|
The oral hearing into the Draft Toll Scheme for the N25 Waterford Bypass resumed in Waterford on Wednesday November 7th 2001 at 10.00 am. Noticeable for their absence were the Kilmeaden Residents Group and their legal team, Michael O'Donnell B.L. instructed by Fionnuala Cawkhill & Associates solicitors. This was significant since they had played a pivotal role in causing the enquiry to be suspended back in the previous September. Their absence was still unexplained at the close of the enquiry but hearsay suggested that whereas the NRA had made contact with some of the statutory objectors, they may have omitted to do so in the case of the Kilmeaden Residents Group. This was raised during the enquiry but Mr. Flanagan. S.C. for the NRA brusquely dealt with the matter by referring to the statutory notice that had been published in the newspapers.
This matter will be clarified when more definite information becomes available.
This hearing first commenced on September 10th 2001 but was postponed indefinitely following submissions from legal teams representing objectors.
The Inspector opened the enquiry be dealing with the issues which caused its postponement to this. He referred to the points that caused the postponement and dismissed each in turn. He then proceeded to take evidence from the remaining objectors. Some objectors had already given evidence on the September 10th outing.
The objectors included Mr. Brian O'Shea of the Labour Party,
Mr. Duffy of the Gracedieu Residents Association,
Baush & Laumb,
Mr. Walsh, CEO, Irish Road Hauliers Association,
Mr. Clancy, General Manager, Waterford Harbour Board,
Cllr. Cleary Progressive Democrats, Waterford Corporation,
Campaign for Sensible Transport (CaST)
Perversely, Waterford Corporation, the primary Local Authority member of the development team is also a statutory objector to the Toll Scheme. Its evidence had been given on September 10th.
Possibly the event of significance surrounding the hearing, in addition to the absence of the Kilmeaden Group, was the withdrawal of the legal team for one objector on the basis that they were unable to adequately address their clients concerns because of the confusion created by the existence of two separate hearings dealing with this proposal, namely the Oral Hearing into the EIS/CPO and the present hearing into the Draft Toll Scheme. It appears that certain undertakings given at the EIS/CPO hearing in relation to the Toll hearing were not carried out. The result may be an appearance in the High Court on Friday November 9th.
1.
Various objections were made by the different parties, all of whom with the exception of IBEC, objected to the scheme. These are summarised as follows:
2.
Damaging to the Port of Waterford.
3.
Unfair to toll the Suir crossing while accesses such as the Lee Tunnel went untolled.
4.
The fundamental requirement necessary to allow consideration of a toll scheme - an alternative route- would not in practice exist since within 15 years the traffic through Waterford over the existing Rice bridge would grow by 50% to 50,000 vehicles per day.
5.
Tolling would defeat the purpose of a bypass which is to facilitate the efficient movement of through traffic.
6.
The absence of a practical alternative would create a charter for profiteering just as is the situation on the M50 Westllink and Eastlink in Dublin. It would be the equivalent of having a full time highway man positioned on the bank of the Suir.
7.
Notwithstanding land remaining in public ownership, the Toll Scheme effective meant the privatisation of Irish Roads.
8.
The refusal to undertake to publish the concessionaire's contract and terms and conditions would heighten public suspicion towards the scheme.
9.
The Inspector could not give an undertaking that his report would enter the public domain.
The developer's consultant declared that the presence of absence of tolling would make little or no difference to the traffic numbers projected to cross Rice bridge daily. This was rejected as defying common sense by CaST: of course an untolled upstream river crossing would attract traffic from the city route that otherwise would shun tolling.
The issue of the flimsiness of the protections in the 1993 Roads Act against conflict of interest was highlighted and deplored. It would be legal for investors and directors of the successful concessionaire company to be simultaneously board members of the NRA.
The opinion was expressed that the NRA appointed inspector was in breach of European Law (Directive 90/313/EEC) in refusing access to transcripts of the hearing.
Following closing submissions from a number of objectors, the inspector concluded the hearing at approximately 4.00pm. Mr. Walsh of the Irish Road Hauliers Association likened the proceedings to a Stalinist trial with Senior Council for the NRA hiding behind regulations that he quoted ad nauseam, the outcome of the hearing being in any event a foregone conclusion.
The only type of communication that seems to elicit respect from the NRA and its agents is a missive delivered from the barrel of a legal gun.
Wednesday November 7th 2001
Copyright
©Campaign for Sensible Transport (CaST)
|
