UPGRADING THE EXISTING A5
In recent years many millions of taxpayers’ money has been spent on upgrading parts of the existing A5. A bypass around Newtownstewart was constructed which included a two-lane bridge. Through-passes for Strabane and Omagh have also been built. Most recently the road at Tullyvar was straightened and a roundabout was constructed to replace a T-junction – this at the cost of £9.8million. Also road widening has been undertaken at various points along the route.
It would seem that the most practical way to build on this expenditure at a time when funds are constrained would be to continue these improvements by widening the carriageway to allow for overtaking opportunities where possible. The provision of hard shoulders without elevated kerbs along with climbing and passing lanes would make traffic flow more consistent.
Where there is localized congestion at peak times, traffic management measures such as better bus and cycle provision and flexi-time working hours would improve matters.
As we see it, the continued improvement of the existing A5 is by far the most sensible and cost-effective solution to the traffic issues of the western area. As plans for improving the road between Aughnacloy and Dublin, and the roads from Lifford to Donegal town and Letterkenny have now been shelved owing to lack of funds it would seem far more justifiable to reduce spending on the A5 to a more modest plan.
As it now required that all nations reduce their CO2 emissions in line with climate change legislation, government should be implementing plans to encourage use of public transport and available funding should be directed at improving these services. As the west is poorly served by public transport at present we would prefer that any cross-border transport projects should be aimed at such improvements. This would insure that such projects are less divisive than the A5WTC dual carriageway has proved to be. At present this project has served to divide political opinion along sectarian lines which seem to be the opposite of its intended purpose.
What the Experts say about the A5:
Austin Smyth on UTV:
http://www.u.tv/utvplayer/video/140570/115116/93cc7401-8af5-4df3-b518-74cd61e1b66a
Christian Wolmar on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvoAJpRP7YM
Our New Banner goes to Dublin - 21st October 2011
AT OCCUPY DAME STREET
At DUBLIN POST OFFICE
Better rail link would stop waste of money on the roads
AA5A AGM
Day: Saturday 20th August 2011
Time: 8pm
Venue: Siverbirch Hotel
5 Gortin Road
Omagh
Co. Tyrone
BT79 7DH
Our Annual General Meeting will include:
A look at the campaign so far.
The future campaign.
The election of officers.
AOB.
Read the article in The Irish Independent:
No Money for 'Sacred Cow' a5 road
SUBMISSION TO INQUIRY BY L KWASNIEWSKA 8th JUNE 2011
HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES
1. ‘No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest’ Article 1, Protocol 1, Human Rights
Approximately 300 farmers and other residents will lose land if this scheme is allowed to go ahead, yet it is doubtful whether the proposed new A5 is ‘in the public interest’ for the following reasons:
a) We were told by Conor Loughrey that ‘the Executive’s primary concern is to improve the economy’ and that improved journey times will help achieve that aim, yet we have been given no concrete evidence that the new A5 will help, only that it will harm the economy in the West of the province. Successful farmers will be hard hit all along the 55 mile route and that in turn will affect other businesses in the agri-food industry. Evidence from business people in Ballygawley and Aughnacloy as well as from the Duddy family all highlighted the general worry about losing trade as they will be by-passed by the new road. Omagh as well as the villages along the route will suffer loss of business as will Tyrone’s main tourist attraction, the Ulster-American Folk Park. Mr Orbison QC pointed out on 18/05/11 that under Human Rights legislation the DRD has to minimise the adverse effects of their road scheme on property owners. Conor Loughrey admitted the Department had not carried out an economic appraisal of the impact on businesses along the present A5, and on 25/05/11 we learned that this also applied to the many farms that would be severed by the new road. Dr McIlmoyle, who was responsible for the Agricultural Submission confirmed that it had not been part of his brief ‘to assess the economics of the scheme.’ Surely such assessments were essential if the government is to provide convincing evidence of future economic growth. Interestingly, despite predictions of economic development, the DRD’s consultants have assumed that there will be no additional growth in traffic, yet more business would presumably mean more traffic.
b) The new road is ‘a gross misspend’ (Mr O’Sullivan, 19/05/11). It is not good value for money and is not based on public need. It is currently estimated to cost £850million but does not connect any major cities, centres of industry or air and seaports. In 2006 Roads Service dismissed the idea of an A5 dual carriageway as the traffic figures would not justify it even in 30 years. In his Submission David Hardcastle stated that only 500 vehicles would use the full length of the new road (The Road to Nowhere) between the villages of Aughnacloy and Newbuildings and these vehicles are expected to shorten their journey time by 21 minutes at most. He admitted that less than half the vehicles on the new A4 go on to Omagh. Roads Service figures for traffic on the A5 vary from 6850 at Aughnacloy to 15,200 between Strabane and Sion Mills but with predictions that 80% of local traffic may use the new A5, this means that the average use falls below the minimum of 11,000 needed to justify a dual carriageway. In fact the provision of more passing lanes would allow the present A5 to manage up to 20,000 vehicles per day, so why was that not considered, as it clearly was in 2006? Quite simply the government wanted ‘a high quality road network’ said Peter Edwards of Mouchel and Conor Loughrey of Roads Service emphasised that this new road would ‘balance the infrastructure’ across the province i.e. it is being built for its own sake and for reasons of balance and not because it is justified by the traffic statistics, which should make other upgrades like the A6 a greater priority than the A5. Mr Hardcastle also acknowledged that he was basing his predictions on the statistics for 2008 rather than 2010 which would be lower still. Furthermore, with fuel prices predicted to rise by 30% by 2014, according to Faith Birol, Chief Executive of the International Energy Agency, the volume of road traffic is likely to fall even more. Local people will find that the detour they have to make to join the new road, combined with the faster speed, will use up more fuel so will cost more money. Thus not only are the traffic forecasts overstated but so are the benefits of the scheme. Normally a road project is considered as ‘a response to needs’ (Stephen Woods) but in the case of this new A5, it is ‘what two governments asked for’ not what the public asked for. As a result Roads Service did not follow their own professional guidelines and look at cheaper alternatives as ‘it was not in our remit.’ (Conor Loughrey 11/05/11) Instead Mr Loughrey stated that Eire’s £400 million made this road ‘affordable’. The fact that it has so few access points, makes no provision for the pedestrians and cyclists who are entitled to use it and ends in a bottle neck at Newbuildings are all criticisms that have been ignored by Roads Service, thus reinforcing the impression that this road is not being built for the benefit of the local community.
c) While a dual carriageway would be deemed safer than any single lane road, it was acknowledged that the present A5 is much safer than many similar type roads in the UK. David Hardcastle admitted on 10/05/11 that ‘I am not claiming a safety case for the A5 scheme’ and agreed that ‘the accident record is not the prime reason for the upgrade.’ However, it was also acknowledged that 38% of the present A5 is now considered substandard, yet a lot of local traffic will continue to use it, partly due to the limited access to the new road. Conor Loughrey said that improvements to the present A5 would depend on the availability of funds. There is also the possibility that speeds will increase on the present A5, making it more dangerous, yet improvements will probably be a low priority compared to those projects which have already been delayed in favour of the new A5 e.g. the extension of the M22.
d) It is clear in many ways that this road does not serve the public interest. It will not improve the quality of life in the rural community as people lose their jobs and businesses and farmers’ sons and daughters are forced to leave the area because the family farm cannot support them or, worse still, has been rendered unviable by the new road. Homes are to be demolished despite Article 8 ECHR which says that ‘Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.’ The closure of approximately 20 minor roads will force people to drive further in pursuit of their daily business, regardless of the rising cost of fuel. Even the apparent advantage of saving ten minutes in a journey from Omagh to Altnagelvin Hospital will be cancelled by traffic delays as the new and old A5 roads join at Newbuildings. Places of natural beauty, wildlife habitats and cultural heritage sites are all adversely affected by the proposed scheme. Fears have been expressed about how the problem of flooding will be exacerbated near the Foyle and to date little attention seems to have been paid to the problem of wind speed on the proposed dual carriageway. The question of improving public transport has been ignored. Since the Executive is committed to reducing carbon emissions, the road scheme runs counter to government policy. Transport is N Ireland’s main source of greenhouse gas emissions, yet these have increased rather than decreased since the government first set its targets in 1990. There are also worries that contaminated rock from a lead mine near Omagh will be used for landfill if the road goes ahead.
e) In their determination to please their political masters Road Service officials and their consultants from Mouchel have railroaded this scheme from the outset and the consultation process has not been as ‘transparent’ as it should have been. At the first public meeting attended by fewer than 400 people the question was put: ‘Do you broadly support the upgrade A5 proposal?’ Road Service and Mouchel like to quote the 90%+ positive response as evidence of how they are acting in the public interest. In fact the question was clearly intended to elicit such a response and their argument that a dual carriageway was discussed at that meeting is unconvincing, since it is not mentioned in the question. There is overwhelming evidence from residents, farmers and businessmen that Roads Service and Mouchel officials listened but did not take on board what they were told. This was dismissed by Peter Edwards who claimed ‘some landowners have not got the answers that they wanted to hear.’ He argued that consultation had been ‘two way’ and ‘interactive’ but also ‘informed owners’ and, besides, ’we cannot accommodate everyone’s views.’ There were fewer Public Exhibition meetings for the proposed A5 than for the much smaller A4 project. Individual families who were badly affected by the scheme found out at such meetings. No one took the trouble to talk to them privately first. Responses to written submissions were dismissive and left people feeling their views were irrelevant. In the third week of the Public Inquiry Roads Service officials expressed willingness to meet individual farmers and discuss their practical problems. Surely this could have been done a year or more ago, thereby reducing the worry and distress so many have felt? Permission was not always sought before entering property and requests to avoid marking ground in wet weather were frequently ignored. One landowner, who dared to complain, was told that the land would be theirs anyway once the vesting order went through. Farmers were not sent a copy of the report that assessed the adverse impact of the proposed road on their farm. Instead the information was sent on a CD to the land agents, one of whom described the method as ‘inaccessible.’ So half way through the Inquiry most farmers have not seen their report and are unaware of its existence. Worse still, this applies to some of their agents too. Where farmers were interviewed by Dr McIlmoyle before knowing the full extent of land take, an assessment was made but, significantly, without a second interview. Farmers question the accuracy of the assessment and all wonder about its purpose. J McFarland, legal representative of two farmers, rightly questioned the wisdom of putting Mouchel in charge of the assessment of impact as they could not be regarded as independent.
f) The determination to proceed with this road scheme has meant that Roads Service has ignored or been allowed to overrule a plethora of other government policies. As well as the matter of CO2 emissions they have ignored DARD policies which promote efficiency and productivity, as well as the quality of life in rural communities and conservation of the rural landscape. The loss of 3000 acres of highly productive farmland may be dismissed by Conor Loughrey, but Co Tyrone especially depends heavily upon agriculture and its dairy farmers, who will be hit hard by this scheme. Food security has become a major issue within the EU but our government is not really taking that too seriously. However, it may be forced to recognise that failure to adhere to EU directives can be damaging. An Taisce, the National Trust for Ireland claims that the DRD should have carried out an Environmental Impact Assessment before consent could be given to plan a major scheme like the new A5. Their representative stated that there had been insufficient surveys of protected species like otters and kingfishers, while farmers have provided evidence that the badger setts on their land were not surveyed and in some cases lie in the path of the proposed road. Apparently derogation licences should have been sought in advance of any consent for the development. There is no evidence that this was done and, since the procedures are very clear, the European Court of Justice may have the final word. The Court of Appeal in N Ireland has also stated that Article 8 ECHR may be engaged if a person is ‘particularly badly’ affected by a planning decision made by the state. (Carswell LCJ in Re Stewart’s Application, 2003) The essential purpose of Article 8 is ‘to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by public authorities’. (Kerr J 2004) Since the proposed new A5 is not justified, and the decision to build it was clearly arbitrary, the people whose homes are to be demolished together with those whose livelihoods are threatened have the right to protection under Human Rights Article 8 as well as Article 1.
