage sites/monuments. Following further archaeological consultation, and from information provided since the Third Public Consultation, it has been determined that the risk of encountering a currently unknown site/monument through the middle of AAP19 is no greater than along the curved existing route. For these reasons, the alternative is deemed to have little or no change in the impact in cultural heritage.
The alternative route is aligned closer to local watercourses, and therefore potentially has greater impact on surface water quality, drainage and potential for causing localised flooding. The alternative route has been aligned away from a major spring/well that was impacted upon by the existing route.
Due to the significant cutting required through the rock outcrop, the alternative alignment would have a marginally greater impact on geology and hydrogeology. Similarly, since the rock outcrop is a potential source of stone for building purposes, the alternative would have a greater impact on mineral resourses.
The alternative creates less severance of ecological area 52a and is therefore marginally improves impact on the ecology of the area.
The alternative is in close proximity to fewer dwellings/houses and would therefore be expected to have a lesser impact with respect to air quality and noise/vibration. However, as a result of the alternative alignment, some dwellings/houses, that were formerly outside the route corridor, are now located very close to the route. Due to the presence of the large rock outcrop and cutting the dwellings/houses that are more severely affected would be protected to some degree from direct impact.
Although the alternative alignment creates greater severance of agricultural land than the existing route, the actual amount of agricultural land affected by the alternative is slightly less due to the route being shorter.
(See Appendix 23.2.12 and Drawing 740/02/AL/011)
The alternative alignment involves a minor to moderate horizontal realignment of the existing route towards the right-hand (southern) edge of the existing route corridor. The alternative alignment is approximately 2,000m in length. The large cutting(s) resulting from the realignment onto higher ground would extend beyond the edge of the existing route corridor. This would therefore necessitate widening the existing corridor by approximately 75m (maximum) over an approximate length of 1,350m.
This alternative route is not preferred over the corresponding section of the existing route from the Draft Route Selection Report.
The alternative route would provide significant benefits over the existing in relation to air quality, noise/vibration and visual impact. These benefits would be mainly received by the residents of Lissarda village. However, due to the very large/deep cutting required for the alternative route, the visual impact of the alternative for more distant receptors, would likely be worse.
The scale of the cutting required by the alternative alignment would also have a greater impact on a number of other criteria considered, these being:- geology, hydrogeology, construction impact and scheme costs.
The alternative would also have a worse impact on cultural heritage due to its proximity to the ringfort monument (AH186). Opportunity to move the alternative route further away from this monument is complicated by the presence of farm buildings at Ch28+900 (approximate).
The alternative would have a significant impact on agriculture due to its route being aligned through land of apparently greater agricultural value, greater severance of farms and having a far greater plan area.
Finally, due to the large curve used to move away from Lissarda village, the actual alignment of the alternative route is also less favourable.
During preliminary design minor realignment(s) of the existing route will be assessed to determine any benefit to the Lissarda village residents. Some shift of the existing route, between Ch27+750 and Ch29+000 will be required to provide a smoother transition between the Alternative 10 alignment (refer clause 23.5.1 above) and this alternative, and this will improve the direct impact of this section on the village.
(See Appendix 23.2.13 and Drawing 740/02/AL/012)
The first of these two alternative alignments would involve a major horizontal realignment of the existing route towards and beyond the left-hand (north-eastern) edge of the existing route corridor. The alternative alignment is approximately 2,800m in length. The alternative route extends significantly beyond the edge of the existing route corridor, which would necessitate widening the existing corridor by approximately 230m (maximum) over an approximate length of 1,700m.
The second of the two alternative alignments would involve a moderate horizontal realignment of the existing route towards and beyond the right-hand (south-western) edge of the existing route corridor. The alternative alignment is approximately 1,800m in length. The alternative route extends slightly outside the edge of the existing route corridor, which would necessitate widening the existing corridor by approximately 40m (maximum) over an approximate length of 600m.
Neither of the two alternative routes considered at this location are preferred over the corresponding section of the existing route from the Draft Route Selection Report.
