Bypass Proposals Has Created “Tensions” Among Neighbours |
"It’s proposed by those in Tramore House to CPO 28 acres of my property leaving me with circa 61 acres" |
|
News and Star Friday November 30th 2001 By Aileen Mulhall PLANS to compulsory purchase nearly one third of a young farmer’s land for the proposed Kilmeaden Bypass will leave him with a holding that isn’t economically viable, the Waterford Bypass oral hearing was told. Eamon Holden, who owns a 92-acre farm at Adamstown, Kilmeaden, told the public inquiry that the preferred route — Route 18 — for the Kilmeaden Bypass will have a “devastating” effect on his farm. And he spoke of the “considerable tensions” the proposed Bypass had created among neighbours in his area. “Everyone is fighting for his own corner. A lot of us were good neighbours before but there are tensions now. Everyone is afraid of the deal the other one is going to hatch.” In relation to his own situation, he said he had been left high and dry and could not plan for the future on any aspect, he said. He outlined that his farm comprised a yard, buildings and a dwelling house and the land was divided into six symmetrical fields varying in size from about 12 to 15 acres. His farming enterprises are a herd of suckler cows and horses, which compete in the equestrian sport of eventing up to and including international level. Both he and his fiancée are involved in the sport. “It’s proposed by those in Tramore House to CPO 28 acres of my property leaving me with circa 61 acres, excluding my house and yards,” he said in his submission to the hearing last Wednesday. SHELTERING “The CPO includes a large portion of the field, which I use for out-wintering (my cattle). The sheltering of the fields will be seriously breached by the road and the deep cutting into the higher parts of my farm will allow colder air into the eastern sections of the farm, which are currently protected by mature hedgegrows and trees, and will have a detrimental effect on grass production and growth rates in the fields,” he said. “Effectively from a farming point of view, I will be left with a holding that isn’t economically viable. “It’s not possible to achieve a decent or acceptable level of income from a suckler farm of circa 61 acres given the stocking level constraints due to be implemented in 2002 under the EU Common Agricultural Policy.” Mr. Holden said that further and considerable upset to his farm was to be caused by the re-routing of the Bord Gais gas main, which is currently situated in a section of his farm earmarked to be compulsory purchased. He cited a letter from Bord Gais that informed him “they perhaps, but may not” start next Spring to move this gas line, as an example of how he couldn’t plan for the future on his farm. Mr. Holden added that the Bypass route was also causing the re-location of high voltage ESB lines on his property though they didn’t have the new route for these ESB lines as yet. He told the hearing that he didn’t want any of the ESB cables nearer to this house than they already were. Outlining his objections to the Compulsory Purchase Order for the Bypass, Mr. Holden said the relocation of the gas pipeline or ESB lines would cause further disruption to his already seriously affected property. He pointed out that neither of them had been provided for in the Environmental Impact Statement or current bypass details that were available. He said he was also objecting to the confirmation of the Compulsory Purchase Order on the grounds that the reasons for changing the original Route 17 as the preferred route for the Kilmeaden Bypass to Route 18 had not been proven or backed up by scientific fact at this time. DETRIMENTAL He said he wouldn’t object to Route 18 per se if it was proven to him beyond reasonable doubt that from the studies undertaken Route 17 was detrimental to the Mount Congreve gardens. He said this had never been proven to him and in his questioning of experts in this area at the oral hearing, he contended that he had raised more doubts that he had got answers. Another reason he cited for objecting to the Compulsory Purchase Order was his belief that an Environmental Impact Study hadn’t been conducted on his property, which it was proposed to acquire for the Bypass. Mr. Holden told the hearing he was also objecting to the CPO because lands surplus to the road building were being acquired and he wanted these lands removed from the CPO. He requested that An Bord Pleanala exclude putting measures on his property that were surplus to the road building. And he pointed out that no detail had been provided regarding landscaping and screening of the proposed Bypass. Brendan McGuinness, Senior Counsel for the National Roads Authority and local authorities, told the hearing that the surplus land Mr. Holden referred to was needed for mitigation measures, including a 5m embankment, that would be of benefit to all the properties in the area. Mr. Holden replied that it wouldn’t benefit him because of the loss of land. He said he wanted to minimise the land taken from his property to just what was needed for the road. Copyright © Waterford News and Star |