2. Objectors are disadvantaged in the Public Inquiry by the following:
a) Lack of representation provided. This was recommended in an Inspector’s Report in 2007 but nothing has been done.
b) Inspectors have a narrow remit set by Roads Service i.e. policies and procedures.
c) Roads Service decides what should be strategic and what are local issues and have used that as an excuse not to answer awkward questions, which their barrister claims should be posed in a different forum.
d) Objectors are at a disadvantage due to their lack of knowledge of procedures and their naïve assumption that a Public Inquiry gives them a right to be heard. While this is the theory, (‘The Inspectors should ensure that all relevant parties are given the opportunity to speak and explain in their own words their objection…’ Dr Malcolm McKibbin, Permanent Secretary, DRD) the reality is that they can be denied this right if they have not handed in their questions or submission in advance. The fact that most objectors do not have a team of researchers or secretarial help is not taken into consideration.
d) Roads Service representatives have four opportunities to put their case and reinforce their message i.e. at the start of each Inquiry.
e) If objectors miss any day, they may miss out on relevant evidence. The members of the DRD panel do not. They are paid to be there. Objectors usually have jobs and responsibilities elsewhere and transcripts of each day’s business are not made available.
f) The huge amount of documentation is overwhelming for many ordinary people but all the weight is put on the objectors to find evidence and then the DRD barrister can complain that they should have asked or said all this earlier. Every effort is clearly not being made to ensure that objectors are heard.
g) The farmers’ individual agricultural impact assessments were not sent in paper form to them. It is on a CD which was sent to the land agents around Easter. At least four of the land agents were not aware of this assessment after three weeks of the Inquiry. Farmers were not given the opportunity to review this assessment and have it amended if necessary before the Inquiry opened.
h) The system is inherently flawed in other ways too. Landowners are represented by land agents who are paid by DRD which means there is a conflict of interest.
i)The agents find themselves in a dilemma because, even if personally opposed to the road, they believe the Local Inquiry is their best and last chance to get concessions for their clients via mitigation. If they merely oppose the road, their clients risk getting nothing out of the DRD and once their land is vested, they have no rights. As a result many objectors are not objecting strongly to the road as such, but listing their complaints, for which they seek redress. This does not mean they are becoming reconciled. For most, abandonment of the new road is their ideal solution and the DMRB agrees: ‘Avoidance is always the first mitigation measure to be considered.’ (Section 2, par. 1.42)
j) Compensation cannot be discussed at the Inquiry yet the criteria are also flawed, which further disadvantages landowners and there seems to be no forum where this can be aired.
3. Landowners, who have most to lose here, are not being treated fairly because:
a) In the rules for compensation we are told that ‘no allowance shall be made on account of the acquisition’s being compulsory.’ (Compulsory Purchase and Compensation, Booklet 3, Paragraph 2.10, page 11) Effectively farmers are treated as ‘willing sellers’ who are putting their land up for sale on the open market. However, there are strong arguments against this. Firstly, most are unwilling. Virtually all the farms affected are family farms that have been owned by the same family often for four generations or more. Such farms are not willingly sold, especially if there are sons and daughters to take over the management of the property. This is their livelihood and their inheritance. Secondly, no rational farmer would willingly sell fields in the middle of his farm, which is what many farmers are losing in vesting orders, as their farms are being severed by the proposed road. If they were short of cash, they would choose to sell land on their boundary or located some distance from the home farm. Thirdly, they would not select their best fields for sale and keep the rest. Many farmers have complained bitterly that they are losing their best ground to tarmac and drainage ponds. Fourthly, since they are businessmen they would not willingly sell land at a time when the market price has fallen due to the recession. Only the desperate do that. Lastly, to sell on the open market implies that there will be competition among potential buyers, so the price will rise. However, here there will be only one bidder, the DRD. Such a rule ensures that the government gets the land as cheaply as possible and helps explain the excessive land take and why Roads Service has been so intent on taking this road through virgin countryside, rather than look for an alternative but more challenging option.
b) Not only do farmers fail to get the best price for what may be their best land, but they are not compensated for the loss of income from this land for at least a generation. Roads Service officials and Mouchel consultants have been prepared to predict cost benefits 20 years hence and cite the benefits of the proposed road over 60 years, yet the farmers whose land is vested against their will, are not compensated for a similar period. They are compensated for depreciation due to severance or ‘injurious affection’ and for temporary disturbance during construction e.g. access difficulties, loss of crops, the enforced sale of stock but ‘the overriding rule is that anything which is not too remote and is a natural and reasonable consequence of the acquisition is to be compensated.’ (Paragraph 2.48, page 18) Though there was an agricultural impact assessment carried out, it did not include an economic appraisal. The long term adverse economic effects on the farmers living along this 55 mile scheme are considered irrelevant. In the case of agricultural land the future profitability of the farming business is supposedly included within the value of the land. Unlike non agricultural businesses there is ‘no separate assessment of compensation payable for extinguishment when compulsory acquisition occurs.’ (Paragraph 2.47, page 18) In other words farm businesses are not treated like other businesses. Further evidence of this is that ‘goodwill’ is included in the price of a business but it no longer applies to our farms.
c) Nor do farmers have a statutory right to have ‘accommodation works’ provided to mitigate some of the ill effects of having a major road built through their farm. (Paragraph 2.77, page 24) Such accommodation works might include the need for new fences, holding pens, underpasses or water supplies and are generally provided by Roads Service ‘where it is cost effective because compensation is reduced as a result.’ What is disturbing is that farmers are not guaranteed these, even though the need for them was created by the road scheme. Instead farmers are made to feel they are being granted concessions and this explains why the land agents fear their more intransigent clients could lose out on the provision of ‘accommodation works’. It explains why land agents have been keen to win the co-operation of Roads Service and Mouchel and why some have expressed their gratitude at the Public Inquiry. Mr O’Reilly has drawn attention to this appearance of goodwill and harmony but it is important to remember why the agents feel it is necessary to negotiate in this manner. By law their clients do not have the right to have the damage made good. How can that be just?
d) Nor are the landowner’s problems over once his land is vested. If contractors cause further damage during construction, it is the contractors’ responsibility to pay compensation and the farmer is responsible for getting his compensation, not Road Service that brought in the contractors in the first place. (Paragraph 2.78, page 24)
Those whose businesses are affected adversely as a consequence of the construction of the road are told ‘business losses cannot be claimed unless they result in a reduction of the land value.’ (Paragraph 3.7, page 27) This would not always be applicable e.g. in the case of an intensive poultry unit which takes up relatively little space but needs a lot of capital outlay in the first place, land value would be largely irrelevant.
So if farmers were treated fairly, they would be much better compensated. That in turn would make major projects like this more expensive and consequently the government would not be so keen to vest large amounts of good land that would be of greater long term value if preserved for food production for future generations.
WHY THE AGRICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT LACKS CREDIBILITY
Farmers here are being treated unfairly and unjustly compared to their counterparts elsewhere in the UK. According to the Highways Agency in a major project like this, there is a ‘need to interview all farmers of land potentially affected.’ We know that this has not been done by Dr McIlmoyle. He says so in his report.
In England and Wales the 1997 PPG7 states that the release of good land for major road schemes should be tested against an ‘overriding need’. We know there is no overriding need here, just a political agreement.
Following the DMRB Guidelines, Volume 11, for a Stage 2 Environmental Assessment, land take is assessed in terms of quality as well as quantity. Soil testing is carried out routinely. This was not done here.
The economic impact is also assessed using comparative assessments to evaluate the degree of impact and potential financial losses. Dr McIlmoyle has stated that he did not carry out an economic appraisal as it was not in his remit and he made it clear in his report that farm incomes and profit were not considered. Since many farms are severely affected by this proposed scheme and will suffer permanent loss, the omission of an economic appraisal of the long term effects seems not only unjust but also casts doubt on the credibility of any conclusions reached concerning the impact on agriculture. The lack of credibility is reinforced by the exclusion of conacre from the assessment. The DMRB Guidelines advocate that the impact of the proposals on farming practice and the type of husbandry be assessed i.e. it is the impact on land use that is assessed and the issue of who owns the land is irrelevant.
In Volume 11, Section 2, the Environmental Statement, paragraph 3.20 we are told that ‘the data used to estimate the significance of the effects should be clearly described… and descriptions used to reach the significance should be defined ..’ In the example from Cambridgeshire you can see clearly how they distinguished between the degrees of impact:
Slight Adverse = Minor disruption/ decrease in land area and/or potential profitability = Less than 2%
Minor Adverse = 2-5%
Moderate Adverse = 5-10%
Major Adverse = Severe disruption and loss of land and/or potential profitability = over 10%.
This type of information was not provided in Dr McIlmoyle’s Report. Furthermore, if he had used the same % range as a guide for his assessment of impact, he would have had to increase the number of farms affected to a Moderate or Substantial degree. The exclusion of conacre from assessment increases the distortion of the results as the land take from conacre is invariably described as ‘Slight’, however extensive the land take and disruption due to severance. If the Cambridgeshire model is applied to the farm Reports in Appendix 15, many upward adjustments would need to be made.
Other factors also make the validity of the conclusions questionable. In Chapter 9, DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, we are told that the amount of land take should include that which is no longer viable for farming e.g. due to severance. Since negotiations are still underway between Roads Service and Mouchel officials and the landowners, we may not have the final figures here.
The assessment should give ‘detailed coverage for the farms affected’ (Volume 11, Section3, Part 6, Land Use, Chapter 10, paragraph 16). Not only should it cover the likely future viability of individual farms and take into consideration the potential loss of land being managed to achieve the objectives of grant schemes like Countryside Management, but also look at all major accommodation works including the impact on drainage and the prospects for farm based diversification. (Highways Agency) Viability is mentioned in only a minority of reports. There is no aggregate figure provided for farms in the Countryside Management Scheme or for all other types of farms. Drainage problems are not mentioned in the reports, yet farmers in Sections 2 and 3 have expressed their concern about this and many of those who have already appeared at the Section 1 Inquiry stressed this particular problem which is exacerbated by the fact that their farms are on a flood plain.
The example of a Scottish agricultural impact assessment report shows how detailed such reports could be and should be compared to the reports compiled by Dr McIlmoyle.
Of course the explanation for the brevity may be that Dr McIlmoyle did not visit all the farms; he discounted land that was in conacre; he also spent as little as 15-20 minutes on site when he did visit. It would be difficult to acquire an in depth knowledge of any farm and discuss all the practical implications of severance etc in less than two hours, unless the farm was very small. But Dr McIlmoyle did not bother to visit the very small farms and usually spent no more than an hour on any farm.
