Europe Petition AMP

Petition to the European Parliament

Acting on behalf of AMP (Against More Pylons/Alternative Means of Power), an umbrella name for a number of Groups in the area comprising, among others, an Energy Research Group, a Concerned Citizen’s Group and a Heritage Group.

Subject of the Petition.

We believe that the decisions by Sligo, Roscommon and Leitrim County Councils to grant permission for ESB to erect a 220,000 volt transmission line on pylons and construct a new substation is in breach of EU Environmental Protection legislation.

We also believe that the decisions of An Bord Pleanala to uphold these decisions is also in breach of the same legislation.
It was established that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) relating to this project was flawed and full of inaccuracies and yet permission was given for the project to proceed. This is in breach of the 1997 Council Directive.

Frank Mulligan, Martina Roddy (AMP) and Sandra Mc Crann Boyle with Deputy Marian Harkin at the EU Commission after hearing was held in Brussells on Roy Henry's Petition 110706

Text of Petition.

Background and Timetable of Events.

In May 2000, ESB – the Company responsible for the transmission of electricity in Ireland, began a series of consultation meetings with selected public representatives about the erection of a 220kv powerline from a substastion in Flagford , Co Roscommon to a proposed new subsatation in Srananagh , Co. Sligo. The route chosen is a circuitous one through a sparsely populated part of the country.

In addition ESB proposed erecting 110kv lines in Co. Leitrim.

A series of public meetings were held in the various counties over the following months and a number of groups opposed to the development in its present form were elected. From the outset it was agreed that the Groups had to be ‘for’ something rather than be ‘against’ it for the sake of it. Considerable time was spent researching viable and cost effective alternatives that would preserve what is best in the area and at the same time put in place a much needed part of infrastructure.

On 18th December 2000 – 8 Planning applications submitted by ESBI to Sligo County Council accompanied by 1 EIS.

PL 00/1256 - New 220/110kv Substation at Srananagh. Co. Sligo
PL 001257 - 110kv Lines
PL 00/1258 - 110kv Lines
PL 00/1259 - 110kv Lines
PL 00/1260 – 110kv Bay for existing Sligo Substation
PL 00/1261 – 100kv Loop-in line for existing Cathaleen Falls – Sligo Line to Srananagh
PL 00/1262 - Ditto
PL 00/1263 – 220kv Powerline through Co. Sligo

2 Planning applications submitted to Leitrim County Council accompanied by the same Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) used in Sligo.

P 01195 - 110kv Loop-in line from existing Arigna –Carrick –Cathaleen Falls Line
P 01196 - Ditto

On 21st December 2000 – 2 Planning Applications submitted to Roscommon County Council with a copy of the same EIS

00/1948 - 220kv Bay at Flagford Substation
00/1949 - 220kv Powerline through North Roscommon.

These are the total number (12 for the Project). Council offices and Libraries closed until 8th January 2000. The project was initially advertised by ESB as a single project. However, ESB divided the project into separate planning applications accompanied by a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Concern was expressed at the time about the need to use 1 EIS and yet ‘salami slice’ the project to get it through Planning.

On 14/15/16th February 2001 – Formal responses to the EIS were submitted to Roscommon, Sligo and Leitrim Planning Offices by AMP. These were a lengthy and detailed rebuttal of the EIS. They included expert testimony under many headings. The ESB’s applications were invalidated by the Planning Officers and further information was requested. At this stage the Planning Officers decided that the applications should be treated as one large project and worked together on it, with Sligo County Council taking the lead.

In April 2001 – Additional information received by Planning Officers from ESB and a Formal response was made by AMP to the Additional Information. Many of the points made in the original submission by AMP were amplified upon and a detailed rebuttal was also made on the additional information supplied by ESB

On 13 June 2001- ESB applications were again invalidated and a Request for additional information was made. 110kv routes changed in places at request of Planning Officers.

