Objection 3: Road Infrastructure

3. Transportation Infrastructure & Associated Issues

We would refer the Planning Authority to the adopted LAP and in particular Section 5.7 on Development Framework Policies, in this regard:-

“FP3 – requires the development of a new distributor road linking the Trim Road with the Commons road in accordance with Objective 5 of the Navan Development Plan 2002.’’

As we indicated above, the applicant has included lands within the site boundary for the construction of this road which are not in his ownership/control and he does not have the consent of the owners. Clearly the applicant cannot at this point in time provide the distributor road in question, as such the lodging of this application is premature and should be refused, indeed the applicant cannot comply with policies adopted under LAP3. Further, as we pointed out above, there are validations issues in respect of this issue.

We would further contend that the road proposals are clearly at variance with Section 5.2.1 of the LAP, for example in respect of minimising vehicular access onto residential access roads, traffic calming measures are an integral part of road design. Indeed pedestrian and cycle assess only was to be provided to both Canterbrook and Balreask Manor, as per the report of the County Manager (see Section 2.1 on linkage), considered at the Council Meeting of the 3rd of July 2006 under Section 20 (3) (C) of the Planning & Development Act 2000, on LAP3 in that:-

“The access road extensions from the LAP lands to the Canterbrook and Balreask Manor housing estates be designed in a manner which incorporates passive calming of traffic, where pedestrians and cyclists have priority. These links shall not open to vehicular traffic until the distributor road is complete and operational’’.

Clearly the design for the internal road layout does not respect this policy, but more particularly the developer is not in a position to deliver the RT5 road, which is a fundamental requirement under the policies adopted under the LAP. Indeed tin this regard, we would add that Section 2.2.2 of the Managers Report, referred to above, requires that “Construction traffic shall access the LAP lands via the local distributor road RT5 only, access for construction traffic through existing housing estates shall not be permitted’’, as already indicated the developer is not in a position to deliver RT5, as such the consideration of this application is premature pending the acquisition of the lands needed for the road and should be refused.

In support of the above point, it is clearly stated in Section 2.5 that “Critical to the development of the LAP3 lands is the proposal for the development of a new distributor road linking the Trim Road with the Commons Road. The construction of this now road will provide vehicular access to the lands and open them up for development.’’ Mr Liam Quail (noted as Submission no 16 on the Managers Report dated 3rd July 2006) indicated that he objected to the adoption of the LAP and raised issues in this regard in his submission concerning lands in his ownership needed for the road. There is no letter of consent from Mr Quail in the planning application file. Our clear understanding is that to date his lands were not acquired by the Meath County Council in that the lands along the RT5 route to date were not the subject of a confirmed CPO. We believe that there may be other similar situations to that of Mr. Quail relating to other landowners on the route. Indeed the selected alignment for the RT5 route does not have planning approval (no Part 8 completed).

We have concerns with the lack of foresight with regard to the impact of the increased traffic the subject development will generate, indeed our estimate is that the current proposal will generate some 4000+ additional vehicular movements per day, and the ability of the already congested Trim and Commons Roads to accommodate this traffic. Indeed in the morning peak traffic congestion on the Trim Road at times extends well beyond the Beechmount Junction. Delays of over 30 minutes area regular event in the morning peak as residents in the area can confirm. Delays are also experienced on all roads feeding the signalised intersection at Commons Motors, where it can take 3 to 4 signal cycles for vehicles queuing to exit the junction. Further, traffic on the Pitch and Putt road experience long delays exiting onto the Trim Road, indeed the movement into the Trim Road for right turning traffic in particular is difficult. We would be concerned that the proposed new roundabout on the Trim Road (as per the proposed NA800854 plans) is not of a sufficient size to disperse the increased volume of traffic on already congested roads, as we indicated this route has not gone through the Part 8 planning process.



We would contend that a planning application for development of the scale proposed should have included both a traffic impact assessment, which covered the receiving network and all the major junctions in the area, indeed the TIA should cover all the proposed major developments in the area (retail park at the old dog track, proposed home of the new train station, as per the Navan Development Plan) and also include lands zoned for development including the LAP3 area, where some 40 hectares (c. 100 acres) of development is proposed. Clearly there is need for a detailed traffic assessment covering the full Trim & Commons Road areas including all the major junctions.

The proposed development of the LAP3 – Phased – Bus Route, as per the submitted plans, will not in our view adequately service the area, therefore we would strongly object to a further stain on an already very limited bus service until such time as there are adequate proposals to service the area with a proper public transport service. The provision for 2 Bus Stops between the areas outlined in the LAP3 and the Development Plans would seem ludicrous, considering the amount of residential dwellings proposed under the application and the amount that could be accommodated in the totality (our estimate is 1500 – 2000 dwellings) of the LAP3 area. Clearly there is need for the preparation of a Mobility Management Plan (MMP) for the LAP3 area, which we believe should also be prepared as part of the TIA. Indeed the provisions of the Navan Development Plan 2002 would require the preparation of a MMP as part of any submission.
Clearly there are major issues in respect of transportation that need to be addressed, which were not addressed in this application or in the detail of the LAP3 considered and adopted by the Members.