We are also told in Section 2, Part 6 that the environmental information should be ‘unbiased’. ‘If the proposals have effects that are particularly adverse, they should be clearly presented and not hidden away.’ In the fifth week of the Public Inquiry we have a situation where many farmers have still not seen the impact report for their farm. The fact that it was not sent directly to them was unhelpful to say the least. To assume that at the end of a long working day they could trawl through the A5WTC website to find their report is unreasonable. But that also assumes that they know the report exists. Many do not being under the erroneous impression that they received their ‘report’ soon after Dr McIlmoyle visited their farm. Since many were unclear about the purpose of his visit in the first place, they have not tended to question the lack of an assessment report. And on 7/06/11 Mr O’Reilly dismissed its importance saying ‘Assessment is not the be all and end all.’ Of the minority who have seen their final report, most disagree with Dr McIlmoyle’s assessment and made this clear at the Local Inquiry for Section 1. Some farmers were interviewed before they knew the full extent of the land take. When they found this out, a few actually wrote to Dr McIlmoyle to invite him back. Others were angry about the original ‘report’ as it told them nothing they did not know already. He did not reply to either type of letter. It was evident from Dr McIlmoyle’s response to the complaints of Ian McMullan, that he was unaware that the route of the road had changed, bringing it very close to Mr McMullan’s poultry houses and thereby creating serious problems of noise and light. Clearly there were inadequate procedures in place to ensure that where belated changes were made, Dr McIlmoyle was informed and expected to revisit the farms affected by these changes. In such circumstances the accuracy of any report that is not based on a second interview must be questioned.
Derick Donnell has rightly raised the issue of the threat to biosecurity, caused by Roads Service allocating a shared access to a number of farms, which currently have sole access. Dr McIlmoyle generally does not acknowledge that shared access could lead to problems, yet not only is TB testing of livestock a regular and compulsory part of a farmer’s year, but fear of diseases like foot and mouth and blue tongue mean that farmers have to be vigilant and an enforced shared access makes that all the more difficult. This is yet another example of how farmers’ problems tend to be dismissed. The UK has the highest standards for animal welfare in the E U, so surely we have a right to expect all government departments to facilitate that, rather than undermine it?
CONCLUSION
Farmers will bear the heaviest irreversible and permanent losses as a result of this proposed road, since it will not just be the sights and sounds or even the loss of privacy that affect them, but the more important damage to their farm businesses with a loss of land, income and livelihood. It will put an end to sons’ ambitions and chosen careers and for some farmers it will sound the death knell on a way of life. Little wonder then that the agricultural impact assessment has played down the adverse effects as far as possible and farmers have been kept in ignorance of its conclusions for as long as possible. In a province where farming, the mainstay of the agri-food industry is so important to the economy, few care that so much productive land will be vested. Not even the UFU cared enough to come to this Inquiry.
Of course some sympathisers will shrug and indicate that it is a hopeless cause to try to fight what the government wants. But governments change, and circumstances change, so priorities change and that is why it is so important that there are checks and balances and why in a democracy like ours the Roads Service should have adhered to their own professional code of practice and insisted on looking at cheaper alternatives to a dual carriageway, that is not justified by either the traffic statistics or their vague predictions of economic resurgence in the West.
Were those who support the scheme asked to choose between shaving 20 minutes off their journey time, providing they start at Aughnacloy, or having a good hospital near by, or a reliable water supply whatever the weather conditions, or even a reduction in the tax on petrol, I wonder how many would choose the new A5 above all else? And yet this is how the taxpayers’ money is being spent – on a road that is unnecessary while other roads remain more congested than the present A5 ever was. We are spending a minimum of £450 million (more than half the cost and maintenance costs have yet to be added) on a road that will probably benefit the people of Eire more in the long term than it will ever help the people of Tyrone and Londonderry.
Farmers in N Ireland have a right to be treated the same as farmers elsewhere in the UK. The agricultural impact assessment should be as rigorous here as it is in Gt Britain. It is outrageous that anyone could consider that the impact of this road scheme on farmers’ livelihoods could be determined in one 30 minute interview.
No government should be able to squander our agricultural resources as readily as the last proposed to do. The fact that the outdated law on Compulsory Purchase and Compensation makes it cheaper and therefore easier for the government to vest large tracts of land regardless of its productivity deserves attention and reform.
Farmers are businessmen and should have the same rights as other business owners. They should also be entitled to mitigation, not made to feel that they must beg for favours to limit the damage done to their business by a road scheme for which they never asked but which they are expected to subsidise.
The whole process is marked by a failure to have meaningful consultation as is evident in the misunderstandings and false hopes that have already come to light at this Public Inquiry. The process is weighted so much in the government’s favour that it is not surprising that officials at times seem high handed. Even the way the Public Inquiry operates has highlighted the discrepancy between the government’s powers and those of the ordinary citizen, whose home and/or livelihood is threatened by a political decision, which was not driven by public need.
A5WTC Inquiry Wednesday 18th May
SUBMISSION ON THE PROPOSED A5 TO THE PUBLIC INQUIRY ON BEHALF OF THE FARMING COMMUNITY
THE IMPORTANCE OF AGRICULTURE TO N IRELAND by Laura Kwasniewska
Context
‘The agri-food industry is the largest element in Northern Ireland’s private sector and is a huge employer right through the food chain……. It is immensely valuable to the economy and is deeply rooted in the region’s culture.’
(Dr G Armstrong – School of Marketing, Entrepreneurship and Strategy, UU November 2006)
According to DARD the total number of farmers and employees has been falling from 66,312 in 1988 to 46,948 in 2010. There are 19,000 full time employees in food and drinks processing and 64,000 in ancillary services. (Statistics from dard.gov.uk) Employees in meal firms, pet food production and hide and skin processing are all omitted from DARD’s statistics. There are others who depend upon agriculture for their livelihood e.g. engineering works, vets, agricultural suppliers, AI Services, the Agri-Food & Biosciences Institute, staff at CAFRE and QUB as well as DARD’s 2,700 employees.
According to the N Ireland Science Industry Panel (Matrix) the agri-food industry generates £2.4 billion in sales and is a major contributor to our balance of trade. Food and drink processing has become the largest part of N Ireland’s manufacturing sector being the largest contributor to sales, exports and employment (defra.gov.uk). In view of the fact that 90% of N Ireland’s farm produce is sold to the food processing industry, the ‘UK trade deficit in food of over £18 billion represents a significant opportunity for growth in Northern Ireland’s food and drink industry.’
(Goldblatt McGuigan’s Economic Analysis for N Ireland’s Food and Drink Association 2010)
The Government has disregarded the adverse effects on a crucial industry when proposing to build a new A5.
In spite of its proven importance to the regional economy, agriculture will bear the heaviest losses if the proposed A5 scheme is allowed to go ahead. The destruction of nearly 3000 acres of prime farmland represents a significant reduction in output e.g. Tyrone has the biggest proportion of dairy cattle in N Ireland. Many successful dairy farms are affected by the proposed scheme, but, as no aggregate has been provided by Dr McIlmoyle, we can only give a possible estimate i.e. since the average milk yield in 2010 according to DARD was 6900 litres, a loss of even 1000 acres from dairy production would mean a loss of almost 7 million litres of milk. Since the majority of farms affected are dairy farms and most have a higher herd average than 6900 litres, this figure will certainly be much higher. There is no evidence that this proposed road would improve the rural economy, quite the contrary, and yet at a time of recession, we depend more than ever upon our agriculture.
In April 2010 Declan Billington, President of the N Ireland Grain Trade Association (NIGTA) said:
‘Standing in the jaws of one of the severest recessions in history, we have seen the demise of the sunrise industries of the service sector and IT that were to drive the NI economy forward into a brave new world. Yet agriculture, food and drink combined are still growing in this recession. It may not be a sexy industry but agriculture was and always should be a key sector of our economy. Through its exports it continues to inject significant amounts of new money into N Ireland year after year, whilst the other large industries of services, construction and wholesale distribution are only recyclers of the money posted to N Ireland by the Treasury in London.’
Recognition of the importance of agriculture is reflected in the aims of DARD’s Rural Development Programme for 2007-2013, which in turn echoes the aims of the EU Common Agricultural Policy. This focuses on improving:
a) the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector
b) the environment and the countryside
c) the quality of life in rural areas and diversification of the rural economy.
There is no way the destruction of 3000 acres of good farmland can help make the industry more competitive and improve the quality of life of the farming families affected. The proposed road scheme of the DRD therefore runs counter to DARD and EU policy and highlights the lack of coherence in government thinking. Those farmers who lose land will be unable to rely on the availability of other land to purchase in their neighbourhood, so that they can readily replace that which they have lost. There will be no quick fix solution to their predicament. This is not like losing your home in suburbia. Instead, they will have to reduce stock, which inevitably means reduced income. Some who stand to lose one third to one half of their farm will conclude that it is no longer viable and leave farming. Those whose farms are severed by the road face additional problems of access to what is left of their farm, including the necessity to make longer journeys to and from their fields and thereby incur higher fuel costs. Those who lose grazing land near their farms will be forced out of dairy farming and expensive buildings and equipment will be rendered redundant. All this for a road that is neither necessary nor justified according to Road Service’s own statistics. Instead of productive land there will be tarmac and drainage ponds.
There is no evidence that the Minister for Agriculture, M Gildernew ever opposed the scheme despite her commitment to the N Ireland Strategy Plan for the Implementation of the EU Rural Development Regulation, which states ‘a dynamic agri-food sector is vital to the success of the rural N Ireland economy in the 21st century.’ (Annex 5, p19) A strong agri-food sector is also crucial to the survival of future generations, which is why productive land should be conserved, not wasted on a road which is superfluous to our needs.
The 2001 Regional Development Strategy included among its strategic planning guidelines the need ‘to create an accessible countryside with a responsive transport network that meets the needs of the rural community.’ The proposed A5 does not meet the needs of the rural community but the political needs of the government. Even the name of the road, Western Transport Corridor, together with the limited number of access points underline the fact that this road is not intended to meet the needs of the local rural community. Our needs will be met by upgrading the present A5 with the greater provision of passing lanes. A dual carriageway is unnecessary.
In the EU Community Strategic Guidelines for Rural Development 2006 it states: ‘Member states are encouraged to support……
(ii) preserving the farmed landscape and forests. In Europe, much of the valued rural environment is the product of agriculture….. In many areas, this is an important part of the cultural and natural heritage and of the overall attractiveness of rural areas as places in which to live and work.’
If this proposal is allowed to go ahead, areas of natural beauty will be destroyed, despite DARD’s commitment to conservation: ‘The government has a key role to play in the conservation of N Ireland’s countryside and natural heritage.’ (Key Aim 2 of the Rural Strategy, p24) We are told also that: ‘Examples of a public good in the rural arena include attractive landscapes and biodiversity.’ For years farmers have had to comply with an increasing number of regulations such as those relating to farm effluents and nitrates in order to protect the environment and 79 of the farms affected are in the Countryside Management Scheme, yet the politicians can undo all this work with the decision to drive a major but superfluous road project through virgin countryside and wildlife habitats. Even though ‘The protection of High Nature Value (HNV) farmland systems is one of the Commission’s strategic guidelines for the period 2007-2013’ (Annex 5), the proposed road will affect farms that fall within two of the three land categories which deliver important biodiversity benefits i.e. organic farms and those affected by the Habitats and the Birds’ Directives. Furthermore, in recognition that agriculture is a major contributor to nitrous oxide emissions and climate change, DARD encourages farmers to adopt min till when reseeding or planting. Yet this project will involve earth movement on a massive scale without any consideration of the increased nitrous oxide emissions. Can DRD put a figure on this?