Two alignments were considered as alternatives to the existing route’s crossing point of the Ballymichael bridge road (Ch27+800 – approximate). Both these alternatives have a detrimental effect on the road alignment due to the combination of very tight curves required to make the necessary deviations and return to the existing route. Furthermore, due to the considerations and determinations made for the two adjoining sections of the route (refer clauses 23.5.1 and 23.5.2 above), the curves required for the deviations were virtually impossible without demolition of residential buildings. Therefore, it was not feasibly possible to select either of these alternatives over the existing route.
Whilst the alternative routes would provide benefits to the residents located at the existing route’s crossing point of the Ballymichael bridge road, they would worsen impact on air quality, noise/vibration and visual impact experienced by a greater number of receptors in close proximity to the alternatives.
The more southerly of the alternatives would also cause greater severance of ecological area 52a and greater severance of agricultural land. Conversely, the northern route would involve the least degree of impact on ecological area 52a and would have similar impact on agricultural land as the existing route.
The northern route is located closest to the Buingea River (and tributary), therefore having the greatest impact on surface water quality and drainage. Also, the larger embankments required for the northern route would likely result in the greatest impact for the geology of the area.
(See Appendix 23.2.14 and Drawing 740/02/AL/013)
The alternative route involves a minor to moderate horizontal realignment of the existing route towards and slightly beyond the left-hand (northern) edge of the existing route corridor. The alternative, which is approximately 2,000m in length, crosses the existing N22 road at its intersection with the R590 north of Crookstown. This conflict would also require realignment of the existing N22 road towards the north over a length of approximately 750m. The alternative route extends slightly outside the existing route corridor, which would necessitate widening the existing corridor by approximately 75m (maximum) over a length of approximately 700m. An additional width of 50m (maximum) over a length of approximately 800m would be required to construct the realignment of the existing N22
This alternative route is not preferred over the corresponding section of the existing route from the Draft Route Selection Report.
The alternative alignment may have a marginally greater visual impact. However, dependant on whether and how access would be provided for the R590 (for either option), this impact should be examined in further detail during preliminary design.
The alternative alignment is expected to provide slight improvements to the impacts on surface water quality and drainage, ecology, socio-economics and agriculture when compared with the existing route from the Draft Route Selection Report. This is mainly due to the fact that the alternative route is approximately aligned along the existing N22. Therefore, the new route would not be impacting as significantly upon new or previously untouched ecological areas and would not create any additional severance of farming land. The alternative alignment actually reduces the impact caused by severance of farming plots.
The alignment of the alternative route is significantly less curved than the existing. However, the final geometry of the alternative route can only be determined after further detailed examination of the area, including existing structures and roads.
The alternative route would require considerable disturbance of the existing N22 road during construction, including a reasonably large diversion of this road. This construction impact and the associated costs would be a lot greater than for the existing route.
There would be little or no change to the impact on air quality or noise and vibration caused by the alternative route. The impact on cultural heritage would increase due to the closer proximity of the alternative alignment to a number of built and archaeological heritage sites north of the existing N22 road.
The existing route alignment would provide a more suitable junction location at the intersection with the R590 Regional road north of Crookstown.
The route corridor will require adjustment on its northern side to incorporate sufficient land for the alternative alignment and the diversion of the existing N22 road.
(See Appendix 23.2.15 and Drawing 740/02/AL/015)
The alternative route involves a major horizontal realignment of the existing route towards and beyond the right-hand (southern) edge of the existing route corridor. The alternative is approximately 5,500m in length. The alternative route extends a significant distance outside the existing route corridor, which would necessitate widening the existing corridor by approximately 360m (maximum) over a length of approximately 3,700m.
This alternative route is not preferred over the corresponding section of the existing route from the Draft Route Selection Report. However, it is proposed that the coverage of the existing route corridor be adjusted to incorporate land south of the existing N22 road only. This proposed adjustment would extend the final route corridor to the northern banks of the River Bride, which would be sufficient to carry out further examination and the subsequent preference for the alternative design should this be warranted in the future.
