Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2560432 - Other Assessments - RSA Report Residential Development at, Tully,Monaghan Town , Co. Monaghan Our Ref: 4765 Stage 1/2 RSA Report Date: 21/10/2024 RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | i Document Control Sheet Project Residential Development, Tully, Monaghan Town , Co. Monaghan Project No. 4765 Document Title Stage 1/2 RSA Report Document Ref. D01 Rev Distribution Comments Author Checked Approved Day Month Year 0 CS Pringle DRAFT GJB DL GJB 13 Oct 2025 1 CS Pringle Final GJB DL GJB 21 Oct 2025 Contents No. of Pages Cover Page 1 Control Sheet 1 Table of Contents 1 Text 23 Table of Tables 0 Table of Figures 0 No. of Appendices 3 (4 pages) Total no. of Pages 30 RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | ii Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 2. ITEMS RESULTING FROM THIS STAGE 3 AUDIT .................................................... 3 3. COMMENTS.................................................................................................................... 21 4. AUDIT TEAM STATEMENT ......................................................................................... 22 APPENDIX A – List of drawings and documentation ............................................................ 23 APPENDIX B – Marked up Drawing with Indicative Locations of Problems ....................... 24 APPENDIX C – RSA Feedback Form .................................................................................... 31 RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report examines the road safety aspects of the proposed residential at Residential Development, Tully, Monaghan Town, Co. Monaghan. The study was carried out between 06th of October 2025 and the 13th of October 2025 in the offices of DCE Irl. 1.2 The Audit Team members were as follows:- Team Leader: Gary J. Barron BSc. NCEA Dip Const. NCEA Cert. C. Eng MIEI, HA RSA Cert Comp Chartered Engineer, DCE Irl Team Member: Brian Byrne B.Sc(Hons) Civil Engineer Observer: Caoimhin Fields B.Eng. (Hons), MSc Civil & Traffic Engineer 1.3 The audit comprised an examination of the drawings and other information relating to the scheme supplied by CS Pringle. A visit to the site of the proposed scheme was made on 01/05/2024 in daylight hours. The weather was dry. Traffic conditions were moderate. This Stage 1/2 Audit has been carried out in accordance with the relevant sections of GE-STY-01024 (Road Safety Audit) and TII Document GE-STY-01027 (Road Safety Audit Guidelines). The team has examined only those issues within the design relating to the road safety implications of the scheme, and has therefore not examined or verified the compliance of the design to any other criteria. The comments section of the report include observations by the audit team that if unaddressed by the design team may ultimately become a safety risk and thus should be given consideration in the design process. 1.5 Appendix A describes the drawings and other information examined by the Audit Team. 1.6 All of the problems described in this report are considered by the Audit Team to require action in order to improve the safety of the scheme and minimise collision occurrence and severity. A previous Road Safety Audit of the scheme was carried out in May 2024. 1.7 The drawings contained in Appendix B shows indicative locations of the problems. The location numbers refer to the problem numbers in this report. 