On 2 July 2001 – AN Bord Pleanala rejected ESB’s Planning Application for a 110kv line in Donegal following and Oral hearing. This was a much smaller project than this one and treated as a single entity. This was hailed as ‘a landmark decision’ in the Media. As actions on this had taken place before the submissions for this project, it may be that ESB thought it prudent to fragment this major project and only use 1 EIS.

On 13th July 2001 – ESB responded to the Planning Authorities with additional information. Further responses sent in by AMP.

30th October 2001 – Sligo, Leitrim and Roscommon County Councils give planning approval for the project. AMP was given 1 month to appeal.

27th November 2001. Appeal lodged with An Bord Pleanala ( The Planning Board). The Appeal was detailed and covered many of the points raised in our submissions to the County Councils. Further expert testimony on Environmental, and Archaeological issues were submitted as well as a series of photo- montages in direct rebuttal of ESB’s montages. Considering the magnitude, complexity and significance of this project we also sought, and paid for, an Oral Hearing.

An Bord Pleanala. ( The Appeal Planning Board).

An Bord Pleanala (ABP) refused to consider the project as a single entity even though ESB had chosen to fragment the development into 12 separate planning applications and only submitted 1 EIS. The Local Councils had treated it as 1 project. To treat it as 1 project would have been within the spirit of EU Directives. This was refused. We were required to lodge 4 separate appeals as representative of the whole project.

The matter of an Oral hearing was also important as the project will have enormous environmental consequences and impinges on 21 protected areas (SA Cs? and NH As?)

It was pointed out to ABP that this project required an Environmental Impact Assessment having regard to Council Directive 97/11/EC, Amending Directive 85/337/EEC on assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. It was also pointed out that in terms of Article 4 of the original directive as amended that projects listed in Annex 1 required assessment in accordance with article 5 to10 of the 1997 directive. In terms of Para. 20 of Annex 1 a full assessment is required in relation to a project which involves the construction of overhead electric power lines with a voltage of 220kv or more and a length of more that 15 kilometres. The 220kv line in this project will extend for 56 kilometres

In addition to the legal requirement for an EIA due to the nature of the development an additional requirement for an EIA arose in this case under the EC Natural Habitats Regulations 1997. The study area for this project included 2 Special Areas of Conservation and 13 Natural Heritage Sites with a further 6 natural heritage areas in close proximity.

It was also pointed out to ABP that the Environmental Impact Statement submitted by ESB did not adequately address the requirements of the Directive to provide the data required to identify and assess the main effects which the project is likely to have on the environment. There was no adequate assessment of the direct and indirect effects of the project on the relevant factors being human beings; fauna and flora; soil, water, air climate and the landscape; material assets on the cultural heritage; the interaction between the foregoing. The EIS did not adequately deal with the alternatives taking account of environmental effects. Furthermore, the ESB and the local Planning Authorities did not comply with the requirements of Article 6(2) as amended which requires that any information gathered pursuant to Article 5 be made available to the public within a reasonable time in order to give the public concerned, the opportunity to express an opinion before the development consent is granted. Further to the original EIS, the developer submitted additional information to the Planning Authorities in April 2000, July 2001 and late September 2001. The Appellants and other members of the public were not given a reasonable time to express an opinion on the further information submitted before planning consent was granted on 30th October 2001.

19th March 2002- Permission refused for an Oral hearing. No proper reason given other that that it could be ‘adequately assessed without the need for an Oral hearing’

31st October 2002 – Permission granted by An Bord Pleanala for ESB to proceed with project. ( It may be worth noting that over 60 decisions were made on Planning matters over the course of 3 days by ABP. The decisions were made by a panel of 3 members. However for the 4 decisions relating to this project a panel of 12 was needed!!!)The time taken – less that 20 minutes!!!!!!

It is also worth noting that considerable information, much of it on the environment, was available to ABP and this was used by their Inspector in his report. His recommendations drew on this and reflected some concerns on Environmental matters. In 2 instances his recommendations were that the route should avoid specific areas because of environmental concerns. The recommendations were ignored by the Planning Board. Annex 1 of this petition goes into more detail about these concerns.