Yet another example of the DRD’s failure to consider all relevant factors when promoting this road scheme, is that of renewable energy. In its Strategy Plan DARD stresses that agriculture has ‘a central role to play in the development of renewable energy as a practical and economic alternative to fossil fuels.’ (Annex 5, p25) The proposed new road will go through a number of drumlins. Farmers who might have considered having a wind turbine will now be denied the opportunity to diversify.
DARD has repeatedly stressed the need to attract more young people into farming, yet here is a project that will render some family farms unviable and force sons or daughters to find employment elsewhere. In no way can the Department claim that the quality of life for these families is being improved. On the contrary the wanton destruction of productive land will cause displacement, lead to the loss of jobs in related industries, and impact unfavourably on the environment and on rural communities.
WHY WE NEED A NEW AGRICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The Agricultural Impact Assessment is inadequate, not fit for purpose and should be withdrawn and done again for the following reasons:
1. Given the importance of agriculture in both the local and regional economy, the Impact Assessment is ridiculously brief – eight pages compared to twenty four for Cultural Heritage and the information provided would fit into just four.
2. Though the criteria used to assess the impact was provided, there was no mention of how many farms were in each category. This information was put separately in Appendix 15 at the end of the Environmental Report though its logical place was directly after the list of criteria. Furthermore, the farmers are not named but allocated a number rendering this data ‘inaccessible’ as one land agent said. The explanation that this was done in the interests of individual privacy is unconvincing. Every farmer within ten miles knows who is affected slightly or badly.
3. Though Dr McIlmoyle had access to the information he did not provide a summary showing e.g. how many dairy farms were affected, how many organic farms, how many in the Countryside Management Scheme and how many were affected by the Habitats Directives. This omission ensures that the full impact of this proposed road remains unknown.
4. The individual reports sent to landowners do not include an assessment of the impact, contrary to the claim made by Dr McIlmoyle on page 4. The reports merely provide details of the farm and stock and a description of the photographs taken, though the farmer did not need to be told what he/she already knew. This is followed by standard descriptions of the Single Farm Payment, Nitrates Directive, Countryside Management Scheme and LFACAS. Without these inclusions the reports would be halved in length. Presumably the information has been copied and pasted into every report to make each seem more important to the reader. Moreover, the section on the Nitrates Directive is incorrect in that it does not refer to a third alternative i.e. derogation.
5. However, an assessment is provided in Appendix 15. Unfortunately, farmers have not received this assessment, so have not seen it and are unable to comment on its accuracy at the Public Inquiry, which is now in its second week. Instead the assessment has been sent to the various land agents. I contend that in the interests of fairness, openness and transparency as well as courtesy it should have been sent months ago to the farmer who is the person most affected by the proposed scheme, so that he could be afforded every opportunity to discuss Dr Mc Ilmoyle’s findings with him and have any errors amended before publication. Surely that is part of the consultation process. It is already evident that there are errors and that some farmers would strongly disagree with Dr McIlmoyle’s judgement regarding the degree of adverse impact. Dr McIlmoyle concluded that there are 67 farms that are moderately affected, including some that are severed by the proposed road and 52 that are substantially affected. The remainder, in his opinion, are only slightly affected. He did not visit all of these, so how can we be sure he is right? It is not clear whether all farms are included in Appendix 15. If a farmer refused to be interviewed, was his farm omitted? If a farmer was interviewed before he knew the full extent of the land take then that also distorts the evidence.
6. The omission of any assessment of the overall impact on farm income or farm profit means the task is incomplete. Farms are businesses and have to generate a profit, so failure to include this key aspect suggests that the purpose of the exercise was to minimise the adverse effects of the proposed road and thereby reduce compensation payments.
7. Likewise, the decision to omit conacre from the assessment is grossly unfair and also seems designed to minimise the effects of the proposed road. Many farmers depend on conacre either for extra silage or for grazing, so conacre contributes to production and income and its exclusion ‘since there is no security of tenure’ is wrong. A lot of mutually beneficial conacre arrangements last for more than ten years which is longer than governments last, yet we appear to be bound by the actions of these temporary governments. Conacre tenants deserve consideration here. We were told on Friday that one third of all the land in N Ireland is rented as conacre, so its omission from this assessment is presumably intended to reduce compensation payments. Yet many farmers have to rely on conacre when there is no land for sale locally, and even if there was, there is no guarantee that they would be able to buy it.
8. One of the assessment criteria needs to be revised i.e. ‘Little or no agricultural impact to the landowner as the land is rented out in conacre’. So, first we are told that conacre land ‘was not considered as being affected by the proposals’ so tenants could not seek compensation for their loss, and here we find the landowner also is supposedly unaffected even though, in the long term, conacre provides a reliable income for him or her. There is also an underlying assumption that the landowner will always wish to rent out his land, whereas a change in circumstances or landowner may bring a change in land use. Again the criteria seem designed to minimise impact in order to reduce compensation.
This Impact Assessment is so lacking in thoroughness and rigour that it suggests that the task turned up evidence which was so damaging that the details had to be minimised and rendered difficult to access.
THE INCONSIDERATE TREATMENT OF FARMERS
From the outset the government’s representatives have shown a lack of understanding, together with insensitivity and a desire to manipulate the outcome of the consultation process to their advantage.
1. At one of the first public meetings in the Silver Birch Hotel Pat Doherty told farmers that they would be no better off but also they would be no worse off as a result of this proposed road. Such a comment reveals not only the assumption that the compensation will not be generous, but also shows a total lack of understanding of the importance of land that has been owned by a family for more than a century. The loss of even five acres, never mind 40 or more, is always a hardship and no amount of compensation will ever compensate for the reduction of the family farm that most farmers hope to pass on intact or, better still, in an improved and enlarged form.
2. Mr Edwards could not recall how many acres were to be taken up by this scheme, presumably because it was an unimportant detail for him. Mr Loughrey considered the cost of moving businesses along the present A5 would be too high, so farms can bear the brunt instead, as they are denied adequate compensation that would also cover the loss of production and income for two generations. Farms are clearly treated unfavourably compared to businesses, yet farms are businesses too and what is proposed for too many of them by Roads Service is the equivalent of bulldozing the central section of a factory or a Tesco superstore.
3. Many farmers were unclear about the purpose of Dr McIlmoyle’s visit and his report would not have enlightened them. While some farmers had over a week’s notice of his visit, others had only hours. None had a professional representative with them during the visit which, given the implications for compensation, would have been advisable. The minority who did ask if they should have a representative like their land agent present, were all told it was unnecessary.
4. Insensitivity was shown to those who are hit hardest by letting them find out about the effects at a public meeting. It would have been courtesy to have paid these families a visit and broken the bad tidings in private.
5. Many farmers have complained about the lack of communication. There were more Public Exhibition meetings held for the A4 than the much bigger A5 project. Farmers affected by the A4 proposal had the opportunity to mull over the details and go back for a second look. Several farmers were not consulted about the effects of the proposed A5. Letters have not been answered, issues in the written submission have been blandly dismissed or addressed in such general terms that they were meaningless. The practice of sending documents to the land agent means that the farmers may not have seen the response to their complaints. I know of at least one farmer who had his submission rejected, possibly because he mentioned otters on his land. Some farmers had still not received the documentation for this Public Inquiry before it commenced. None are aware of Dr McIlmoyle’s Impact Assessment for their individual farm and at least a few would disagree with him. Some are still unsure what the land take will be. The many farmers who would have a problem of access remain ignorant of the decision on mitigation and how or if their problems will be solved. All of these complaints should have been addressed before the Public Inquiry. The fact that they were not suggests that farmers have been deliberately kept in ignorance, so that their protests here are muted.
6. We have been constantly reminded that this proposal has the weight of not one but two governments behind it. This is how the Roads Service has justified their failure to adhere to their own professional code of practice. Politicians and civil servants have talked of the road going ahead while the consultation process is still underway. The Minister for Agriculture, M Gildernew wrote in February 2010: ‘We will help farm businesses to adapt once it is confirmed how and when they will be affected.’ Even the Inspectors at this Public Inquiry reflect this attitude with Mr Chambers prefacing a question to Roads Service last Tuesday afternoon with the words ‘When this road is built…….’, while Mr Gillespie on Friday afternoon said: ‘We are not empowered to say the government is wrong.’ So what has happened to the democratic process and governments’ accountability? The determination to push ahead regardless of how many livelihoods are damaged has been deeply worrying and some admit to losing heart. There is a consensus with the view that ‘they were determined to do what they wanted to do and my objections did not really matter’. Farmers have been living with the threat of this road for two years, unable to make plans for new buildings or even reseeding since the investment might all be wasted. One farmer’s wife admitted that the prospect of losing their farm meant she felt unable to enjoy the preparations for her daughter’s wedding next month.
7. Confident that they had the power of the government behind this proposal, employees of both Road Service and Mouchel were not always considerate when carrying out their duties e.g.
a) There were not one but four acts of trespass on one farm that is accessed by a private road.
b) One farmer was wrongly accused of assault on an employee of Mouchel.
c) A cow broke her leg in one of their bore holes.
d) They ignored requests to give forewarning of a visit and turned up unannounced.
e) Their vehicles badly marked soft ground despite assurances before entry that they would use mats.
8. They also showed a lack of sympathy and understanding of the practical problems that the proposed road would create e.g.
a) The closure of a minor road close to the Ferguson farm will mean all traffic will have to use the narrow and hilly Tullanafoile road. This is impassable at times in the winter, yet the farmers need their milk collected at least every other day.
b) The suggested solution to the problem of severance on several dairy farms was to take the herd by a longer route, as much as an extra half mile. This journey would have to be made four times a day. Any farmer could tell them that Holstein cows are as well known for their foot problems as they are for high milk yields. However the latter will also suffer if cows are expected to walk too far.
c) At least one Ballygawley farm, that has already been affected by the A4, will be rendered unviable if the proposed A5 goes ahead.
d) Though the road would take up essential grazing land forcing the Matthews family to rely more on their fields on the opposite side of the present A5, their request for an underpass has to date been refused, even though the problem is not of their making.
e) No consideration has been shown to organic farmers or those with protected species on their land despite their farms’ designation as High Nature Value. Indeed no reference was even made to HNV in Dr McIlmoyle’s Impact Assessment.
f) Not only are many farmers losing some of their best fields, but they also have concerns about how the drainage from the roads and especially the ponds will affect their adjoining land. These concerns were not addressed in Dr McIlmoyle’s reports.
CONCLUSION
Despite the importance of agriculture to the N Ireland economy as well as the local economy, the proposal to build a new A5 through virgin countryside has shown clearly how little farmers are valued and how few rights they have.
The DRD proposal directly contravenes a host of DARD and EU CAP policies but this has not mattered. M Gildernew responded to one anxious farmer who expects to lose over 70 acres by saying: ‘I have every confidence that the very real concerns highlighted in your letter will be addressed in the consultation process currently taking place…. You should ensure your concerns are made known to the consultants involved in carrying out the EIA and at any Public Inquiry that may take place.’ The farmer in question has already been asked to postpone his representations to this Inquiry, so much for ensuring that the most serious cases are prioritised.