Due to its location out in the valley, away from the existing N22, the alternative alignment is deemed to have a greater visual impact for receptors on the high ground to the north of the valley. This impact would be worsened by the fact that any route in close proximity to the River and within its reported floodplain will be constructed on relatively high embankments.
The alternative will have a greater adverse impact on surface water quality and drainage and a significant impact on flooding. Mitigation of these impacts would be difficult and very costly.
The alternative alignment will reduce the amount of severance of agricultural land and will have an associated cost benefit for the scheme. The cost savings associated with deleting the need for agricultural underpasses would however be greatly eroded by the additional cost of flood mitigation measures required for the alternative.
The potential impact on the ecological value of the River Bride is made significantly worse by the close proximity of the alternative alignment to the river over a continuous length of approximately 3,600m.
There are fewer nearby dwellings to the alternative route than the existing route or the existing N22 road. Therefore the anticipated impact on air quality and noise/vibration would be improved by the alternative alignment.
The impact of construction activities would be significantly worse for the alternative, due to its close proximity to the River Bride.
The alternative route offers little or no benefit with respect to road alignment. Furthermore the existing route from the Draft Route Selection Report will be straightened between Ch37+500 and Ch38+750 (approximate) to potentially provide overtaking opportunities over a then longer straight section of road.
The large number of alternative alignments considered in this area is a reflection of the degree of interest in this area and the number of submissions made since publication of the Draft Route Selection Report. There was considerable concern expressed following publication of the Draft Route Selection Report that the impact of the route on the mineral deposits was greater than the information available earlier had indicated. The major concerns that were expressed included; the severity of all impacts on the community of residents living in the Ovens area; the sterilisation of valuable mineral resources and the continuity of mineral extraction activities in the Bride Valley; the loss of land “zoned” for development purposes; and the impact on the sensitive ecological and heritage areas in the Ovens area.
The various alternative routes devised to (where possible) address these concerns were found to either overlap or link up, such that it became necessary to perform a staged process of analysing and comparing alternative routes with the existing route from the Draft Route Selection Report. The stages of the process are reflected in the details presented below (see clauses 23.7.1 to 23.7.4), but in summary the alternatives considered, which were compared to the existing route, are as follows:-
Alternative 15 – Abbey Road to Crannog – Ch40+500 to
Ch43+000
Minor realignment of the existing route towards the south, largely within the
existing route corridor.
Alternative 16 – Ch38+750 to Ch41+250
Major realignment of the existing route towards the south, extending beyond the
existing route corridor by up to 370m (approximate).
Alternative 17 – Station Road to Ovens – Ch38+750 to
Ch43+500
Two alternatives were to be compared to either the existing route from the
Draft Route Selection Report (or the existing route as adjusted by the possible
choice of Alternatives 15 or/and 16).
The two alternatives to be compared were:-
a) the relevant section of the
Yellow/Link 6/Blue route, previously considered in the Draft
Route Selection Report, which
(for the most part) runs generally parallel to the existing route
(approximately 700m to 1,000m
south). The alternative ties into the
existing route at the
River Bride crossing in the east
and at Abbey Road in the west; and
b) a new alignment linking the Yellow
and Blue routes from the Draft Route Selection Report.
Between the River Bride crossing
in the east and Donovan’s Pit (quarry) in the west, this new
alternative would be the same as
the Yellow/Link 6/Blue route (see above).
West from
Donovan’s Pit, this alternative
would travel south of the local Boreen road and the settlement
at Abbey Road. It would then re-connect with the existing
alignment approximately 500m
west of the Abbey Road.
Alternative 18 – Ch43+100 to Ch44+770
Moderate to major realignment of the existing route towards the north,
extending beyond the existing corridor by up to 190m (approximate)
The following clauses of this chapter provide further specific details about the alignment and the resultant change in the predicted impact for each of the various alternative routes considered in the Garryhesty and Ovens area.