In the Review Checklist recommended by the European Commission and used by the Inspector, only 30 % of the headings in the EIS were ‘adequate’.

He goes on to say that ‘ the EIS may meet the necessary legal requirements but in many instances the information (for decision making) is simply not available and conclusions are drawn from a sketchy description with little to no analysis of certain issues or environmental parameters’

The ABP Inspector added ‘ that the environmental issues/impacts are poorly conceptualised. Numerous impacts are not reported upon.’

ABP also stated ‘that site inspections were taken along the route on several occasions’. They also state that Foot and Mouth restrictions prevented access to land and it was necessary to view the development from roads in close proximity to the transmission line. This was considered sufficient to make a reasoned judgement. This statement was rebutted by us in our submission using a crane and taking photos from the specific points mentioned in the EIS. We did not considerate sufficient to do a study from a road which in some cases was a mile or more from the sites.

National and European Regulations and Statutory Instruments state that all information must be addressed in the EIS supporting the Planning Applications. The ESB failed to do this. Why else did we, the Planning Authorities and An Bord Pleanala find it necessary to go back seeking further information. The original EIS was not completed in accordance with legislation. It was invalid. The Supplementary Information was also insufficient and has not been the subject of proper Public Participation as required by the Legislation.

The original EIS did not contain all of the information needed by the Planning Authorities to make a balanced, considered decision. The Additional Information did not advance the case. Rather it answered specific questions raised by the Planning Authorities and An Bord Pleanala. Other questions remained unanswered.

Annex 1

Environment

We believe that this project is a material contravention of the Roscommon and Sligo County Development plans. It is worth noting that the original EIS from ESB quotes extracts from County Development Plans. All of these plans were drawn up in the early 1990's. Since then, revisions have been made by the County Councils and these pay more attention to the visual aspect of the environment. No reference is made to any of these. Further proof that ESB have failed to put forward a proper EIS to reflect the current situation.

The 'State of the West' report published by the Western Development Commission in July 2001, addresses the major infrastructure deficiencies in the West. Energy being one of these and ESB being one of the major contributors to the Report. One of the recommendations is the use of smaller output stations to put less strain on the distribution system. Another is the active promotion of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) units and the recognition of the benefits of wind and gas energy. There are other recommendations that form the basis an integrated framework Underpinning all this is the recognition that:-

'It is preferable to make these choices based on a vision that does not predetermine development patterns, or regard existing patterns as immutable. It is inappropriate therefore to base investment wholly on large towns without regard to the rural characteristics of the region'.(p120)
Your attention is drawn to paras 7.11 and 7.12 of our original appeal.

The Border West and Midlands Development Strategy Document 2002- 2006 published in 2000 addresses many of the same questions and offers similar conclusions. ESB made major contributions to this document. Underpinning this is the recognition that:- ' The Region has a very high quality environment, both land and coastal and has as yet not experienced the worst ravages of environmental degradation' (p63)

The scenic and amenity value of these areas will be significantly reduced by the building of a 220kv Power-Line along this proposed route. This might also be said of 110kv lines criss-crossing the Counties. All previous developments of this type have been over a semi-industrialised landscape, or at a time when little regard was paid to such things and as such the visual impact of them was not seriously considered. This particular development is over the least populated and, to date, unspoilt landscape. The visual impact of 120 foot pylons marching across a pristine landscape would have a devastating effect on the area.

The Electricity Regulation Bill 1998 reviewing The Electricity (Supply) Act 1927 states in Section 22, subsection 2

"(2) Where the Commission is satisfied that all or any of the circumstances set out in subsection (3) have arisen or are likely to arise it may direct the holder of the licence or authorisation concerned to discontinue or refrain from specific practices.
(3) The circumstances referred to in subsection (2) are
a/ Where the Commission is of the opinion that immediate action is necessary to protect -

I. Public health or safety or the Environment."

Directive 96/92/ec of the European parliament and the Council concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity 1996 states :-

"Article 5.
Where they opt for the authorising procedure, Member States shall lay down the criteria for the grant of authorisations for the construction of generating capacity in their territory. These criteria may relate to ;
(a) The safety and security of the electricity system, installations and associated equipment;
(b) (Protection of the Environment;
(c) (Land use and siting;

Article 11, subsection 1
The distribution system operator shall maintain a secure, reliable and efficient electricity system in its area, with due regard for the environment"

As a member of the EU, Ireland is bound to comply with certain European legislation. Governments, Courts and decision making bodies are bound to implement the treaty establishing the European Community and the Directives of the Council of the European union.