1.8 Appendix C contains designer's comments provided by CS Pringle. RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 2 FIGURE 1 INDICATIVE SITE LOCATION RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 3 2. ITEMS RESULTING FROM THIS STAGE 3 AUDIT – Please also refer to the plans in Appendix B of this report which highlight the indicative locations of the problems 2.1 Problem: Location: Drawing 6229-PL-25-001 Summary: Sightlines Sightlines have not been delineated on the design drawings correctly for the junction with R162. Sightlines are to be measured at the road center, not at the center of the lane approach. The cumulative effect of infrastructure and landscaping can lead to sightlines being obscured possibly leading to pull out type collisions where adequate visibility is not provided for. Recommendation Sightlines are to be detailed on design drawings and visibility is to be provided in both directions in accordance with DMURS from the centre of the junction. RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 4 2.2 Problem: Location: Drawing 6229-PL-25-001 Summary: Sightlines Sightlines have not been delineated on the design drawings internally within the scheme correctly. Sightlines are to be measured to kerb lines and from the centre of the road with a 2.4m setback. The cumulative effect of infrastructure and landscaping can lead to sightlines being obscured possibly leading to pull out type collisions where adequate visibility is not provided for. Recommendation Sightlines are to be detailed on design drawings and visibility is to be provided in both directions in accordance with DMURS at all internal junctions. RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 5 2.3 Problem: Location: Drawing 6229-PL-25-001 Summary: Adjoining access An existing access is located to the south of the proposed entrance. This access appears to be the rear access to a number of houses in the Tully Estate. Adjustments to the public road and footpath are proposed. Where sightlines are affected from this access, this may lead to pull out type collisions. Recommendation Sightlines from this access should not be adversely affected by the scheme; this visibility splay should be free of all obstructions. RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 6 2.4 Problem: Location: Drawing 6229-PL-25-001 Summary: Adjoining access An existing access is located to the south of the proposed entrance. This access appears to be the rear access to a number of houses in the Tully Estate. The number of vehicles using this access is unknown. Vehicle conflict may occur with vehicles entering and exiting the two junctions side by side and vehicles from one access may enter the other on the wrong side of the road, leading to head-on collisions. Recommendation Cul de sac signage should be erected at the entrance. Adequate signage should be provided to the new housing scheme. RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 7 2.5 Problem: Location: Drawing 6229-PL-24-001 Summary: Adjoining access An existing access is located to the south of the proposed entrance. This access appears to be the rear access to a number of houses in the Tully Estate. The existing sightlines to the north from this access appear to be below what would be appropriate for an access based on the operational speed of the road. Where sightlines are adversely affected from this access by the proposed development, this may lead to pull out type collisions. Recommendation Sightlines from this access are not to be adversely affected by the proposed works. RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 8 2.6 Problem: Location: Drawing 6229-PL-25-001 Summary: Desire line to shop and KR Hire An existing access is located to the east of the proposed access on the opposite side of the R162. The new access creates a desire line to the shop for residents of the new estate. An existing controlled pedestrian is located to the south of the new access. This crossing is not detailed on