(See Appendix 23.2.16 and Drawing 740/02/AL/015)
The alternative route involves a minor horizontal realignment of the existing route towards and slightly beyond the right-hand (southern) edge of the existing route corridor. The alternative is approximately 2,700m in length. The alternative route extends slightly outside the existing route corridor, which would necessitate widening the existing corridor by approximately 30m (maximum) over a length of approximately 900m.
This alternative route is not preferred over the corresponding section of the existing route from the Draft Route Selection Report.
The alternative route, which was devised to reduce impact on the overall mineral resource located in the Ovens area of the Bride Valley, marginally reduces the impact on or sterilisation of the said mineral resource. Furthermore, it was determined that the alternative alignment did little to protect specific areas required in the short term for continuance of mineral extraction activities.
The alternative route is aligned closer to dwellings/houses and other relevant receptors, and therefore would be expected to increase impact on air quality, noise/vibration and landscape/aesthetics. There would be no significant change to the impact on cultural heritage, surface water and drainage, geology, hydrogeology and ecology.
The alternative alignment would necessitate the loss of one of the two GAA pitches west of Casey’s Road, Knockanemore. This would increase impact in respect of demolition and loss of amenity.
The length of the alternative route which travels through agricultural land is significantly more than the existing route. Therefore the alternative route increases the impact on agriculture.
The road alignment of the alternative route incorporates slightly tighter horizontal curvature and hence is less favourable than the existing route.
(See Appendix 23.2.17 and Drawing 740/02/AL/016)
The alternative route involves a major horizontal realignment of the existing route towards and beyond the right-hand (southern) edge of the existing route corridor. The alternative is approximately 2,900m in length. The alternative route extends a significant distance outside the existing route corridor, which would necessitate widening the existing corridor by approximately 400m (maximum) over a length of approximately 2,200m.
This alternative route is not preferred over the corresponding section of the existing route from the Draft Route Selection Report.
The alternative alignment was in part devised to address the concerns expressed since publication of the Draft Route Selection Report that the existing route did not adequately take into account the mineral extraction in the area. The alternative alignment was specifically designed to tie into Alternative 15 (refer clause 23.7.1), but could be altered to tie into the existing section of the route should it have been preferred over Alternative 15. The alternative route largely avoids the areas of land immediately available for continuance of mineral extraction activities in the Ovens area. It also further reduces the impact (or sterilisation) of the mineral reserve as a whole.
The alternative route also benefits the residents living at the northern end of the Abbey Road settlement by reducing visual impact as well as impact on air quality and noise/vibration. These benefits would be offset by increasing these same impacts on the residents living at the southern end of the settlement. Furthermore, an overbridge that would be required by the alternative route for the Boreen road crossing would further impact visually on these residents.
The road alignment produced by the alternative route would be similar to the existing route, but with a slightly greater length of straight road.
The alternative alignment would result in a major increase in impact on the River Bride and its associated ecological value. This is due to the necessary straightening of the River, over approximately 500 metres, that would be required as part of the construction of the alternative. Further to the increased impact on ecology, the alternative could result in increased impact on surface water quality and drainage as well as increased flooding impact. The impact of construction and costs would also increase due to the straightening of the River and an additional road crossing.
The alternative route would also create a greater impact on cultural heritage due to it being closer to nationally important Kilcrea Friary and Graveyard, and other nearby sites including AH214, AH191, AH121, AH118 as well as AS038. Whilst the alternative route does not clash with any known sites, the close proximity of the route to Kilcrea Friary and other monuments would impact on the setting and aesthetics of these sites. It should be noted that access to Kilcrea Friary and other surrounding monuments would not be affected, therefore no significant loss of amenity is anticipated.
The impact on geology and hydrogeology would be marginally worse due the requirement for larger cuttings and embankments on the alternative route.