The Environmental Impact Statement accompanying the original Planning Applications that are the subject of the Appeal did not adequately address the requirements of Council Directive 97/11EC, Amending Directive 85/337/EEC and should have been rendered null and void thereby invalidating the Planning Applications.

Precautionary Principle.

It is established law that Governments, Courts and decision making bodies which include An Bord Pleanala are bound to implement the Treaty establishing the European Community and the Directives of the Council of the European Union. Article 130R(2) of the Treaty states:-

“Community policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Community. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventative action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay. Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of other Community policies”.

The basis for this, agreed internationally, is that if there is scientific evidence of a conflicting nature, then the development should not proceed. We should err on the side of caution. We would suggest that there is more than enough conflicting scientific evidence in this case and that the Planning Applications should have been refused on this ground alone. The legal obligation placed on us by European Law could not be clearer. The Precautionary Principle requires preventive action. It is not disputed and evidence could have been produced at an Oral Hearing to confirm that the public health risk from EMF’s can be eliminated by placing the transmission line underground. The only obstacle to this which is seriously put forward by ESB is cost. However, the Precautionary Principle clearly requires that “environmental damage should as a priority, be rectified at source and the polluter should pay”. It is clear therefore that ESB must be required to put this development underground and the proposal in its present form must be rejected by Bord Pleanala in discharge of the Board’s obligations under European Law.

County Development Plan Policies and Objectives

We would like to reinforce the point that the granting of permission for a 220kv line from Flagford to Ballysumaghan is a material contravention of the Roscommon and Sligo County Development plans and the BMW Development Strategy. The project is not shown in the totality of the County Development Plans. As a result the statutory procedure for material contravention was not followed and the legal requirements involving advertisement and a majority vote by council members were ignored.

There are a significant number of policies and objectives in the various Development Strategies in relation to the Environment which are directly contravened by this proposal. The policies contravened are:-

a/ To conserve and protect the important assets of the natural and built environment on the County.

b/ To ensure that all development in rural areas are in harmony with the surrounding environment in respect of use and appearance.

ESB list ‘Care of the Environment’ as one of their core values. The Environmental Impact Study accompanying the planning application is questionable and cannot be regarded as an independent assessment. They say that they have engaged experts in the area of visual aspect and landscape, soil/land use, flora and fauna, cultural heritage and socio-economic impact. The EIS was written by ESB International and their surrogates and therefore the objectivity of the document is suspect. Our County Development Plans talk about visual aspect and protecting the environment. They state that our major industries are Tourism and Agriculture.

The scenic and amenity value of these areas will be significantly reduced by the building of a 220kv overhead Power-Line along its proposed route.
The Development Plans state that the area is one where major tourism should be encouraged. Damaging, unsympathetic or visibly obtrusive developments are to be particularly avoided in this area. The objective is to ensure that development proposals in the area are not located where they would be detrimental to visual or environmental amenities. The EIS suggests ‘ a considerable negative agricultural and environmental impact’ for underground cables. This is based on the assumption that underground cables must follow the same route. The EIS neglects to identify the even greater effect that overhead lines would have on the rural landscape to the detriment of tourism, agriculture, property values, residential amenity, public health and sensitive ecology and archaeology. This damage will be irreparable.

An objective of the Development Strategies is to assess all development proposals according to the policy for development control in the plans. There is no specific policy in relation to the development control applicable to this proposal. The closest policy is that relating to extractive industries. These are subject to strict design and locational requirements in the interests of environmental protection and visual amenity.