the design drawing. The crossing has no tactile paving and this may lead to confusion for partially sighted pedestrians leading to them being unaware of the crossing and crossing the road at undesignated locations where they are in danger of being struck by vehicles. RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 9 Recommendation The existing pedestrian crossing should be detailed on the design drawings to ensure the works take this crossing into consideration and the works ‘tie in’ correctly, the road markings and crossing should be ‘refreshed’ and new tactile paving provided. RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 10 2.7 Problem: Location: Drawing 6229-PL-25-001 Summary: Desire lines. Desire lines exist within the scheme and to the large central green area. Crossing points have not been detailed on the design drawings at all junctions. Where adequate crossing points have not been provided this will result in less-abled users being unable to cross the road or lead to pedestrians with buggies having difficulty in crossing the road leading to collisions. Crossing points located opposite driveways may lead to collisions as inattentive drivers exit their driveways colliding with pedestrians at the crossing. Recommendation Adequate crossing points should be provided on desire lines within the scheme and link with footpaths/walkways within the green area. Crossing points should not coincide with driveways. RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 11 2.8 Problem: Location: Drawing 6229-PL-25-001 Summary: Tactile Paving/Drop kerbs Crossings with Tactile paving/Drop kerbs are located remote from the junctions. This will result in vulnerable road users not using the designated crossings and may lead to collisions between vulnerable road users and vehicles. Recommendation Tighter radii facilitate crossings closer to the desire line at junctions; tighter radii are to be provided in accordance with DMURS tactile paving is to be provided in accordance with current best practice closer to the desire line at junctions. RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 12 2.9 Problem: Location: Drawing 3093-SMK-XX-XX-DR-E-6001 Summary: Raised Traffic Calming Long straight stretches of road exist within the scheme. Drivers may drive at excessive speed leading to collisions with other vehicles or collisions with non motorised users where adequate visible speed restraint is not provided. Some Vehicle restraint has been provided but drivers may not be aware of the speed restraint during hours of darkness as they are remote from public lighting. Table 7.7 of the “Guidelines for setting and managing speed limits in Ireland”, March 2015, indicates 30 km/h as an appropriate speed limit in a housing estate such as this proposed development. Recommendation Speed restraint should be incorporated to ensure low speeds within the scheme. Speed restraint should be located within 5m of a public light. RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 13 2.10 Problem Location: Drawing 6229-PL-25-001 Summary: Site wide Corner radii within the scheme and at the junction with the R162 appear quite wide and appear to be as per the Recommendations for Site Development works 1998. The corner radii do not appear to be consistent with the more recent document DMURS. Excessive junction radii can lead to excessive speed through the scheme leading to collisions between vehicles and collisions with pedestrians Recommendation Tighter corner radii should be adopted to slow vehicle speeds in accordance with DMURS. 