In fact there has been little meaningful consultation. Farmers have generally been told, sometimes belatedly, what is going to happen to their farms. Their problems have not been detailed in Dr McIlmoyle’s reports and in a minority of cases they did not have the full facts when interviewed by him. Likewise they have been let down by the so-called consultation process that failed to ensure they had time to discuss Dr McIlmoyle’s Impact Assessment and have it amended before the Public Inquiry started. The criteria used for that Assessment is flawed. It denies all farmers the natural justice to which they are entitled as it excludes the effect on farm income and the effect on those relying on conacre.
No doubt Road Service and DRD will respond that it is only 3000 acres out of 900,000 but not all of the 900,000 acres are as productive as these 3000. Successful farm businesses will be rendered unviable in order to build a road that is superfluous to our needs. The proclaimed economic benefits are merely expressions of hope as there is no evidence that they will materialise, whereas the economic disadvantages to both farm businesses and businesses along the A5 from Aughnacloy to Newbuildings are very real and already apparent in Ballygawley.
There are strong environmental, financial and economic reasons why this road should never be built, but the government also needs to consider the long term implications of food security for future generations. Food will always be a more pressing need than speed.
Submission by Friends of the Earth
Introduction
1. Friends of the Earth is a leading non-governmental organisation promoting
sustainable development and environmental justice in Northern Ireland. We want a
healthy planet and a good quality of life for all those who live on it.
2. The objections made in this submission elaborate on the submission made in an
earlier letter to the Department on 21 January 2011. Our objections in this submission
specifically relate to five key areas of concern - traffic forecasts and peak oil; traffic
and economics; economics, carbon and climate change; unsustainable development
and skewed transport investment; structural bias in the Inquiry process. Friends of the
Earth also wish to record their support for many other objections to the scheme,
particularly those of the Alternative A5 Alliance, An Taisce and Plan Better.
Traffic Forecasts and Peak Oil
3. The traffic forecasts have no doubt been prepared in line with standard technical
guidance. However the A5WTC is a non-standard scheme.
4. The attraction of the new route over the existing route is not the avoidance of
congestion but simply the provision of a faster parallel road. The consultants have
assumed that drivers will switch from the old more direct route and be content to drive
at the speed limit, ie 70mph on the new road. However, we estimate that this will
increase their fuel consumption by almost 20% and do not believe that drivers will
continue to make the same choices as fuel prices continue to rise. In the absence of
any detail or confirmation from the consultants we believe that the traffic forecasts for
the scheme, especially in later years, are overstated and hence the benefits
overstated.
5. Peak Oil refers to the situation when global oil supplies reach a peak, following which
oil supplies decrease and never rise again. Leading geophysicists predict that the
peak is either occurring or will occur by 2014. Meanwhile demand for oil is still
increasing. In simple terms, Peak Oil forces us to look at the world differently.
6. The UK's Energy Research Centre Report on Global Oil Depletion states:(1)
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-index.php?page=Home "A peak in conventional oil
production before 2030 appears likely and there is a significant risk of a peak before
2020. Given the lead times required to both develop substitute fuels and improve
energy efficiency, this risk needs to be given serious consideration". The International
Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook report in April 2011; (2)
http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=29 addresses this issue in chapter three
entitled "Oil Scarcity, Growth, and Global Imbalances". The report considers the
policy implications of peak oil: "Fundamentally, there are two broad areas for action.
First, given the potential for unexpected increases in the scarcity of oil and other
resources, policymakers should review whether current policy frameworks facilitate
adjustment to unexpected changes in oil scarcity. Second, consideration should be
given to policies aimed at lowering the risk of oil scarcity, including through the
development of sustainable alternative sources of energy."
7. Friends of the Earth consider it irresponsible in the extreme of the Department for
Regional Development to fail to address the issue of Peak Oil and to fail to plan for a
transition away from cheap oil. In attempting to calculate 60 year economic benefits for
the scheme, the Department must review its assessments for Northern Ireland based
on the likelihood of energy resources available to Northern Ireland.
Traffic and Economics
8. The Department states that the scheme will assist the economic development of the
north-west yet its consultants have confirmed that their analyses have assumed no
additional growth in traffic due to the scheme. These two views are in direct conflict
and represent a 'cherry-picking' approach in highlighting the advantages whilst
ignoring the disadvantages.
9. If the scheme is a 'success' and travel time is saved, then existing companies located
in the corridor will work more profitably. We do not believe that it is the government's
intention that these companies simply pocket the gain in profitability - rather it is the
intention that they will re-invest their profits in creating more jobs or doing more
business. It is inconceivable that this increase in business will not lead to an increase
in traffic. However, this is what has been assumed by the consultants - presumably to
ensure that the economic time savings of the scheme are maximised and the
environmental disbenefits minimised.
10. The consultants conclude that the total road user benefits of the scheme, totalled over
60 years, are over £850million. But again this calculation is selective and does not
take account of the loss of productivity in the farms whose businesses will be affected.
Economics, Carbon and Climate Change
11. The consultants have estimated the value of the additional carbon due to CO2
emissions as a disbenefit of £10 million over 60 years. We can find no estimates of
carbon emissions in the published reports but have back-calculated (from the
Department for Transport's value methodology) that this equates to 4,000 tonnes of
carbon emitted per year. The consultants have confirmed that they are not using the
most up to date valuation for carbon. We have used the latest valuation and estimate
that the disbenefit will more than double to almost £26 million. Whilst the consultants
consider this to be a small sum in the calculation of total benefits, it is a substantial sum in the eyes of Northern Ireland taxpayers in general and opponents of the scheme in particular.
12. The consultants argue that whilst the scheme is a 'net contributor' to carbon emissions
that it should still be progressed, as other plans, strategies and development projects
can contribute the required carbon reductions. However, this argument fails to take
account the substantial scale of the additional carbon emissions created by the
scheme and the high level aim of the draft Regional Transportation Strategy which is "
to reduce the environmental impact of transport" and the strategic objectives "reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from transport".
13. The Nl Executive is committed to reducing carbon emissions by 25 per cent on 1990
levels by 2025. Assuming transport was to share the load it would have to reduce
from approximately 4.5 million tonnes of CO2 in 2008 to 2.4 million tonnes CO2 in
2025. This is a tall order and the scheme's additional annual 15,000 tonnes CO21 will
clearly not assist.
14. Or to put it another way, the scheme will generate an additional 4,000 tonnes of
carbon approximately each year. Yet this is almost four times the saving in carbon
(1.1168 ktC) generated by the Department's Nl-wide Travelwise scheme in 2005 as
reported in the Nl Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan.
15.1 wish to repeat the statement in our earlier submission: "Northern Ireland faces a significant transport challenge with regard to surface transport being responsible for a higher proportion of emissions than other parts of the UK. The main source of greenhouse gas emissions is transport and transport emissions have increased by 38.8% since the 1990 base year, whereas all other sectors have seen a decreasing trend in emissions since the 1990 base year. This road proposal will further contribute to this significant adverse trend, contrary to government policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions".
Unsustainable Development and Skewed Transport Investment
16. Investment in the A5WTC can only be made at the expense of essential investment
elsewhere in our transport infrastructure. This fact has been borne out in the
consultation responses prepared in response to the Draft Budget released in January
20112. This scheme discriminates against the old, the young, disabled and the
disadvantaged by prejudicing public transport options for these section 75 groups.
17. Whilst many of the consultation respondents welcomed investment in transport
infrastructure in general they spoke out against the current investment in the A5 WTC.
That was because expenditure on the A5 would cut essential spending on:
a. Roads Service's road maintenance;
1 1.0 tonne of carbon is equivalent to approximately 3.7 tonne of CO2
|
2 Responses available at http://www.drdni.gov.uk/index/responses-to-drd-draft-budget-2011-15- |
2 Responses available at http://www.drdni.gov.Uk/i
consultation-and-equality-impact-assessment.htm
b. Roads Service's local transport and safety measures including improved walking
and cycling facilities;
c. Translink's support for local bus services;
d. Support for rural transport, community transport and transport for people with
disabilities; and
e. Roads Service's schemes which have passed all statutory processes including
Public Inquiry such as A2 Greenisland.
18. If the A5WTC is constructed it will clearly devastate Roads Service's maintenance,
cycling and local transport and safety measures. This is simply not acceptable and
flies in the face of an objective of sustainable development. Indeed it is in direct
conflict with the recommendations of the Chartered Institution of Highways and
Transportation (CIHT)3 - a learned society concerned specifically with the planning,
design, construction, maintenance and operation of land-based transport systems and
infrastructure.
19. The government's commitment to sustainable development is contained within the
draft Regional Transportation Strategy, the draft Regional Development Strategy and
is one of two over arching themes in the Programme for Government. This is
interpreted in a suite of statements by the previous Ministers for Regional
Development and government policy as requiring greater investment in public
transport. Against a backdrop where 35% of spending was to be spent on public
transport, according to the Regional Transportation Strategy (2002 - 2012), and yet
only 19% materialised, the Department is already failing in its commitments.
Sustainable development requires the balancing of social, economic and
environmental considerations. Yet the proposed A5WTC will create significant social
exclusion, environmental damage and economic stagnation.
20. Under the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2005 a legal public duty is
placed on government departments to pursue sustainable development, namely, "a
public authority must, in exercising its functions act in a way it considers best
calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in Northern
Ireland." By contravening this legislative duty it is submitted that the Department is
acting unlawfully in pursuing this scheme.
Structural Bias in the Inquiry Process
21. There is an inherent structural bias within this Inquiry process because it may fail to
take into account wider strategic legal and policy imperatives and is weighted heavily
against objectors. (I wish to emphasise that these comments are not related to the
bona fides of the inspectors.)
22. Traditionally road inquiries in Northern Ireland have failed to give due weight to what
may be described as wider planning matters and focussed instead on narrow 'road'
matters deemed to be of relevance to Roads Service. The legislation which contains
the provisions enabling the Department to hold an Inquiry in connection with the
exercise of its functions is the Roads (Nl) Order 1993 which was enacted before the
emergence of modern policy challenges and legislative changes. Friends of the Earth
is seeking an assurance that European legislation transposed into Northern Ireland (for example, Directive 92/43/EEC - the Habitats Directive; Directive 2009/147 and Directive 79/409/EEC as amended - the Birds Directive; Directive 2001/42/EC - the SEA Directive; Directive 85/337/EEC the EIA Directive) are given proper standing. Furthermore, we contend that government policies and relevant legislation relating to climate change, environmental protection, floodplain management and the strategic balance between public and private transport are important material considerations in the determination of this inquiry.
23. The lack of parity in resources is disturbing. Best practice and rules of fairness, for example under the Aarhus convention, are not served in an Inquiry with such a dramatic resource bias in favour of the Department. In the Inspector's report in the North West Transport Corridor Toome to Castledawson Inquiry in 2007, Inspector Robb referred to the feeling of intimidation, the considerable financial burden on objectors and that residents affected by a road scheme can feel "their identify is under threat". He stated that it was valid that when Departmental lawyers are paid by public taxes that this imbalance should be redressed by having resources extended to objectors. He recommended that all objectors should have access to legal representation funded by the taxpayer and that the Department funds appropriate professional support. The fact that this has not happened confirms a sense of unfairness, predetermination and bias in this Inquiry
Conclusion
24. I wish to repeat comments in our earlier submission: "Alternatives to the scheme exist
and have not been adequately assessed in the Environmental Statement. These
alternatives include strengthening bus services, improving the existing road and the
strengthening of the rail industry....any sustainable transport plan within current
government priories must attempt to resolve and address current government priorities
of: reducing carbon emissions; supporting economic development; promoting equality
of opportunity; contributing to improved safety and health; improving the quality of life
and delivering a healthy natural environment. An assessment of the policy and
legislative context for this proposal must therefore conclude that there are
overwhelming reasons for refusing to give consent for this scheme."