What kind of hypocritical message does it send if this is ignored and we allow 123 foot high pylons to march across the landscape when better environmental options are not even being considered? We may as well tear up the Regional and County Development Plans.
All previous developments of this type have been over a semi-industrialised landscape, or at a time when little regard was paid to such things and as such the visual impact of them was not seriously considered. This particular development is over the least populated and, to date, unspoilt landscape. The visual impact of 123 foot pylons marching across a pristine landscape would have a devastating effect on the area.

The existing Sligo County Development Plan already recognises, under it’s Rural Areas policy, that it is necessary to preserve scenic and heritage areas; to protect high quality agricultural land and to conserve the attractions of the County for the enjoyment of the inhabitants and for the development of Tourism and Tourism-related employment. (Section 3.2).

The plan also recognises the part that local communities have to play in the Growth and Development of the County.
The importance of Tourism to the County is reinforced in Section 3.4.

It is also recognised in the Plan that ‘ the continued encroachment into agricultural and undeveloped heritage areas can result in irreparable damage to scenic landscapes’. The appropriateness of design is also commented upon. (Section 4.2)

Natural Resource Development is covered under Section 5 of the plan. Extractive Industry, Energy sources and Telecommunications are covered in the same Section. The underlying theme is that such developments are necessary. However it is also recognised visual intrusiveness must be avoided and that health and safety concerns should be mitigated.

The Border West and Midlands Development Strategy 2000 – 2006 ( Published in 1999) is also being ignored.

In Section 7.2 of the document they state
“the Region has a very high quality environment, both land and coastal, and has yet not experienced the worst ravages of environmental degradation”
They go to say in section 8.2 that there should be “ integrated rural development” and that one of their objectives is to “build on the region’s distinct strengths and attributes”

In the section on Energy (9.3.4) the Objective is to ensure that the Region has full access to energy resources and in particular

 “to ensure that the absence of such facilities is not a hindrance to the objective of overall regional convergence”

The overall strategy is to “invest selectively in provision of energy infrastructure beyond what the market will provide”.

 The Regional priorities are considered to be

“ provision of assistance to upgrade electricity supplies in rural parts of the Region and to provide assistance to provision of natural gas to the main cities and towns in the region, especially in the event of a commercial gas find off the West Coast”
.
The EIS suggests that Flora and fauna will only be affected during construction. This is a misleading statement. Attention should be drawn to the abundance of megalithic chambered cairns close to the proposed lines. Indeed this area contains 40% of Ireland’s known chambered cairns. Most of the research contained in the EIS appears to have been conducted from a distance and is highly selective. For example we ourselves in the short time available have identified areas of Cultural Heritage close to the proposed routes which are not even identified on the maps produced by ESB. Teagasc maps, used in the detailed preparation for the RE Ps? scheme are more detailed. A more detailed commentary on the Archaeology aspects is included as Annex 2

Indeed, the lines pass directly over a Crannog at the proposed substation site. The maps only show the known visible ones. Allowing mechanical diggers to work close to such sites is reckless. For ESB to suggest that they will call in an archaeologist if they uncover anything is unhelpful. The damage would already have been done. We were able to have experts in ecology and archaeology available to give evidence at any Oral Hearing in this matter and to explain the many impacts that have not been addressed or have been misrepresented in the EIS.

Concern was also expressed about the location of the proposed line in relation to the Lough Gara complex. While this was commented on in Section 5.2 of the EIS, it was done in a very superficial manner. The impression given was that no research was conducted locally. The ABP Inspector also commented specifically on this section. The project appears to be in breach of the EU Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) and the Planning Authorities are in breach of EC (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997 (SI 94/97) Included as Annex 3 is a commentary on this issue. Ireland is already facing censure and heavy financial penalties from the EU Authorities as a result of failure to comply with Directives on conservation of the environment and protection of their wildlife and habitats.

