Council accused of ignoring barrier submission

CLARE County Council has been accused of ignoring a submission from a local group following the controversial installation of an “ugly” crash barrier on the approach ramp to a 15th century stone bridge.
The Clare Champion has obtained a copy of a letter sent by the O’Briensbridge Community Group, which it insists verifies its contention other alternatives were sent to the council for consideration almost two years before the “offensive two-tier” crash barrier was erected.
The group objected to the provision of metal safety barriers in the letter and requested the council implement an environmentally sensitive solution.
In fact, group chairman Mick Murtagh went a step further by claiming former senior executive engineer for the Killaloe Electoral Area, Seán Lenihan, was supportive in general concerning the group’s proposals, which he apparently felt were quite reasonable and didn’t indicate they were not feasible.
In a letter dated June 22, 2010 to Mr Lenihan, Mr Murtagh stressed the group wanted to find a solution that would satisfy the council and its concerns.
Mr Murtagh explained the solid wall, which was knocked and needed to be restored, happened as a result of a freak accident where a car crossed the road and crashed into the wall at night-time.
He noted that in locals’ living memory, this section of wall was never damaged in the past, was located off the road bend and was protected by an unused island.
The group proposed the council should erect a “Welcome to County Clare” sign in the island, which would be highly visible and illuminous for night-time driving, while an independent arrow sign indicating a sharp bend would also be helpful.
“The section, which in the past has been most prone to damage, are the stone pillars and mostly the two nearest to the bend and this damage is due to artic lorries or low loaders trying to negotiate the bend because these pillars are not secured to the base the slightest tip from the tail board or tail barrier will cause these pillars to topple over.
“Our proposals are to anchor metal or steel standards faced with stone to correspond with existing piers. This would help to reinforce the stone pillars and limit the amount of damage, which at most times is minor anyway. Slots in the steel standards to accommodate the existing rails would also help.
“As this damaged guide wall, which faces road users and visitors as they cross the bridge from County Limerick acts as an introduction to our village and indeed to County Clare, it’s so important to address this situation in a very sensitive manner and with this in mind.
“The provision of a metal safety barrier would be visibly obtrusive and would not correspond with the existing pillars and rails guide wall.
“We have been working towards giving the village a waterways heritage theme and that’s why the bridge is so important to us,” Mr Murtagh stated in his letter.
Responding, senior executive engineer Hugh McGrath acknowledged the council did receive correspondence from the group, adding it did investigate the proposals.
“This barrier at this particular location in O’Briensbridge is defined as a normal (N2) containment type. From our experience, it is likely it will continue to be struck regularly until such time as HGVs can be prevented from using the bridge. In the vast majority of situations where safety barriers are installed, they don’t suffer regular impacts if at all,” he noted.
“Therefore, in considering the most appropriate material selection we had to take account of all these factors, including material type, flexibility, durability and retained integrity with safety the paramount consideration as well as heritage, aesthetics and cost.
“While timber-clad barriers have been used in particular locations, (most often in woodland or mountain scenic routes) it was not deemed suitable in this instance for a number of reasons,” he added.
Acknowledging timber cladding is more expensive than steel, Mr McGrath said the most significant factors considered in choosing the barrier were: It would have decreased the passing width (using a wider section barrier), increasing likelihood of impacts; while most slow-speed impacts to steel are capable of being absorbed by steel, minor impact on timber cladding would require replacement of timber sections with the associated maintenance logistics and ongoing costs; the council’s heritage officer was not in favour of a timber-based solution on aesthetic grounds; long-term durability of the timber was a real concern.
“In summary, we were obliged to act on a matter of serious concern for the safety of the public. Our solution was determined following careful consideration of all the various and valid inputs including that of the local community group,” he concluded.
Meanwhile, Councillor Crowe has altered his views on this controversy, having viewed the barrier on Thursday last.
Two days earlier, Councillor Crowe issued a statement to The Champion confirming he was pleased with the provision of this safety barrier.
He has since admitted when he drafted this statement, he hadn’t seen the barrier, didn’t realise it was a two-tier structure and didn’t know it would be so long.
Having examined a similar structure at the Lookout Amenity Area between Ballina and Portroe, Councillor Crowe believes timber cladding could also be provided in O’Briensbridge as the mounting posts and fitting brackets are identical in both locations.
Councillor Crowe has also advised Mr McGrath the stone parapet above the river walk is very unstable and unsafe at the moment. Mr McGrath has pledged to inspect this and arrange for the stonework to be repaired.