25. The A5WTC is an unaffordable vainglorious scheme, devoid of any rational
justification. If consented, its legacy will be to push the whole of Northern Ireland on a
road towards economic decline, climate irresponsibility, Peak Oil denial and social
injustice.
3 CIHT Response available at
http://www.drdni.gov.uk/the_chartered_institution_of_highways______ transportation, pdf
A5WTC Inquiry - Monday 16th May
Below is Bill Donnelly's evidence with regard to the 'poison rock' which may be coming to a field near you.
It is a fact that the Cavanacaw Goldmine near Omagh produces primarily lead and only small quantities of gold, in fact it produces up to 1800 times more lead than gold, it is more of a lead mine than a Goldmine by far, an open cast lead mine to be exact.
For years Goldmine employees have been speaking openly about their intention to supply the A5 with waste rock from the mine, and it is widely accepted locally that this is indeed their intention. I have searched the internet thoroughly and have been unable to find a single case where waste rock from a lead mine has been used for road building anywhere in Western Europe.
The 1993 Goldmine public enquiry made clear that the mine site would become an area contaminated with heavy metals and warned of the dangers of dust contamination even of the surrounding fields.
Dr Stuart Jaggers, a toxicologist who gave evidence at the Enquiry, warned that the dust created by the mine could be of danger not just to those employed there, but to those living in the vicinity. He said that the heavy metals emanating from the site, including lead, cadmium and arsenic could, if inadequately monitored and controlled, lead to the ruination of grazing land, and then the contamination of meat and milk. The resulting environmental statement set out in detail how the waste rock from the mine was to be stored on site minimising danger to the public and the environment.
Back in 2008, ignoring the contamination warnings of the Enquiry, and also ignoring the Environmental Statement’s requirement that the waste rock was to be stored on site, Planning Service allowed the unauthorised removal of up to half a million tons of waste rock, which was used in the building of the Auchnacloy bypass, possibly one of the biggest environmental crimes in the history of Northern Ireland. They were well aware that the Goldmine was a contaminated area, and that no planning permission for the large scale removal of rock for road building existed.
Roads Service facilitated this unauthorised rock removal by producing a road haulage management plan for up to 145 trucks per day around the mine site. (290 truck movements per day that is)
This unauthorised rock removal now forms part of a complaint against Planning Service currently being investigated by the Northern Ireland Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is also investigating an array of other possible planning breaches by the company.
Local residents, opposed to the transport of this dubious material past their homes, have encountered, we believe, an appalling lack of integrity and trustworthiness on the part of officials from various departments, people who have responsibility for the stewardship of our environment and the protection of the public, the same people who I fear will be charged with policing the findings of this Public Enquiry and the terms of the A5 Environmental Statement.
Planning Service recently recommended approval of planning application K/2008/0995/F, which if approved, will allow the removal of a further million tons of rock from the mine. This time a proper road haulage management plan from Roads Service wasn’t produced, as indeed it should have been as part of their planning consultation, presumably they already knew what the outcome would be, IE: that “the minor roads around the site are narrow and have limited potential for the regular movement of heavy loads”, exactly as it says in the environmental statement, which should have required them to recommend refusal of the application.
This application proposes to increase the number of truck movements around the mine from two expected movements per day, to 200 movements per day on these minor roads.
You’d have thought that if anybody in Northern Ireland would have concerns about the removal of a vast quantity of waste rock from a heavy metals contaminated area for road building, it would have been the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, but apparently not, under FOI, residents were sent a copy of their consultation response to the planning application, unbelievably The Environment Agency hadn’t even mentioned the contamination issue in their approval recommendation. Unsurprisingly no official had put their name to it.
Recently residents have asked most of the key officials from Roads Service, Planning Service, and the Environment Agency if they have any knowledge of any plans to use rock from the mine in the building of the A5, and as yet none of them have admitted to having any. I would suggest that these officials are well aware of these plans but are seeking to keep this information out of the public domain at least until after this enquiry. Even the Minister for Regional Development Conor Murphy is dodging the question.
It is, in my opinion, inconceivable that we have a planning application to remove a million tons of rock from a contaminated mine, an application supported by Planning Service, Roads Service, and the Environment agency, and the officials concerned haven’t a clue about where this material is going. Let’s put this into perspective - we are not talking about a couple of truck loads here, we are talking about perhaps a hundred truck loads per day, every day for a year.
Roads Service can tell us definitively that during the construction phase, there will be 50 truck movements per day for a year at the northern end of the mine at Gillygooly, and another 50 at the southern end at Clanabogan, a total of 36000 truck movements in the vicinity of the mine, and they still can’t tell us if the material in them will be coming from the mine or not. It simply doesn’t stack up.
Finally there can be no justification for Roads Service spending a huge amount of public money on producing an environmental statement for the A5, while ignoring the Goldmine environmental statement, and equally, there can be no justification for them spending another huge amount of public money on this Public Enquiry, if it is prepared to ignore the findings of the Goldmine Public Enquiry.
If this enquiry has is to have any credibility, then the evidence of independent experts like Dr Jagers and Dr Chambers from the 1993 Goldmine enquiry must be respected; this Enquiry must help ensure that not an ounce of rock from the Cavanacaw Goldmine is ever used in the building of the A5, or hopefully any other road.
Press Release for 13th May regarding submission from the National Trust for Ireland
Please note attribution is An Taisce
A5 dual carriageway proposal does not meet European law An Taisce tells inquiry:
Insufficient data is available to the public inquiry for permission to validly be given for the proposed A5 dual carriageway, and a decision to progress the project would not comply with European legal requirements, An Taisce, the National Trust for Ireland, has told the public inquiry into the project which is taking place outside Omagh.
The background work required – including surveys of protected species - is insufficient and should have been completed already, the National Trust for Ireland told the hearing.
Insufficient data has been presented on protected species such as otters and kingfishers to allow a valid decision to be made under European law.
Protected species
Surveys undertaken for otters are particularly inadequate. Also, derogation licences required to legally authorise impacting on otter habitat must be sought in advance of any consent for the development, and this does not appear to have been done, An Taisce told the inquiry.
Even the background information needed to seek these derogations licences (to impact species such otter, protected under Annex IV of the Habitats Directive) does not appear to have been done in the first place.
The scheme as presented at public inquiry falls short of European Law as clarified by the European Court of Justice in (case c-183/05) the Lough Rynn case, a 2007 judgement which found against the Republic of Ireland.
Surveys of kingfishers – again a protected species – are also deficient. Developers of large scale projects cannot try and first get permission for a project saying they plan to make up for inadequate surveys afterwards, and consent authorities cannot write in conditions granting permission saying that such inadequacies be completed afterwards. Instead the survey work must be undertaken beforehand, An Taisce told the inquiry, saying this has been fully clarified by the European Court. To do otherwise runs fundamentally contrary to the purpose of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, which requires impacts to be assessed in advance of consent so that developments with unacceptable impacts to the environment can be avoided.
Other deficiencies:
Due to a wide range of deficiencies in the information presented to the inquiry it is now impossible for a valid decision to emerge from the process, An Taisce told the inquiry.
The status of a number of Natura 2000 sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directive also does not appear to have been properly considered by the applicant.
Such developments are required to consider transboundary impacts and both Northern Ireland and the Republic have obligations to conserve sites of the Natura 2000 network, regardless of which jurisdiction they lie in when considering proposals under the European directive governing Environmental Impact Assessment.
Obligations within process misconstrued
An Taisce also highlighted that the documentation submitted by the developer – here, the Roads Service of Northern Ireland – is a component element of the environmental impact assessment - which is a process, ultimately undertaken by the consent authority in compliance with Article 3 of the EIA directive. However, The Roads Service appears to be under some confusion in this regard, stating in their EIS documentation that: “The findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Proposed Scheme have been reported in the A5 Western Transport Corridor Environmental Statement”, which begs the question as to what they consider the hearing and consent authority are required to do.
This contention is clearly wrong in law and suggests Roads Service fundamentally misconstrued its obligations, and a number of other concerns of a similar nature were highlighted. It is significant that just this year a decision of the European Court of Justice also found the Republic of Ireland's approach to EIA non-compliant on a number of elements (Commission v. Ireland, case c-50/09).
In making its submission An Taisce relied on decisions of the European court including the Commission v Ireland (c-183/05, 11th Jan 2007); Commission v Ireland (c-50/09), Commission v France (c-374/98) “Basses-Corbieres”, Commission v Spain (c-355/90), Commission v UK (c-44/ 95) “Lappel Bank”, Commission v Germany (c 57/89) “the Leybucht Dykes case”.
A5WTC Inquiry 12th May
Submission on Climate Change
(Reference documents http://www.ark.ac.uk/publications/books/fio/05_fio-transport.pdf and http://www.ark.ac.uk/publications/books/fio/06_fio-environment.pdf)
On April12th this year the Mary Robinson Foundation and Oxfam Ireland received a delegation from Climate Wise Women at Trinity College Dublin. These women from Carteret Island in the South Pacific and from Uganda came to tell their stories about Climate Change:
The Carteret atoll has been severely eroding and submerging steadily in the last few decades. Severe storms, wave surges and other extreme weather events consistent with climate change prediction are making the atoll uninhabitable. Ursula Rakova explained how arrangements are being made to evacuate the 1,500 islanders.
There are no seasons any more in eastern Uganda. Before, we had two harvests every year, but now there's no pattern. Floods like we've never seen came and swept up everything. It rained and rained until all the land was soaked and our houses were submerged in the water. This forced us to move to higher ground, where we sought refuge. By the time we came back home, all the houses had collapsed, our granaries were destroyed and food was washed away. The remaining crops were rotten, and our food was no more.
Constance Okollet requests - that the leaders of the rich countries take action to reduce their carbon emissions so that they can look forward to rains to plant their crops without having to face floods that wash them away.
We belong to that group of ‘rich countries’ and yet this proposed road project ignores this request.
I quote from the DRD response to my objection-
‘It is acknowledged that the A5 WTC as a component of wider policies would be one of the projects contributing to an increase in emissions.’
So are the far away people of the world the only ones affected by climate change? Do the people of NI not have to worry about it? Do we live on a different planet?
No! ARK publication ‘Figuring it Out’ tells us:
- 9 of the 15 warmest years recorded since 1841 have occurred since 1990;
- The average sea level is now about 10 cms higher than it was in 1900;
- Over 40,000 properties are currently at risk of river flooding.
And yet 84% of journeys to work in NI are taken by private car. Why is this? A poorly developed public transport system is one of the main factors here in the west. Basically – we have no choice.
On May 14th 2008 Mr Murphy, our then DRD minister said:
“We need to move away from the ‘predict and provide’ transport planning philosophy of the past. The planned development and proper maintenance of our road network must be seen as only part of an integrated transport strategy.
“Only by providing adequate levels of investment can we create a quality public transport network that will encourage motorists to abandon their cars and take the bus or train in significant enough numbers to reduce commuting times and benefit business and the economy.
And has this new philosophy been pursued by Mr Murphy and the DRD?