Policies and Objectives from Draft Roscommon County Development Plan 2000

“Development in rural areas should be appropriate to the location and designed and built so that it is not visually detrimental to the environment.

“To take all necessary measures to prevent all forms of environmental pollution within the scope of Council control.

“To encourage that the use and appearance of all developments in rural areas respect the surrounding environment.

“The environment is a major economic and amenity resource to both residents and visitors. The conservation and enhancement of the natural and built environment is important in developing the County as an attractive place in which to live, work, invest, shop and holiday.

“The Council supports Local Agenda 21 ….The basis of Local Agenda 21 is the involvement of local communities in achieving specific targets of conserving resources and minimising environmental impacts.

“Agriculture and Tourism are the main industries for the area …. The aim of this Plan is to respond positively to developments in these areas whilst ensuring that only those schemes that have a basis for a rural location in terms of type of business activity or relationship to the local community initiatives are approved

                                                                           Annex 2

Environmental Archaeology

EU CONVENTIONS ADOPTED, IRISH LAWS AND DIRECTIVES
The Main legislation includes the Valletta Convention, 1997, the Heritage Act, 1995, the Granada Convention, 1997, and the National Monuments Acts, 1930 and amendments, 1954, 1987 & 1994. The relevant sections of the first two are discussed here.

The European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage was ratified by Ireland in March 1997. The Convention, known as theValletta Convention, is a revised and updated version of the one signed in London 1969 to which Ireland was not a party (as pre-EU).

The Convention lays down the standards for the protection of the archaeological heritage, and sets out a range of obligations, which signatories undertake to implement
It states that the archaeological heritage shall include structures, constructions, groups of buildings, developed sites, moveable objections, monuments of other kinds as well as their context, whether situated on land or under water. (Sweetman, 2000, 529)

Under Article 4, each party undertakes to implement measures for the physical protection of the archaeological heritage, and it mentions that public authorities should provide for the conservation and maintenance of the archaeological heritage, preferably, in situ .

Under Article 5, it states that each party undertakes to seek to reconcile and combine the respective requirements of archaeology and development plans by ensuring that archaeologists participate in various stages of the planning process, and in particular that archaeologists, town and regional planners systematically consult one another in order to ensure sufficient time and resources for a scientific study of the archaeological site(s) and for the results of the excavation to be published. (Sweetman, 2000,529).

Under Article 7, it states that each party should undertake the updating of surveys, inventories and maps of archaeological sites within its jurisdiction. (Sweetman, 2000, 529).

In the Heritage Act 1995, the term archaeology includes reference to landscape which it defines as areas, sites, vistas, and features of significant scenic, archaeological, geological, historical, ecological or other scientific interest.

Academic Opinion:

“ A general feature of the international legislation, both binding and non-binding, is a recognition of the importance of the identification and protection of archaeological areas or landscapes”. (Cooney et al, 1998, 26)

Dr. Cooney is one of the most authoritative leading figures in Ireland carrying out research on archaeological landscapes over the last 25 years. Currently he is acting Head of the Archaeology Dept at UCD.

SHORTFALLS OF THE E.I.S. CULTURAL HERITAGE ELEMENT IN SECTION 10.2
It is regrettable but necessary to point out that the Environmental Impact Statement, Section 10.2 (127-139) on the Cultural Heritage, is inadequate and misleading in respect of the Man-Made and Built Heritage and the Cultural Heritage as it neglects to deal with any aspect of the Cultural Heritage other than Archaeological Sites and Moveable Objects. There are many aspects to the Man-Made or Built Heritage and the Cultural Heritage that the EIS fails completely to deal with.
The new major book, entitled The Heritage of Ireland, Natural, Man-Made and Cultural Heritage, Conservation and Interpretation, Business and Administration, edited by Buttimer et al, published in Cork in 2000, does not appear to have been consulted in the preparation of the EIS Cultural Heritage Assessment and Statement. This book was written as a textbook for a post graduate course on Heritage Management, which has been run in UCC for the past decade. The Book has three sections defining the depth and breath of Our Heritage. Section 1 on The Natural and Man-Made Heritage includes chapters on all aspects concerned in this case.

