Killaloe bypass blasting may undermine 17th century home

One of the occupants of a 17th century protected-structure has taken issue with an assertion it will not be adversely affected by blasting for the proposed Killaloe bypass.

Elaine Carway of Ballyvalley House has challenged the view offered by Clare County Council-appointed engineers that blasting would have no significant impact on her home.
During her evidence at a Bord Pleanála oral hearing she claimed it was clear from the EIS that Clare County Council and its agents do not believe in its own traffic figures because it stated Ballyvalley House will not be impacted by air, noise and light pollution and, accordingly, no mitigation measures for such pollution are proposed.
Describing this as an illogical contradiction of the applicant’s own traffic figures, she says the applicant can’t have it both ways – either the traffic levels on the existing bridge no longer cause congestion or if it is the case, 500 trucks a day will pass close to Ballyvaley House and Gate Lodge.
“The applicant, without providing any supporting evidence, made the assertion that the blasting would have no significant adverse effect on Ballyvalley House, which is in extremely close proximity to the area where the blasting will take place.
“I am advised that the blasting is likely to have adverse if not catastrophic consequences for Ballyvalley House, which is of stone and rubble construction without modern day foundations and some of which was constructed in 1690,” she said.
Having lived in Ballyvalley House since 1985, she claimed the EIS was “seriously flawed”.
She agreed with evidence from other residents that there is no congestion on the existing bridge and that the suggestion in revised traffic reports that 500 heavy goods vehicles pass her home on a daily basis is incorrect.
She insisted it is rare to see a heavy goods vehicle crossing the bridge since the closure of the Finsa factory in Scariff and the opening of the M7 and Limerick Tunnel.
Considering the conflict between both parties in relation to traffic figures, she asked that senior planning inspector Stephen Fay visit the bridge to establish the current traffic volume.
She also alleged that the oral hearing into the Compulsory Purchase Order and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not conducted in an “impartial and fair manner”.
She claimed too much leniency had been shown toward Clare County Council, its consulting engineers Roughan and O’Donovan and their agents, at the expense of local objectors.
Asked for a comment on these claims, Mr Fay said he had none to make. The Clare Champion understands that a planning inspector can not express a view about the running of any oral hearing.
Having attended the oral hearing for eight days, Ms Carway recalled Dermot Flanagan, who represented the council, repeatedly answered questions that the objector’s representatives put to the applicant’s experts, which should have been noted in the minutes of the proceedings.
Mr Flanagan has argued that the issue of funding was not a matter for consideration at the hearing. However, Ms Carway insists this information should be made available because the board would not be in a position to know if funds will become available for the project. If this is the case, the board would not be in a position to know whether or not to attach conditions to any approval given for the bypass, to prevent the opening of a quarry on the doorstep of a listed building.
Her claims were not challenged at the hearing by any of the council agents or representatives.