2.11 Problem Location: Drawing 6229-PL-25-001 Summary: Site wide Some gradients within the scheme appear to be in excess of 1 in 50 on the approach to junctions; this may lead to difficulties in drivers pulling out, leading to rolling, stalling or harsh braking resulting in collisions. Recommendation Approaches to junctions should be at 1 in 50 in accordance with DMURS and the Recommendations for Site Development works. RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 14 2.12 Problem Location: Drawing 6229-PL-25-001 Summary: Site wide Road Signage is not shown on the drawings issued to the Audit Team. The absence or the erroneous use of such signage may confuse road users and lead to collisions. No Speed limit signage is shown throughout the development such as‘30km/hr’. Lack of signage could increase the likelihood of excessive speeds in the residential development resulting in an increased risk of vehicular/Vulnerable Road user collisions. Recommendation The location and type of road signage shall be provided at detailed design stage. A‘30km/hr SLOWZONE’ signage be erected within the scheme 2.13 Problem Location: Drawing 6229-PL-25-001 Summary: Site wide No details are provided for the proposed raised tables/speed restraint, such as proposed heights, change in surfacing material or entry/exit taper gradients. Raised tables too steep may result in vehicles grounding on them causing material damage, while too low a height can result in them being ineffective and vehicles driving too fast resulting in a potential vehicular/pedestrian collision. Recommendation It is recommended that an appropriate design is detailed for the raised tables. RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 15 2.14 Problem Location: Drawing 6229-PL-25-001 Summary: Right turn Lane Right turn lanes exist on the R162. The adjustment of these road markings has not been considered fully by the design and how they tie in upstream and downstream. The absence of correct road markings may confuse road users and lead to collisions. RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 16 Recommendation The adjustment of the right turn lane and other road markings shall be full detailed; the tie into existing should also be detailed. RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 17 2.15 Problem Location: Drawing 6229-PL-25-001 Summary: Right turn Lane Right-turn lanes (RTLs) are provided along the R162. The proposed development will reduce the available stacking length within the RTL serving Glenview Drive. Insufficient stacking capacity may result in vehicles overhanging the RTL and obstructing through traffic on the mainline. This could lead to driver frustration and unsafe behaviour, such as mounting the footpath to bypass queues, thereby increasing the risk of collisions with vulnerable road users. RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 18 Recommendation A detailed capacity assessment of the proposed right-turn lane (RTL) is recommended to verify that the available stacking length is adequate to cater for anticipated traffic demand without impacting mainline flow. RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 19 2.16 Problem Location: Drawing 6229-PL-24-003 Summary: Road Drainage Where correct positioning of gullies is not carried out ponding may occur at speed restraint measures. This ponding may result in the speed restraint not being visible and lead to drivers driving at speed leading to collisions. Gullies positioned at crossings may create a trip hazard. Gullies should not be recessed behind kerb lines. RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 20 Recommendation The proposed location of gullies should be reviewed and provided at low points and at uphill side of speed restraint and should not be located at pedestrian crossings. The gullies should be located adjacent to the roadside kerb edge. RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 21 3. COMMENTS  Gradients within the scheme are at 1 in 12 in certain locations.  