Landscape archaeology has been a topic of research and concern for nearly twenty years since a BAR series Report was published in 1983 in UK entitled Landscape Archaeology and Reeves and Hammond on Landscape Archaeology in Ireland.
Architecture and vernacular architecture were not included in the EIS, even though new legislation has been enacted to provide for its preservation and conservation, after Ireland adopted the Granada Convention and NIAH’s are currently being prepared for every county LA.

Industrial archaeology has been neglected, evidence is disappearing fast and sites need identification, survey and protection.

Architecture and vernacular architecture are essential requirements for an EIS, New legislation provides provisions for management by Duchas and the LA’s and a NIAH is currently being drawn up from fieldwork for each urban and county area and have not yet been adopted for protection by the LA’s.
Furthermore, it appears that aerial photos were not examined, as no previously unidentified sites are noted, when at least 10% new sites would be the norm in such linear developments.

THE RITUAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPES AFFECTED.
The Proposed 220k V Line would Zig Zag through Two Ritual Archaeological Landscapes, one in County Sligo and one in County Roscommon.

The first is the ritual landscape of the important prehistoric and mythological Battle of Magh Tuire (Moytura) where the invading Tuatha de Dannann were victorious first over the Fomorians and secondly over the joint Fir Bolg and the defeated Formorians and all the Lochlann sea-going fleet. Both battles were fought over a large area in the landscape between the Ox Mountains and the Bricklieve Mountains, in Co. Sligo, co-extensive with the Baronies of Coolavin, Corran, Tirerrill. North of the Ox Mountains a small section on the east side of the Barony of Tireragh,north of the Ox Mountains. This is the area just north of Boyle extending to Ballymote to Coolooney , to Ballintogher and south to Lough Arrow. Traditionally this battle was fought in the pre-Celtic period, i.e the Stone and/or Bronze Age (s).

The second is the archaeological, mythological, ritual landscape of Magh nAi, with its ancient capital of Cruchu (Rathcroghan) and is the setting of the Tain Bo Cuailgne. the first site of the High Kingship prior to Tara. It is in the Plains of the Barony of Boyle around Rathcroghan, Co. Roscommon The ritual landscape is that of the famous myth of “The Tain” Bo Cuailgne or Cattle Raid of Cooley between Queen Maeve, Queen of Connacht and King Connor, King Ullad (Ulster) residing at Emhain Macha, now Co Armagh, 500 years before the Ui Neill invaded Ulster from Connacht . The Tain, led by Maeve is traditionally dated to the Early Celtic Period, and this is borne out by the archaeological excavation at Navan Fort when Radio Carbon dates the burning of the site approximately to the last century BC.
In fact, the two ritual landscapes are connected in historical times, as combined they formed a large part of the Over-kingdom of the O’Connor Kings of Connacht. This royal dynasty produced the last High King of Ireland, Ruairi O’Connor, 1169-1185AD.
It is clear that the richness of mythological history in which these landscapes are steeped is an area of our heritage we cannot allow to be affected without responsible research and debate.

Annex 3

Commentary relating to 'Flora, Fauna and Ecologically sensitive sites.

Duchas have nationally identified Turloughs as priority habitats:

1. No mention is made to the Turloughs which are unique to small pockets in Clare, Galway and Roscommon. These turloughs fill through underground passages and sink holes. the impact of pylon erection on these passages and sink holes has not been undertaken. What effect will they have on inflowing water/streams? Will the excavation work impact on water levels in these turloughs?

2. No analysis of the fauna of the relevant turloughs with regard to this proposed line has been undertaken.

3. No analysis of bird counts on the turloughs has been carried out. What number of birds are night-feeders on these water expanses? What range of wild fowl species are feeding there? Where are the counts for Whooper Swans, White Fronted Geese, Widgeon, Teal, Mallard, Pintail and Shoveler, that feed on these areas? These turloughs are an integral part of the Lough Gara complex which is an SPA area.