Apparently not. ‘Figuring it out’, in it’s chapter on transport and travel tells us:
The Northern Ireland Regional Transportation Strategy (2002-2012) forms the basis of government transport policy. The vision as set out in the strategy is to:
“....have a modern, sustainable, safe transportation system which benefits society, the economy and the environment and which actively contributes to social inclusion and everyone’s quality of life.”
And yet what has actually transpired:
The Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland has allocated £612 million for investment in the road network up to 2011 and £195 million for public transport. Over the ten years of the Investment strategy (up to 2018) the ratio is 81% of spending on roads against 19% on public transport. This ratio of road to public transport spending differs from that which was put forward in the Regional Transportation Strategy (2002-2012), where 35% of spending was to be allocated to public transport.
The report continues:
… It is unlikely that any of the measures aimed at reducing car usage will be effective until alternatives are in place.
To date the main response within Northern Ireland to congestion problems has been to build new roads and improve existing ones. Critics argue that this is a very short-term solution given the past and anticipated future increase in car ownership. The Sub-Regional Transport Plan (2015) acknowledges the difficulties facing people living in rural areas who do not have access to a car.
So it seems that although there is a lot of talk about reducing the output of GHG from transport by providing improved public transport, DRD policy is failing to put it’s money where it’s mouth is.
Despite the fact that sea levels are rising not just around Carteret Island but here too, the DRD proposes to build a monster road through the Foyle valley flood plain. Despite the fact that weather patterns are changing here as well as in Uganda the DRD is determined to encourage people to increase private car usage by building another road through our precious carbon sink – the fields and woodlands of Tyrone.
And despite the fact that building more roads discriminates against those who don’t have cars, older citizens and those on low incomes, many of the disabled and the young, the government seems determined waste scarce public funds on this unnecessary and outdated scheme.
Good government requires that the best, most cost effective, socially inclusive and environmentally friendly solution be chosen. It seems that there are radically less than 500 strategic vehicles per day projected to use the whole length of this proposed road. At more than £10million per kilometre, how does that make any kind of sense?
Back in the 20th century this road project may have seemed to make some sense – but today, we are faced with vast challenges – climate change is only one of these. The demise of the era of ‘cheap oil for all’ demands that we rethink the way we travel and the reason for our journeys.
The A5WTC has been called a white elephant, that is: a valuable but burdensome possession of which its owner cannot dispose and whose cost (particularly cost of upkeep) is out of proportion to its usefulness or worth.
Can we really afford to burden ourselves and our children with this huge and unnecessary ‘possession’? Can we afford to ignore the pleas of the most disadvantaged people of the earth for help to protect this planet’s future? If your answer to these questions is yes – shame on you.
Press Release from the A5 Public Inquiry 12th May 2011
Governments north and south must issue new instructions to achieve
savings on A5 - PlanBetter
Upgrading the existing A5 has not been studied despite being the most
feasible option.
Governments north and south must issue new instructions to roads
engineers regarding the A5 road corridor to achieve the savings
expected by Taoiseach Enda Kenny, environment organisations have told
the public inquiry into the project in Tyrone today (12 May 2011).
The inquiry is examining proposals for a new 85km dual carriageway
from Derry to the border at County Monaghan.
PlanBetter, a joint initiative of environment organisations An Taisce,
Friends of the Earth, Friends of the Irish Environment and FEASTA,
drew attention to the statement of Taoiseach Enda Kenny on 4 May,
noting that the Taoiseach asked for those involved in the project to
"look at making savings" (as reported in the Irish News, 5 May 2011).
Responding to his call, PlanBetter has said that the Republic must now
work with Northern Ireland’s new government and issue new instructions
so that savings can be achieved.
The current instructions given to roads engineers lock North and South
into a high cost venture. The existing project brief - which was
agreed between Northern Ireland and the Republic at the height of the
boom in 2007 - has forced Northern Ireland Roads Service engineers
into proposing 85km of greenfield four lane road running substantially
parallel to the current A5 route from New Buildings outside Derry to
Aughnacloy at the Tyrone/Monaghan border.
Unusually, no lower cost alternative has been brought forward to
compare against greenfield dual carriageway.
The alternative involves undertaking selected upgrades along the
existing road. Enhancing the existing A5 is clearly the most practical
option.
However, roads engineers are currently instructed to provide new dual
carriageway along the entire route even though traffic volumes provide
no justification for the quantum of spending this involves.
The estimated cost of the proposed 85km of dual carriageway is £800
million (€920m), with £400m (€460m) due to come to from the Republic
from under an arrangement dating to the peak of the Celtic Tiger in
2007.
An £800m outlay is clearly no longer affordable – for the South or
North, according to PlanBetter.
The current instructions issued to roads engineers date to a time when
the Republic of Ireland relied on cyclical, short-run revenues to make
long-term funding commitments. Subsequent events have highlighted the
ill-considered nature of a great deal of decision-making in the Celtic
Tiger boom-time period, and the treatment of cross-border road
spending was unfortunately no different.
The hearing has definitively established that the Roads Service of
Northern Ireland felt precluded from considering the better value
alternative due to the wording of the instructions issued in 2007. The
better value alternative would see the existing road upgraded where
required.
The hearing has also heard that upgrading the current road would
adequately cater for traffic, and that this solution is deliverable in
both financial and road engineering terms. This submission by
PlanBetter - and others - has not been rebuffed by Northern Ireland's
Roads Service which responds saying that the instructions for the
project ruled out upgrading the existing road.
Again, the better value option of upgrading the existing road has been
not developed and put before the inquiry due to the unorthodox
instructions given to Northern Ireland Roads Service.
Detailed representations in favour of upgrading the existing road have
been made to the inquiry by local residents, Belfast-based roads
engineers appearing in a personal capacity, and environmental
organisations from both north and south.
A new dual carriageway over 85km of greenfield land is unaffordable
and would push Ireland further towards bankruptcy.
In its presentation to the hearing PlanBetter noted that fuel prices
are expected to increase 30 per cent in the three years to 2014
according to the International Energy Agency. In practical terms this
will see prices at the pumps rise to £1.80 – £1.90 per litre in
Northern Ireland and €1.90 - €2.05 in the Republic. "Will those
advocating brand-new four-lane roads pay the higher fuel bills of
those they are encouraging to drive?", asked a spokesperson for
PlanBetter.
ENDS –
Attribution: Spokesperson
Further information: James Nix 086 83 94129
- The oral hearing for the project opened on Mon 9 May 2011 and is due
to run until early July.
- The project instructions is “to upgrade the A5 corridor between the
southern outskirts of Londonderry in the vicinity on New Buildings and
the border of Aughnacloy to dual carriageway standard” (2007).
Foyle Valley SACs under threat from A5WTC
A5WTC PUBLIC INQUIRY DATES AND PLACES
Overarching Strategic Issues (Includes ES)
Starting 10.30am, 9 May 2011 in the Mellon Country Hotel, Castletown, Omagh BT78 5RA
http://www.melloncountryhotel.com/map.htm
Lead Inspector – Mr John Mageean
Section 1
Starting 10.30am, 23rd May 2011 in the Fir Trees Hotel, Dublin Road, Strabane BT82 9EA
http://www.firtreeshotel.net/Location
Inspector – Mr S K Chambers, Assistant – Mr W Gillespie
Section 2
Starting 10.30am, 6th June 2011 in the Mellon Country Hotel, Castletown, Omagh BT78 5RA
Inspector – Mr J M Shanks, Assistant – Mr B Sleith
Section 3
Starting 10.30am, in Kelly’s Inn, 232 Omagh Road, Garvaghey, BT70 2DX
http://www.kellysinn.com/locate_us/index.htm
Inspector – Ms E Brady, Assistant – Mr D L McAvoy
For more information you can contact Mr Derek Graham (DRD Strategic Programme Officer) on 02882254006
Pre-Strategic Inquiry Meeting Review. 6th April 2011 2pm.
The meeting commenced with a call for a postponement of the Public Inquiry which is scheduled to begin on the 9th May 2011 at The Mellon Country Inn. The objection was raised that the instructions issued by the DRD with regard to the start of the inquiry had been confusing to the ‘lay’ person and that it was unclear as to when the Environmental Statement would be dealt with. Following this, several attendees made the point that they had not received replies to their objections from the DRD to date and thus it would be impossible for them to reply by the 20th April as specified by the Inspector. Mr Mageean, the inspector, said that he would look into this issue and would not rule out a delay in the interests of justice and fair play. A call was made for DRD funding for professional assistance for those objecting to the scheme in line with the recommendation by the inspector at the A6 Inquiry. One representative appeared to question the legality of the inquiry since the main benefactors of the proposed scheme would be outside the jurisdiction of the actual corridor route and suggested that the Inquiry remit may be Intra Vires (beyond its scope of authority) and asked for a postponement in order for the DRD to obtain legal counsel and clarify the matter.
The Inspector requested that those in attendance who wished to speak at the Inquiry register their names, with the proviso that the actual dates would be confirmed when he had investigated the issues raised regarding the inability of the DRD to respond to the objections within the required time frame.
Why build a new A5 dual carriageway if the existing roads are falling apart? SUSTRANS
New A5 Definitely NOT in St Andrews Agreement!
Call for government funding of A5 Opposers legal costs
2000 OBJECTIONS!!! - NO NEW ROAD!!
Slugger exposes the WASTE WASTE WASTE
TO ALL THOSE CONCERNED ABOUT DAMAGE TO OUR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT FROM THE A5 NEW ROAD SCHEME:
THIS MESSAGE WAS SENT TO VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL BODIES ON JANUARY 13TH 2011:
The Alternative A5 Alliance has contacted some independent environmentalists regarding the Environmental Statement issued on the Mouchel website about their work to date on the impact of the proposed new A5 road. We have become aware that some of the survey methods used along the route have not been adequate and that instructions to contractors regarding pre-construction mitigation work is very sparse.
We are sure that, by now you have had adequate time to study the Statement, and therefore ask that you would forward us your objections to this scheme in the light of these omissions. We will be able to add these objections to the review our Transport Consultants have prepared and which will be sent to the DRD before the 21st January as this is the closing date for objections to be lodged.
WE AWAIT A RESPONSE FROM:
ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS(RSPB) -Response received - read it here
ULSTER WILDLIFE TRUST (UWT)
THE LOUGHS AGENCY
ULSTER ANGLERS FEDERATION(UAF)
THE WOODLAND TRUST
RESPONSES WILL BE POSTED HERE AND ON OUR FACEBOOK WHEN RECEIVED.
We did receive notice of this objection from Friends of the Earth, Thanks:
Friends of the Earth (Northern Ireland)
7 Donegall Street Place Belfast BT1 2FN
Tel 028 9023 3488
Fax 028 9024 7556
Email foe-ni@foe.co.uk
21 January 2011
Divisional Roads Manager
Department for Regional Development Roads Service
Western Division County, Hall Drumragh Avenue, Omagh
Co Tyrone BT79 7AF
Dear Sir
Objection to A5 Western Transport Corridor
Friends of the Earth is a campaigning organisation which aims to make life better for people by inspiring solutions to environmental problems.