Retaining walls should be detailed on design drawings.  The site background at the R162 on the landscape and public lighting drawing appears to be different than the CS Pringle drawings. All drawings are to be consistent.  A new priority junction is proposed onto R132. The operational speed on the R132 appears to be above the posted speed limit. Where sightlines are provided in accordance with DMURS for the posted speed limit this may lead to pull out type collisions due to the operational speed on the mainline being higher than the posted speed limit. RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 22 4. AUDIT TEAM STATEMENT We certify that we have examined the drawings and other information listed in Appendix A. This examination has been carried out with the sole purpose of identifying any features of the design that could be removed or modified to improve the safety of the scheme. The problems that we have identified have been noted in the report, together with suggestions for improvement which we recommend should be studied for implementation. signed...... ____________________________________________________ Gary J. Barron, BSc. NCEA Dip Const. NCEA Cert. C. Eng MIEI, HA RSA Cert Comp DCE IRL Date............13/10/2025................... RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 23 APPENDIX A – List of drawings and documentation Title Number Site Layout 6229-PL-25-001 All Services 6229-PL-24-005 Watermain 6229-PL-24-004 Storm Sewer 6229-PL-24-003 Public Lighting 3093-SMK-XX-XX-DR-E-6001 Landscaping 2412-MLA-XX-XX-DR-L-0001 Landscaping 2412-MLA-XX-XX-DR-L-0002 RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 P a g e | 24 APPENDIX B – Marked up Drawing with Indicative Locations of Problems RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 IL=86.64IL=83.93IL=81.60IL=78.86IL=76.75IL=74.37IL=73.33IL=86.64IL=83.93IL=81.60IL=78.86IL=76.75IL=74.37IL=73.33C BOXSVPOSTPOST68.5269.4769.5668.9570.2669.6870.8770.09POSTPOSTFENCEWALLWALLWALLFENCEFENCEWALLWALLWALLPK LINE OFEIRCOM OVERHEADFENCEKERBFENCESIGNC BOXSVPOSTPOST68.5269.4769.5668.9570.2669.6870.8770.09TPPOSTPOSTFENCEWALLWALLWALLFENCEFENCEWALLWALLWALLEIRCOM OVERHEADFENCEFENCEFENCEKERBFENCESIGNSVSIGNC BOXSIGNC BOXC BOXLPSIGNC BOXC BOXC BOXSVSVLPPOSTPOSTFFL=65.89SVLPC BOXEP LPLPSVPOSTPOSTKERBKERBWALLCHANNELKERBKERBFENCEFENCEO/HEAD CABLEFENCE FENCEKERBKERBKERBFENCEFENCEFENCEFENCEFENCEWALLFENCEFENCEFENCEFENCEFENCEWALLFENCEFENCEFENCEFENCEFENCEFENCEDITCHO/HANGBOLLARDSTOPWALL STOPTREE STUMPSHIGH TREES IN THIS AREARL=87.96EL=83.00RL=76.21EL=74.03RL=77.38EL=75.29RL=77.06EL=74.78RL=77.65EL=75.49RL=78.08EL=75.96RL=78.20EL=76.23RL=77.77EL=75.69RL=74.82EL=72.62RL=77.96EL=75.21 RL=78.30EL=75.95 EL=92.97RL=95.37EL=92.65RL=94.85EL=92.19RL=93.48EL=90.75RL=92.65EL=89.95RL=91.36EL=88.58 C BOXSVPOST68.5269.4769.5668.9570.2669.6870.8770.09POSTFENCEWALLWALLWALLFENCEFENCEWALLWALLWALLEIRCOM OVERHEADFENCEKERBFENCESIGNC BOXSVPOST68.5269.4769.5668.9570.2669.6870.8770.09TPPOSTFENCEWALLWALLWALLFENCEFENCEWALLWALLWALLEIRCOM OVERHEADFENCEFENCEFENCE KERBSVSIGNC BOXSIGNC BOXC BOXLPSIGNC BOXC BOXC BOXSVSVLPPOSTPOSTFFL=65.89SVLPC BOXEPLPLPSVPOSTPOSTKERBKERBWALLCHANNELKERBKERBFENCEFENCEO/HEAD CABLEFENCEFENCEKERBKERBKERBFENCEFENCEFENCEFENCEWALLFENCEFENCEFENCEFENCEFENCEWALLFENCEFENCEFENCEFENCEFENCEFENCEDITCHBOLLARDSTOPWALL STOPTREE STUMPSRL=87.96EL=83.00RL=76.21EL=74.03RL=77.38EL=75.29RL=77.06EL=74.78RL=77.65EL=75.49RL=78.08EL=75.96RL=78.20EL=76.23RL=77.77EL=75.69RL=74.82EL=72.62RL=78.30EL=75.95EL=92.97RL=95.37EL=92.65RL=94.85EL=92.19RL=93.48EL=90.75RL=92.65EL=89.95RL=91.36EL=88.58NO.29TYPE A1FFL: 81.76NO.30TYPE A2FFL: 81.26NO.31TYPE