According to the ESB, " Recent counts show Lough gara is the most important with flocks of International importance of Whooper Swans (289) (Colhoun 2001)

Regularly over 100 swans have been feeding between these 2 turloughs in the past 2 winters. The accompanying photographs show a landscape shot of the Breandrum Turlough with these swans grazing under the location of the new line. The counts of Whooper Swans are highly significant and are listed in Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive. For some reason ESB have not mentioned the ecological significance of these areas. Where is the reference to the ESB counts of Whooper and Mute Swans on the turloughs, one of which ESB is going to cross with the proposed line at the most sensitive point of entry into the turlough?

Where is the analysis of flight patterns of these swans or the night feeders migrating to the turloughs? The ESB in their response have stated " that swans feed and fly preferably along the waterways. These latter birds (swans) are the main species of concern where power-lines are involved"

This is highlighting exactly the point that I am making. the swans/wild fowl migrate from Lough Gara across the turloughs directly across from the upper to the lower turlough following the line of the waterbody. The proposed line is at a point of maximum risk to the birds, located as it is under the hill at Knockavroe which is the exact point of entry to the lower turlough (Breandrum). The lack of analysis of this problem is testimony to the insensitivity and lack of knowledge and understanding of the local environment.

The ESB have stated" It seems the only sensitive place for Mute swans is crossing the Boyle river."

This is an entirely false statement and lacks a local insight. The preferred flight for the swans and night feeders is along the turloughs because of the close proximity of the Boyle river to the main (Sligo -Dublin) railway line coupled with a higher human population density along the route.

In fact the most sensitive area is between the 2 turloughs. The number of birds passing through this corridor is far higher than those passing along the river. The loss and injury to both swans and night feeding fowl migrating from the Lough Gara Complex to the turloughs will be highly significant and has not been explored. The critical factor here is that the proposed power-line is at the point of entry into the Breandrum turlough which creates greatest disruption to the migrating nigh feeders.

A further point completly overlooked by ESB in their analysis of this location is the fact that in two out of the last three years the Breabdrum turlough has flooded the main public road. The location of the proposed power-line is immediately over the where this water floods out onto the road and traverses the lower corner of the turlough. Is this not a considerable health risk to both humans and livestock in the vicinity?

It appears to me that the ESB response to the problems I have raised are misinformed and largely superficial. They have not addressed the significance both ecologically and environmentally of placing a power-line between the 2 turloughs and crossing the lower turlough inside the high water levels.

To summarise my concerns: these 2 turloughs support the wildfowl of the Lough Gara Complex - an SPA area designated in annex 1 of the EU Habitat Directive. They are an intrinsic part of the feeding grounds of the wildfowl of this SPA. Phographic evidence of large numbers of these swans feeding under the proposed location of the line is enclosed. There has been a complete misrepresentation of both the size and significance of these two water bodies. A visit to these sites when the turloughs are full needs to be carried out and an analysis of wildfowl counts on these water bodies needs to be undertaken. How the ESB intend not disrupting this ecological complex of migrating birds to these turloughs needs to be addressed.

The public safety aspect of this line crossing the lower turlough needs to be addressed. The turlough floods out into the public road for over 200 metres and can be 3 feet deep in peak flood. The proposed line is crossing the road at exactly the same point. Photographic evidence is available and the local County Council Engineer is only too aware of the problem. Surely this point needs further investigation?

The following are mapping issues absent or overlooked in the ESB EIS.

No reference to the two turloughs as feeding grounds for the wildfowl and winter feeders (turlough habitats not marked on maps).
No map indicating the size and volume of water in the two turlough water bodies.
No map outlining the high water mark of these water bodies and the fact that the proposed line is traversing the lower turlough and the road at the one point.
No map showing the two turloughs relationship to each other and to the Lough Gara Complex.
No photograph visualising the impact of this power-line on these winter lakes.
No photographs representing the wide expanse of the two turloughs.
No photographs indicating the visual impact on the SPA area.