COMHAIRLE CONTAE ÁTHA CLIATH THEAS
SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL

MEETING OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETING

Thursday, February 04, 2016

MOTION NO. 146

MOTION: Councillor W. Lavelle

Retention of N4/N7/M50 junction objectives

To decline to accept the Chief Executive’s recommendation to amend Table 6.5 Six Year Road Programme and Table 6.6: Medium to Long Term Road Objectives to remove the proposals for the following junctions:

• - Fonthill Road/N4;

• - Esker Lane/N4;

• - Tandy’s Lane/N4;

• - Tay Lane/N7 Junction;

• - Junction 8 (M50).

  Co-sponsored by Cllr. Casserly, Egan, Higgins

REPORT:

Table 6.6 – Medium to Long Term Road Proposals includes a number of proposals to reopen and/or reinstate junctions along national routes  that have been closed or omitted by the Transport Infrastructure Ireland  (formerly the National Roads Authority).   Concerns have been raised at previous Development Plan meetings in February 2015 and June 2015 regarding the inclusion of these proposals due to: 

• A lack of support from the relevant national agencies. 

• The safety impacts of locating of additional junctions along a high speed heavily trafficked routes. 

• The impacts on traffic congestions and carrying capacity along national routes. 

• Conflicts with National and European polices/guidelines. 

As these junction proposals are located along national routes any proposals will require the consent of TII to be carried out.  The support of the National Transport Authority (NTA), Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport (DTTS) and/or Department of Environment, Community and Local Government (DECLG) would also be crucial, particularly if funding from a national agency is sought. 

As detailed in the report on the Draft Plan Public Consultation, objections to these proposals were received from all four national agencies during the draft Plan consultation. The reasons for objection included:  

• Their potential to generate traffic and impacting adversely on the operation and carrying capacity of the National Road Network which is already under immense pressure. 

• Conflicts with the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines, which only allow access onto the motorway/national road nextwork in ‘exceptional circumstances’. 

• Conflicts with the requirements of Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) which require the upgrade of the N7 to motorway or ‘express road’ standards between the M50 and Naas by 2030. The N4 is also considered part of the TEN-T comprehensive network. 

Taking into account the objections of national agencies, the inclusion of the junctions proposals will conflict with number of Actions directly linked to Polices and Policy Objectives within the Plan, notably:      

TM Policy 4 Strategic Road and Street Network: 

‘Work in conjunction with transport agencies, including the DTTAS, NTA, and National Roads Authority (NRA) to deliver improvements to and extensions of the Strategic Road Network’

 TM Policy 5 Traffic and Transport Management: 

‘Maintain and protect the safety, capacity and efficiency of National roads and associated junctions in accordance with the Spatial Planning and National Roads: Guidelines for Planning Authorities, DECLG (2012)’

The concerns of DECLG, as detailed in their submission on the Draft Plan, are also shared in relation to sending conflicting signals. The implementation of these proposals is improbable and their inclusion will serve to unduly raise community exceptions and reduce the credibility of the Plan.  It should also be noted that the closure of these junctions occurred following an extensive public consultation process (including the appropriate environmental appraisal).  As such the inclusion of these proposal is seeking to circumvent due process. 

Recommendation

It is recommended that this motion is not adopted.