Following publication of the Environmental Statement for the above road scheme, I am writing to express a summary of our strong objections to this road on the following grounds:
Strategic balance: The scale of this investment will prejudice investment in non car-based transport options for the next decade. The draft Regional Development Strategy addresses DRD’s policy imperative of re-balancing transport investment with higher levels of support for public transport and “the need for a new emphasis on how to reduce dependence on the car and to change travel behavior”. This is especially important given the relatively low traffic flows (both existing and anticipated) and the absence of a proven and quantifiable ‘need’ for this road
Climate Change: Northern Ireland faces a significant transport challenge with regard to surface transport being responsible for a higher proportion of emissions than other parts of the UK. The main source of greenhouse gas emissions is transport and transport emissions have increased by 38.8% since the 1990 base year, whereas all other sectors have seen a decreasing trend in emissions since the 1990 base year. This road proposal will further contribute to this significant adverse trend, contrary to government policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Environmental Damage: This development will adversely affect protected floodplains and directly damage an important wetland system. There is likely to be significant damage to ASSIs and the SAC. No attention has been paid to mitigation during construction. This road scheme raises the strong likelihood of successful complaints to Europe on breaches to a range of EU Directives including the EU Habitats Directive
RECENTLY WE HAVE REQUESTED ALL LOCAL POLITICAL PARTIES TO CLARIFY THEIR POSITION ON THE PROPOSED A5WTC. BELOW ARE THE RESPONSES WE HAVE RECEIVED SO FAR:
DUP:
"As a party we have campaigned, alongside representatives from all other parties for improvements to the infrastructure in County Tyrone and support improvements to the A5 route from Ballygawley to Londonderry.
However, we have raised concerns about the current proposals which have been put forward. Firstly, we do not believe that there is a sufficient volume of traffic to justify the section of road between Aughnacloy to Ballygawley.
Secondly, we would also have concerns about the section of the road proposed even between Ballygawley and Londonderry. We appreciate the issues which have been raised by residents and landowners about the route chosen and in the current financial climate we believe that it would be appropriate to review the entire scheme and look at what alternative options are open. This would include looking at the possiblity of upgrading the current road."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NI GREEN PARTY:
"The Green Party is fundamentally opposed to the A5 project which will tear a gash through our agricultural heartland. The Green Party would rather see the millions of pounds being invested in public transport infrastructure. Investment in the reopening of the North West rail corridor would be a much wiser use of public resources. This would create jobs and bring increased trade to the North West.
"The pressure on public finances, the spiraling costs of oil and the need to reduce C02 emissions should see us move away from massive road building projects. Given that we cannot afford to maintain the roadswe have makes this project all the more ludicrous.
"Cutting a huge swathe through the countryside will create ghost towns and destroy the agricultural land that we need to sustain our rural economy. This will be an environmental and social disaster for the whole of Northern Ireland if it is allowed to go ahead. The brakes must be applied now."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UUP:
"We have long had major concerns and reservations about the proposals for the A5, this is for a number of reasons;
· Firstly it makes no economic sense for the Northern Ireland Executive to spend over £400m on a new dual carriageway which isn’t exactly a priority development when own water system is quite clearly desperate for additional funding. We also believe that this £400m would be much better spent on upgrading some of our dilapidated schools or going towards boosting the inadequate funding that our Health Department currently receives every year from the central pot.
· There is also the fundamental question of whether the route really merits a new dual carriageway. Even in the best of economic times, it would still be debatable to spend £400m of public taxpayers money on a brand new road when the existing one only needs a bit of updating with a few additional overtaking lanes and the like added to it.
· We are also very aware of the considerable anger from the local residents who live along, or close to, the proposed new route – many people who will now have to be displaced from their homes and/or have land cut in half will have been living in the locality for many generations. The local residents are running a very efficient campaign against it and they are to be congratulated on making it one of the major issues up here at Stormont.
· On a political note – our party leader, Tom Elliott, has been consistent in his opposition ever since the project was first proposed. He is aware, both by being passionately lobbied by the local residents but also from his own investigations that dual carriageway is not what is best for that part of Tyrone.
· Kenny Donaldson, the 2nd UUP Assembly Candidate for Fermanagh and South Tyrone has also been unwavering in his opposition to the plan.
· The final, and also vitally important, factor that must be considered is the contribution that the Irish Government are going to make to the project. Overall the road is estimated to cost £844million with the costs being split roughly half and half. However with the unfortunate economic conditions in the South combined with a growing tide of political opposition to the project (such as Labour) then it is looking increasingly precarious whether the Republic will meet their half of the deal. The worst outcome for everyone would be if we were to build a dual carriageway from Aughnacloy to L’derry only for the south not to do anything on the other side of the border."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDLP:
"The SDLP addressed the issue of the A5 WTC in our recent finance document "Partnership and Economic Recovery" http://www.sdlp.ie/images/files/SDLP_-_Partnership_and_Economic_Recovery.pdf. In this document we stated that we believe that the major strategic programme planned for the A5 should proceed. We believe that the A5 is vital to the future economic investment of all the north western counties, including Derry, Donegal and Tyrone which are amongst the most disadvantaged on our island. This road will make it easier to get goods out and to get tourists in. There are also major road safety reasons for the upgrade; not to mention the boost to the hard-pressed construction industry for the major building phase."
Thanks to Christian Wolmar who gave a very enlightening talk regarding the future of transport at Kelly's Inn on Wednesday 24th November 2010.
Belfast Telegraph article: Love affair with cars driving us towards disaster
Low Road Traffic Levels Could Cost State €100M
PRESS RELEASE
SAVE NEWGRANGE
26 August 2010
'M2/A5 Dublin-Derry Community Groups to Co-Operate on Motorway Campaign'
Three campaign groups, working on different sections of the proposed M2/A5 motorway, which will eventually run from Dublin to Derry, have agreed to work co-operatively.
Save Newgrange will work in co-operation with the Alternative A5 Alliance, based in Northern Ireland, and the Don't Bypass the Bypass campaign group in Monaghan, to share information and assist the public in participating in the different consultations under way.
The Alternative A5 Alliance are challenging the need for the upgrade of the A5 primary route, from the Border to Derry, which at 55 miles will be the longest single road project ever undertaken in Northern Ireland. Northern and Southern authorities are planning this section of the road together, and the Irish Government has committed to pay for a share of it.
Don't Bypass the Bypass are challenging the need to for the new N2 Clontibret to the Border plan, which will bypass the N2 Monaghan bypass, opened just four years ago' by Minister for Transport, Noel Dempsey.
Save Newgrange are opposing the N2 Slane Bypass route, which runs just 500m from the Bru na Boinne World Heritage Site, and impact over 44 archaeological sites. We have challenged the public consultation process as being flawed, since the people of Northern Ireland were excluded.
All three sections of what will eventually be a single M2/A5 motorway from Dublin to Derry, are in various stages of public consultation. The groups are calling on the public, North and South, to participate in the consultation process for each individual project.
All three groups are asking the public to make submissions to Monaghan County Council on the route selection process for the N2 Clontibret to the Border project. Due to public outcry locally, the deadline for submissions has been extended to 31 of August. The cost of making submissions is free, and they can be emailed to the council's Roads Division.
Lynne Smyth, Secretary of the Alternative A5 Alliance said:
"Its great to be working in co-operation with the other groups, and we need to remain so going forward. We are calling on all members of the public to make submissions to Monaghan County Council, and challenge this outrageous waste of taxpayers' money."
Vincent Salafia of Save Newgrange said:
"We are delighted to have North-South co-operation between our community groups along the proposed M2/A5. The people of Northern Ireland should have a say in what happens to the Brú na Bóinne Unesco World Heritage Site, since they are being asked to pay for part of the road that will severely impact it."
"We welcome the intervention of Dr Edgar Morgenroth, associate economist with the ESRI, who said the N2 plans are "idiocy', and called for the HGV ban to be implemented in Slane.
"Minister Dempsey must act now to both save lives in Slane, and stop wasting taxpayers' money on 'ghost roads'.
Press Release
Issued by: Tom Elliott MLA
Date: 24 August 2010
SERIOUS DOUBTS OVER FUNDING OF NEW A5 WESTERN CORRIDOR ROAD- ELLIOTT
Ulster Unionist Assembly member for Fermanagh & South Tyrone, Tom Elliott MLA has expressed his continuing serious concerns over the funding of the new A5 road between Aughnacloy and Londonderry after Irish Transport Minister, Noel Dempsey TD announced this week that he has informed the National Roads Authority to re-prioritise 123 projects in the Irish Republic as funding must be reduced to £654m a year from 2011.
Tom said: “I expressed my concerns as far back as November 2009 over the funding of this road and Minister Conor Murphy MP stated that the Irish Government has agreed to stump up some £320m of the overall cost of £800m and the rest coming from Northern Ireland Executive future budgets. I wish now to establish from the Irish Transport Minister, Noel Dempsey TD if he is still committed to devote half of his entire budget on a Northern Ireland road at the expense of their own roads and also establish from Conor Murphy if we have the necessary funds to continue with this scheme. Projects, ranging from motorways to town by-passes are being examined and an admission by Irish Government that many major schemes could be delayed for decades.
The A5 undoubtedly needs huge improvements but the traffic levels simply do not justify a motorway and many have expressed their strong views over the impact this road will have on the countryside and many farmers will have their farms decimated when an upgrade would be sufficient. If Ministers on both sides of the border wish to prioritise future spending there needs to be a complete re-think on this route and indicate immediately if this scheme in its present form is to go ahead. The continuing uncertainty over finances and anxiety for land owners cannot continue.”
Ends
‘Ghost roads’ being advanced with false data - An Taisce
Roads Authority Criticises 'Ghost' Motorway Claims
Green anarchists camp against Londonderry road
Climate Camp to protest at road plan for Tyrone
BADGERS SAVE THE FOYLE VALLEY FROM DESTRUCTION
VIDEOS FROM CLIMATE CAMP
Eamonn McCann Part 1 Part 2
Eric video interview
MONAGHAN THREATENED WITH ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION
Locals bid to halt plans for new Monaghan dual carriageway
The Alternative A5 Alliance is an ‘umbrella’ for the growing number of individuals and groups who are opposed to the building of a new dual carriageway in Tyrone – the A5WTC.
The view of the Alliance is that, at a time of economic crises and serious environmental issues, the last thing Northern Ireland needs is another road. Transport in this country is responsible for around 30% of CO2 emissions compared with 21% in GB. Building this new road will only increase those emission levels.
We call on the responsible members of the government who are involved in transport decisions to look again at the sustainable options available before committing the residents of this county to a future marred by the destruction of farms and homes, lives and livelihoods - caused by this unwise project. We ask them also to consider the vast destruction of our natural ‘carbon sink’ – the fields and trees of Tyrone – for the sake of a theoretical saving of 20minutes journey time.
This website investigates the many arguments against the A5WTC but it also points to a sustainable alternative which should be investigated -
The continued upgrading of the existing A5 and also the restoration of the rail link from Portadown. We call it the Tyrone Rail Road alternative.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, TO HAVE YOUR NAME ADDED TO THE PETITION PAGE,OR TO BECOME A FRIEND OF THE ALLIANCE EMAIL: alliance@alternativea5alliance.com
SPENDING ON LOCAL ROADS IS CUT BUT THE A5WTC GOES ON!
Cllr Robert Mulligan's letter in the Ulster Herald points up the A5 monster road disaster! - http://www.nwipp-newspapers.com/UH/free/326335184556326.php
And here's another interesting article - http://sluggerotoole.com/2010/06/03/terror-in-tyrone-%E2%80%93-white-elephant-alert/
A word about the Tyrone Rail Road too - http://www.build.ie/construction_news.asp?newsid=111857