B. Troy..."Attention of Cathaoirleach Regan"

Attention of Cathaoirleach Regan

Dear Sir,

Before the vote on the MRR at the Council Meeting of 09.10.06 a technical presentation was made, ostensibly to show Councillors 'advantages' of the proposed ring road.

A coloured map entitled MONKSTOWN RING ROAD PREDICTED CHANGE IN TRAFFICFLOWS WITH SCHEME was screened.

This purported to show the changes intraffic flows upon completion of the ring road based on the traffic figuresof the EIS.

A staff member gave a detailed commentary.
This was the firsttime we saw this drawing.
Contrary to the presenter's account, this map is not a true representation in pictorial form of the traffic figures of the Environmental Impact Statement of July 2005.

It is clearly generated by different source material.
It is not true to the figures of the EIS on two counts :-

1. The actual trends are not correctly indicated in line with the figures of the EIS of July 2005 and known traffic counts.

2. The map is not a proper interpretation of the traffic figures as agreed by the engineers from DLRCC and their traffic consultants Faber Maunsell during the Oral Hearing.

As DLRCC Senior Counsel Flanagan pointed out on numerous occasions during the course of the hearing, what was presented at the hearing formed part of the EIS.

The purpose of the new diagram was to 'persuade' the Councillors that there are 'advantages' attaching to the proposed road.

The same form of 'persuasion' was used in the Monkstown Ring Road Report of 1995 in order to have the scheme put back into the County Development Plan and so we recognised that particular stratagem.

The Councillors were misled once again.
We understand that theTransportation Department has been running mini-seminars for small groups of Councillors for the last week or so using this diagram.

This really is intense 'persuasion'.
The diagram represents yet another, different set of traffic figures.

We ask you to immediately act to :-

1. Rescind the decision of Council to proceed with the road as it is based on false information which does not represent the true implication of the traffic figures of the EIS.

2. Make available for general inspection a set of these new traffic figures which form the basis of the diagram in tabular format together with details of their origin - when they were developed and by whom.
Who made the decision to use 'persuasive' figures?
This is the third set of arranged figures that the Roads Department have used to promote this road.

We explained to you in our Rebuttal of the Manager's Report that we as acommunity do not have the financial resources to take legal action against the Council and An Bord Pleanala to establish the highly questionable nature of the traffic figures and, as a consequence, the falseness of the conclusions of the EIS and the decision of the Board of An Bord Pleanala and the County Manager's Report.

Following on from this, we are in contact with the Office of the Ombudsman.
They assisted us in the matter of the 1995 Report.
At that time we could not get the comparative figures needed from the Roads & Traffic Department to prove our point that the MRR Report was seriously flawed.

The EIS of 2005 finally provided the comparative figures we needed.
We contend that there has been a gross abuse of public data.
We are currently preparing a statement of our analysis on comparing the EIS with the MRR of 1995, the conclusions of the EIS, the decision of An Bord Pleanala and the Manager's Report to Council.

We intend asking the County Manager to comment on our deliberations.

Following receipt of his comments (or lack of them as the case may be) the Office of the Ombudsman is preparedto look at it again.

It is the only forum open to us that does not cost the earth?

We consider that our elected representatives are duty bound to help us to establish the truth.
It was obvious from some of the statements made by Councillors at the meeting that their minds are closed to an objective evaluation of the pros and cons of the scheme and that there are other considerations that have nothing to do with dispassionate inquiry motivating their support of the scheme.

This recent third set of figures presented in diagrammatic form at the Council Meeting and used in the 'persuasion' seminars needs to be included in our analysis and we trust you will act with haste to obtain the figures for us.

We suggest that the decision of Council be rescinded immediately to prevent a great injustice being perpetrated on our neighborhoods.

It might be worthwhile advising the County Manager not to proceed with any acquisitions under CPO or carrying out any work on the road until a further meeting of Council has considered the matter again.

Yours,

B. Troy

(For and on behalf of the Combined Residents Associations of Rowanbyrn,Brookville and Fleurville)


An Bord Pleanála
Inspector’s Report
Objectors...
http://www.pleanala.ie/RCH2226.doc