(See Appendix 23.2.18 and Drawing 740/02/AL/017)
Both of the alternative routes (Yellow/Link 6/Blue and Yellow/New Link/Blue) would involve major horizontal realignments when compared to the existing route. Due to the significant distance between the alternative alignments and the existing route, the choice of one of these alternatives would necessitate re-defining a totally new preferred route corridor (between Station Road and the River Bride crossing at Ovens (Ch44+500) – a distance of approximately 5km) to that nominated in the Draft Route Selection Report.
The Yellow/Link 6/Blue route is preferred over the corresponding sections of the existing route from the Draft Route Selection Report and the alternative route (Yellow/New Link/Blue).
In light of additional information received during the ongoing public consultation phase since publication of the Draft Route Selection Report, further consideration of the original route options in the Ovens area (Station Road to Ovens – Ch38+750 to Ch44+500) was necessary to ensure the most advantageous route had been chosen. The routes compared were the existing route chosen in the Draft Route Selection Report (the Yellow route), the Yellow/Link 6/Blue route and also an alternative route (the Yellow/New Link/Blue route), which offers a new link between the main Yellow and Blue routes running south of the Abbey Road settlement on a path similar to that of Alternative 16 (refer clause 23.7.2 above).
The Yellow/New Link/Blue route was deemed to have the fewest receptors in its close proximity and therefore would potentially have the lowest visual impact. The visual impact of the Yellow/New Link/Blue route on the setting and aesthetic value of Kilcrea Friary and other surrounding monuments would be significantly higher than the other two route options. The Yellow and the Yellow/Link 6/Blue routes would both have a similar visual impact due to there being a similar number of receptors close to each route. However, the visual impact of the Yellow and the Yellow/Link 6/Blue routes on the setting and aesthetic value of Kilcrea Friary and other surrounding monuments would be less than that caused by the Yellow/New Link/Blue route.
The Yellow/New Link/Blue route, having the fewest number of close receptors, would have the least impact on air quality and noise/vibration. The Yellow route is likely to have the highest impact on these same criteria, with only marginally less impact expected from the Yellow/Link 6/Blue route.
Due to the Yellow/New Link/Blue route’s close proximity to the River Bride, it would have the greatest impact on ecology and surface water quality/drainage. The Yellow route is aligned furthest away from the River at all points and therefore has the lowest impact on ecology and surface water quality and drainage. The Yellow/Link 6/Blue route only approaches the River at two localised points. This impact was felt to be significantly less adverse than an instance where the new route would run close and parallel to the River over relatively long stretches, and one that could be more easily mitigated against using appropriate measures such a water attenuation/settlement ponds and pollutant traps.
The mineral resources of the Bride Valley have been identified as a nationally important resource and as such the preservation of these deposits for future use is a major factor of the route option assessment and comparison. Acknowledgement of national aspirations to preserve known deposits and the expressed concern of the Department of Marine and Natural Resources that the designation of routes for proposed road projects may result in the sterilisation of known mineral deposits, as well as the receipt of additional factual information concerning the physical characteristics of the Bride Valley mineral reserves has led to the following assessment of the existing route and the two alternative route options. The Yellow route has the greatest impact on the area’s highest value mineral resources. The lower quality mineral resources, which are generally located south of the Boreen road adjacent to the River Bride are more impacted upon by the Yellow/Link 6/Blue and the Yellow/New Link/Blue routes. However large portions of these resources have already been extracted/exhausted at the Knockanemore and Donovan pits, which minimises the impact by the two southern routes significantly.
Due to having the greatest impact on mineral resources and therefore the greatest threat to commerce and employment, the Yellow route also impacts most on socio-economics.
The Yellow route would have the least impact during construction and also the least cost. The Yellow/New Link/Blue route crosses the fewest number of public roads, which consequently reduces disruption during construction and costs.
The road alignments of each option are similar and would be subject to further consideration and enhancement during the preliminary design phase to optimise any overtaking opportunities available.
The Yellow/Link 6/Blue and the Yellow/New Link/Blue routes pass through a designated “development area” in the Draft County Development Plan. This area is situated in the townland of Knockanemore, north of Killumney and Grange. The southern routes have the greatest impact on the potential for development at this location.