A2FFL: 80.96NO.32TYPE A2FFL: 81.51NO.33TYPE A2FFL: 80.16NO.34TYPE A1FFL: 79.75NO.35TYPE A1FFL: 79.46NO.36TYPE A2FFL: 79.26NO.37TYPE A2FFL: 78.78NO.38TYPE A2FFL: 78.29NO.39TYPE A2FFL: 78.29NO.40TYPE A1FFL: 77.80NO.41TYPE A1FFL: 77.50NO.42TYPE A2FFL: 77.50NO.43TYPE A2FFL: 77.50NO.44TYPE A1FFL: 77.36NO.45TYPE A1FFL: 77.36NO.46TYPE A3FFL: 77.06NO.47TYPE A3FFL: 77.66NO.27TYPE B1FFL: 80.50NO.26TYPE B1FFL: 80.30NO.25TYPE B2FFL: 79.50NO.24TYPE B2FFL: 79.00NO.23TYPE B2FFL: 78.30NO.22TYPE B2FFL: 77.80NO.21TYPE B1FFL: 77.00NO.20TYPE B1FFL: 76.50NO.19TYPE C1FFL: 76.00NO.18TYPE C1FFL: 75.50NO.17TYPE C1FFL: 75.00NO.16TYPE C1FFL: 74.50NO.48TYPE A2FFL: 77.40NO.49TYPE A2FFL: 76.90NO.09NO.08NO.10TYPE D2FFL: 74.00NO.11NO.13TYPE E1FFL: 74.90NO.12TYPE E1FFL: 74.60NO.14NO.28TYPE A1FFL: 82.26NO.15TYPE C2FFL: 74.50TYPE D2FFL: 73.40TYPE D2FFL: 74.3065.0067.2566.2568.25TYPE D2FFL: 73.70STOPSTOPSTOPRAISED JUNCTIONRAISED CROSSING23m x 2m sightline23m x 2m sightline23m x 2m sightline23m x 2m sightline23m x 2m sightline23m x 2m sightline(SHOP)FootpathFootpathTYPE C2FFL: 74.50NO.02NO.01NO.03TYPE D2FFL: 71.60NO.04TYPE D2FFL: 71.00TYPE D2FFL: 71.90TYPE D2FFL: 71.30NO.05NO.06TYPE D1FFL: 72.65NO.07TYPE D1FFL: 72.95TYPE D1FFL: 72.3596.58100.5596.3096.30SHEEP WIRE 1.0MSHEEP WIRE 1.0MBARBED WIRE 1.0MBARBED WIRE 1.0MBARBED WIRE 1.0MWOODEN FENCE 1.0MTREE STUMPwalking path65.25STOPNEW 2.4M PLASTERED BLOCKWORKWALL49m x 2.4m sightline49m x 2.4m sightline49m x 2.4m sightlineRAISEDCROSSINGPROPOSED REARRESIDENTIAL ACCESS GATENEW LOW LEVEL STONE WALLEXISTING FENCE/ VEGETATION REMOVEDPROPOSED PART V DWELLINGS:·NO. 14 - TYPE C2·NO. 15 - TYPE C1·NO. 16 - TYPE C1·NO. 17 - TYPE C1·NO. 18 - TYPE C1·NO. 19 - TYPE C1·NO. 10 - TYPE D2·NO. 03 - TYPE D2·NO. 33 - TYPE A2·NO. 43 - TYPE A2TOTAL PART V DWELLINGS: 10 NO.PROPOSED BOUNDARY FENCING - SEE LEGEND AND FENCEDETAILSPROPOSED DWELLINGSPROPOSED DWELLINGSPROPOSED ESTATE ROADAND FOOTPATHSPROPOSED BOUNDARY FENCING- SEE LEGEND AND FENCEDETAILSPROPOSED DRY SEGMENTALRETAINING WALL - SEE WALLDETAILPROPOSED OPEN GREENSPACE WITH WALKING PATHPROPOSED BOUNDARY FENCING -SEE LEGEND AND FENCE DETAILSNative trees and HedgingConcrete footpathEXISTINGTarmac RoadwayLEGENDGRASS/ LAWNFENCE TYPE A2M FENCE - CONCRETE H-POST, GRAVELindicative Road MarkingsTO BE RETAINED WHERE POSSIBLESee Landscape Plan for detailsFENCE TYPE AFENCE TYPE B0.9M FENCE WITH 2 NO. D-RAILS, 100MM CONCRETE POSTS(SEE DETAILS SHEET)BOARD AND VERTICAL TIMBER PANELRETAINING WALLSEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL(Height Varies - See Plan & detail)(SEE DETAILS SHEET)EXISTING LANDSCAPING TO REMAIN - SEE LANDSCAPE PLANFOR PROPOSED LANDSCAPING & SITE SECTIONSEXISTING LANDSCAPING TO REMAIN - SEE LANDSCAPE PLANFOR PROPOSED LANDSCAPING & SITE SECTIONSORANGE ROAD MARKINGS ARE NEWPROPOSEDSHRUBBERY/ OBSTRUCTIONS TO BEREMOVED AS REQUIREDAUGMENTED FOOTPATHSITE OUTLINESITE AREA: 5.90 ac or 2.39 HADrawing Title:© COPYRIGHT: These drawings are the copyright of C.S. Pringle Ltd. and they must not be reproduced without consent from this company. ARCHITECTSCONSULTING ENGINEERS - BUILDING SURVEYORSMain Street, Castleblayney, Co. MonaghanP. 042-9746492 E. info@cspringle.comREV NUMBER:DESCRIPTION:DRW:CHK:DATE:FILE LOCATION:DATE:SCALES:REVISION:PROJECT TITLE:LOCATION:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DRAWING NUMBER:STAGE:CLIENT/ARCHITECT:www.cspringle.comOriginal Sheet Size: A1SITE LAYOUTPlanning DrawingTULLY SITESTAGE 01 - PLANNINGGEDA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTDTULLY, CO. MONAGHANKOR/ NA6229-PL-25-00122.09.20251:500-U:\_ 1 Projects\Geda Construction Housing Dev Tully 6229\Architectural Project\3. Drawings\Site\CAD-----------------------------------NORTH RECEIVED: 29/10/2025 RECEIVED: 29/10/2025