The process undertaken for this section of the route (refer clauses 23.7.1, 23.7.2 and 23.7.3) leads to a direct comparison being made between the relative values of the Bride Valley mineral resources and the River Bride itself. The SWRFB consider infrastructure projects such as the proposed N22 Ballincollig to Ballyvourney road scheme as having the potential to significantly impact on fisheries resources if they are not carried out in an environmentally sensitive manner. Given that the Yellow/Link 6/Blue route would not create great disbenefits on the River Bride and does not directly impact on its ecological value, (that is the Yellow/Link 6/Blue route does not cross or require realignment of the River), and that the best practice environmental safeguards would be used, it is considered that (in this case) the potential sterilisation of a valuable mineral resource is of greater significance and hence the Yellow/Link 6/Blue route is the preferred option.
(See Appendix 23.2.19 and Drawing 740/02/AL/018)
The alternative route involves a moderate to major horizontal realignment of the existing route towards and beyond the left-hand (northern) edge of the existing route corridor. The alternative is approximately 1,600m in length. The alternative route extends a significant distance outside the existing route corridor, which would necessitate widening the existing corridor by approximately 210m (maximum) over a length of approximately 900m.
This alternative route is not preferred over the corresponding section of the existing route from the Draft Route Selection Report.
This alternative was proposed during the ongoing public consultation process as a means of avoiding a designated “development area” in the Draft County Development Plan as well as a specific plot of land within the “development area” currently owned for the purpose of future development.
The alternative route has a potentially greater impact on cultural heritage in the area than the existing route (or the southern routes – Yellow/Link 6/Blue and Yellow/New Link/Blue). The primary reason for this increased impact is the alternative route’s close proximity to the Oven Caves. The entrance to the Caves would be located in the same field through which the alternative route would run. The other important sites more greatly impacted upon by the alternative are the St Mary’s Church and graveyard.
The alternative route would have less impact on two low value ecological sites – areas 81b and 88.
With respect to air quality and noise/vibration, the alternative route appears to be positioned closer to a greater number of dwelling/houses and would consequently increase the impact experienced by these receptors.
The alternative route travels through more land north of the Chapel Road which, based on information presented during the public consultation process for the project, would sterilise a greater amount of the higher value mineral resources of the area.
The road alignment of the alternative route is less favourable than the existing route.
In a number of instances where this chapter discusses the need to widen the existing route corridor, other adjustments to the corridor will be carried out to maintain (where possible) the overall width of the corridor at approximately 300m. The purpose of this being, to minimise the impact on planning and development along the preferred route.
These adjustments to the corridor are not discussed in detail in Volume 1 of this Report, but are reflected in the “Emerging Preferred Route” set of drawings contained in Volume 2 of this Report.
Since publication of the Draft Route Selection Report and the Public Exhibitions carried for the Third Public Consultation process, a considerable number of alternative route alignments were proposed by members of the public. These alternatives were all considered and evaluated in initial detail. Those that were feasible were formally designed for further consideration and have been described above.
The following list includes a number of alternative alignments that, on initial consideration, were found to provide insufficient value and hence were not designed or considered in any further detail for inclusion in the preferred route:-
Alternative alignment passing north
of the Cascade Wood (Cappagh East and Slievereagh), approximately 600m north of
existing route
Alternative alignment crossing
Sullane River and existing N22 west of R618 Coachford Road Bridge (New
Bridge). Passing between Hartnett’s
Cross and the former GSI Factory
Alternative crossing of reservoir
east of existing Two-Mile Bridge, Coolcour (Bealahaglashin Bridge) – route on
via-duct or embankment over considerable stretch of the existing reservoir
south of Coolcour
Upgrade (or improve) existing N22
road between Macroom and Ballincollig in lieu of providing a new route
Alternative northern bypass of
Lissarda village between Stage Cross and Carrigdarrery
Alternative route alignment along
the Beamish line west of Carrigdarrery
Alternative route alignment through
the Bride Valley running along the now abandoned railway line.